"A" Sizes

As a favor or favour to those of us in the US and anyone else who might get confused about "A" sizes since there are 2 sets of "A" sizes.

Please give an additional set of dimensions in "English" or "Metric" units instead of or in addition to an "A" size such as "A3" or "A4".

Yes, I know there is a standard relationship between all Metric "A" sizes but it is worthless to me without knowing at least a dimension [and which one it is].

I attempt to remember when I give an [pardon the expression] "English" measurement to give the metric equivalent. Although, I often forget you only need to remember to multiply or divide by 2.54 for the translation. I know of no method to do this for the "A" series. Also, remember there is the American "A" series of measurements to confuse the situation further.

Thank you !!

--
Ray
RJNedimyer

RJNedimyer said:

As a favor or favour to those of us in the US and anyone else who
might get confused about "A" sizes since there are 2 sets of "A"
sizes.

Please give an additional set of dimensions in "English" or
"Metric" units instead of or in addition to an "A" size such as
"A3" or "A4".

Yes, I know there is a standard relationship between all Metric
"A" sizes but it is worthless to me without knowing at least a
dimension [and which one it is].

I attempt to remember when I give an [pardon the expression]
"English" measurement to give the metric equivalent. Although, I
often forget you only need to remember to multiply or divide by
2.54 for the translation. I know of no method to do this for the
"A" series. Also, remember there is the American "A" series of
measurements to confuse the situation further.

Thank you !!

--
Ray
RJNedimyer

Click to expand...

Ray it's very simple really,
A4 is 297mm X 210 mm, now what's difficult about these sensible sizes

A3 is twice the area and A2 twice that and so on.

Hi Ray

This is for you, but I should point out that America is just about the only country in the world that doesn't use the ISO system. Even England uses it and that's really saying something. I'll bet your printer has A5 and A4 options as well.
A3: 11 3/4 × 16 1/2 (inches of course!)
A4: 8 1/4 × 11 3/4
A5 : 5 7/8 × 8 1/4
(The others aren't so useful)
5cm = approx 2"
6"= 15cm
12"= 30cm
1 meter = 1 yard +10%
All the best
Ian

RJNedimyer said:

As a favor or favour to those of us in the US and anyone else who
might get confused about "A" sizes since there are 2 sets of "A"
sizes.

Please give an additional set of dimensions in "English" or
"Metric" units instead of or in addition to an "A" size such as
"A3" or "A4".

Yes, I know there is a standard relationship between all Metric
"A" sizes but it is worthless to me without knowing at least a
dimension [and which one it is].

I attempt to remember when I give an [pardon the expression]
"English" measurement to give the metric equivalent. Although, I
often forget you only need to remember to multiply or divide by
2.54 for the translation. I know of no method to do this for the
"A" series. Also, remember there is the American "A" series of
measurements to confuse the situation further.

Thank you !!

--
Ray
RJNedimyer

Click to expand...

Richard Dunn said:

RJNedimyer said:

As a favor or favour to those of us in the US and anyone else who
might get confused about "A" sizes since there are 2 sets of "A"
sizes.

Please give an additional set of dimensions in "English" or
"Metric" units instead of or in addition to an "A" size such as
"A3" or "A4".

Yes, I know there is a standard relationship between all Metric
"A" sizes but it is worthless to me without knowing at least a
dimension [and which one it is].

I attempt to remember when I give an [pardon the expression]
"English" measurement to give the metric equivalent. Although, I
often forget you only need to remember to multiply or divide by
2.54 for the translation. I know of no method to do this for the
"A" series. Also, remember there is the American "A" series of
measurements to confuse the situation further.

Thank you !!

--
Ray
RJNedimyer

Click to expand...

Ray it's very simple really,
A4 is 297mm X 210 mm, now what's difficult about these sensible
sizes

A3 is twice the area and A2 twice that and so on.

Click to expand...

Richard you just beat to it, but can I add the following

A4 is 297mm X 210 mm, and in American that is 11 11/16 x 8 1/4 inches

A3 is twice the area as prviously stated ie. 420 x 297mm ( 16 1/2 x 11 11/16 US money !), A2 is then 594 x 420mm ( 23 3/8 x 16 1/2 old money !) etc etc. Also A5 is therefore 210 x 148mm.

