Newbie question :) be kind...

David Nebenzahl wrote:


So what does "100 lb." equate to in grams/m2? (it's a serious question so I can attempt to understand the answer)

Well hold on there - of course there is such a thing as "card stock", that's what card stock is called.

Never heard of it - which only means I've never heard of it. (see my comment below)

That's fine, except that you still haven't given me enough information to base a conversionn on.

Sure, but what?

I used to be a book-binder, so I know what I'm talking about.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Cardstock" is a long winded American term for plain and simple "card". :-)
God (If he/it/she exists) only knows why they use "cardstock" instead of just plain "card".
-- Cheers
Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:- http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra / Latitude: 48 25' North Longitude: 123 21' West
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Roger T." wrote:

Might it be because "card" is the pretty decorated greetings contrivance with "Merry Christmas", "Get well Soon" or "Happy 97th Birthday" that we humans tend to send to each other on (or near) festive occassions?
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Also the little 2"x3.5" things business people give to each other...
And "cardstock" would be the blank paper used to print these 'cards' on...

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Just to clarify: that's 500 sheets of uncut paper, not the letter size stuff, right?
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/16/2008 5:46 AM Wolf K. spake thus:

>

Yes, a ream (500 sheets) of paper at the "basis size" (f'rinstance, 17"x22" for bond or "writing" papers, like letterhead).
Here's one chart for those interested: http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html
So because of the confusing system used here (North America), the weight of a piece of paper depends on the *type* of paper, so, f'rinstance, a piece of 20 lb. bond (ordinary office/"typing" paper) is the same weight as 50 lb. offset (aka "book", "text", etc.); same thickness, too. Here, the Yurpeen (metric) system of g/sm is clearly simpler and easier to use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Paper is NOT graded by thickness! It is graded by weight per some number of sheets of a certain size (I don't have the numbers off the top of my head -- Google for them).

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the US, paper is sized as so many pounds per so many sheets.
100# is approximately .010" thick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jason Davies wrote:

Thank you, much appreciated.
Greg.P. NZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

[...]
BTW, that "approximately'" is significant, as 100lb stock can vary quite a bit. Compare a relatively soft, rough stock to a hard glossy stock, and you may fins that the one is almost twice as thick as the other.
Problem is that printers expect paper and card to have certain properties, so that it will move through the printers properly. "Cover stock" is usually pretty hard - it's compressed and smooth.
"Cardstock" (a N. American modeller's term as far as I can find out), refers to any kind of card, from cover stock to laminates to grey pulp of every degree of hardness. Since this is a modeller's forum, it's not surprising that "cardstock" shows up here.
Book binders use "board", not "stock", in the terminology I learned when I dabbled in book binding a few decades ago. A "soft cover book" is one that's bound in "card", ie cover stock, not boards. Etc. That's a whole 'nother area of materials, and of course terminology. And no doubt not a few national and regional variations, too.
Your problem, Greg, is that you persist in thinking that you have learned the One And Only True Terminology. This prompts you to make more or less snarky remarks, which gets people's backs up. Just drop terms like "normally" when contrasting the usage you want to understand vs the usage you know.
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Wolf K." wrote:

Hey Wolf, wind it back there! I simply want a hand-hold/way in so that I can figure out what's being recommended. If I google "100lb card" I'll get everything from small comedians through to weight-watchers congratulatory notes and goodness knows what else.
You, and several others, consistantly leap down my throat when I ask questions. I have 50 years in the hobby, have built numerous layouts for home and exhibition, build locos, controllers, DCC from day one and often manufacture for sale. Sure, I know it all, but that doesn't mean I can't still learn from others experiences. As for "the one and only true ..." I suggest you are as guilty as I on that point, except that you "know" the one true ...
Greg.P. NZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/15/2008 7:11 PM Jason Davies spake thus:

Not just in the US, but in the world; unlike our confusing North American system, the ROTW (rest of the world) uses a simpler scheme based on g/sm (grams per square meter) of the paper in question.
And it's weight per ream (500 sheets) at the "basis size", which, for example, is 17" x 22" for bond or "writing" papers, 23" x 35" for certains types of cover, 26" x 40" for other types of cover, etc.

Depends on the type of paper; 100 lb. vellum cover is thicker than 100 lb. coated cover. There are charts out there ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have in my hand a package of "Georgia Pacific Image Plus+ Card Stock. White 110 (weight 110LB 199 g/m2)
Jason Davies wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks Charles,
Regards, Greg.P. NZ
Charles Kimbrough wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/16/2008 8:01 AM Charles Kimbrough spake thus:

... which is good stuff, and I would have used to print higher-quality business cards on, for instance. Most business cards are printed on 80 lb. stock, which is noticeably flimsier. (I'm not even thinking of those miserable "cards" people print at home on 65 lb. bristol, which are a joke. Might as well just print them on 20 lb. bond.)
Notice they give the g/sm equivalent on your package.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have printed this out and hung it on the wall, as I think Greg just defended the possible rationale behind some American terminology :)
I think Model Railroader magazine's old motto of "Model Railroading is Fun" should be ammended to read "Model Railroaders are Inexplicably Irritable" :)
Dale :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale Carlson wrote:

Hi Dale, I'll defend anything rational, even US technology! I frequent this group because I can learn things here. I grew up with (shall we say) non-US technology, some of it rational, some of it not. Reading and participating here causes me to revisit much that I long ago accepted as normal/rational/...
It really is time the US sank it's ark of irrational measurement systems and joined the modern world!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:20:19 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

You just can't help yourself, can you, Greg?
The US went metric in 1970. Dual system but metric non the less. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 03:30 +0900, Ray Haddad wrote:

Glad to hear that in 2008. I did not notice..
Wim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:08:12 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

Road signs in the US have had both Kph and Mph printed on them since 1970 and speedometers in cars have had both since the same time. As a precursor, we learned metric and Imperial systems in school in the '50s and '60s. Maybe even earlier but that's when I went to school. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.