Just to complete the picture, so to speak .....

Hi Ray

You must be really popular here .. everyone is rushing to help you. Well I guess we have to encourage the Americans into the 21st century and the ISO system....only kidding Ray...I still think in imperial or metric, whichever is the more convienient and I'm still a youngster, not yet 40, but only just

OK! I knew I would get slammed on this since I did not simply ask for the sizes or ask how the countries that use the best measuring system Metric could come up with a measuring system that is harder than the archaic system we use in the US. By the way I use mm, cm, m, cc, ml, l. °C and son on everyday at work. I also am vaguely familiar with the US "A" series and get the 2 confused at times that's why I asked for the measurements in common (here) metric units in addition to the speciality Units ["A"].

I understand one side is the sq root of 2 times the other side. and the short side is doubled to increase the area by 2. I also understand this gives a consistant size ratio and perspective [good and bad.]

But I don't understand how they would come up with absolutely NO normal sizes to start with for the original starting point [there is not 1 even dimension on any size that is even such as 1 M in place of 840 mm].

Yes, my printer is capible of "A" sizes but thery are not defined in either metric or "Old English" units. they are just there.

BTW what is the starting point, are there intermediate sizes, how far does the series go [A6, A7, ...]?

I use 8 different computers and only have the "A" series sizes at one perhaps I should have just made a wallet card. But I thought others might want to know also.

RJNedimyer said:

OK! I knew I would get slammed on this since I did not simply ask
for the sizes or ask how the countries that use the best measuring
system Metric could come up with a measuring system that is harder
than the archaic system we use in the US. By the way I use mm, cm,
m, cc, ml, l. °C and son on everyday at work. I also am vaguely
familiar with the US "A" series and get the 2 confused at times
that's why I asked for the measurements in common (here) metric
units in addition to the speciality Units ["A"].

I understand one side is the sq root of 2 times the other side. and
the short side is doubled to increase the area by 2. I also
understand this gives a consistant size ratio and perspective [good
and bad.]

But I don't understand how they would come up with absolutely NO
normal sizes to start with for the original starting point [there
is not 1 even dimension on any size that is even such as 1 M in
place of 840 mm].

Yes, my printer is capible of "A" sizes but thery are not defined
in either metric or "Old English" units. they are just there.

BTW what is the starting point, are there intermediate sizes, how
far does the series go [A6, A7, ...]?

I use 8 different computers and only have the "A" series sizes at
one perhaps I should have just made a wallet card. But I thought
others might want to know also.

Click to expand...

A metre is the most perfect logical unit of length, invented by Napoleon when he couldn't sleep one night and was guessing at the size of his willy; it is now officially defined as the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So much more sensible than inches.

A0 = 1189mm x 841 mm
A1 = 841mm x 594 mm
A2 = 594mm x 420 mm
A3 = 420mm x 297 mm
A4 = 297mm x 210 mm
A5 = 210mm x 148 mm
A6 = 148mm x 105 mm

A0 is a square metre (ish) in area, 160,000 sheets of A4 would
cover a hectare. I'm sure you feel better for knowing that!

Anyway, one place it is explained in quite understandable form, is here...

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

The official metric system website is here...

http://www.metricsucks.com/index.shtml

hth.

batty.

batty66824 said:

So much more sensible than inches.

A0 = 1189mm x 841 mm
A1 = 841mm x 594 mm
A2 = 594mm x 420 mm
A3 = 420mm x 297 mm
A4 = 297mm x 210 mm
A5 = 210mm x 148 mm
A6 = 148mm x 105 mm

A0 is a square metre (ish) in area, 160,000 sheets of A4 would
cover a hectare. I'm sure you feel better for knowing that!

Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you, you'll need 333,49 more sheets of A4

Hi
it is now officially defined as the distance

batty66824 said:

travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So much more sensible than inches.

Click to expand...

Yes, because that is an accurate way of measuring it, but of course it is also an accurate integer of the circumference of the earth, something the yard also tried to be (eventually) and nearly got right. Originally of course the yard was the distance of a man's arm from finger to nose. (great if we are all made the same size) An inch was a thumb, a foot was -you guessed it, a furlong was the distance a man could plough in a straight line.

Yes, easier to count in 12 than 10. And 1760yds to a mile is so logical. (Except for nautical miles of course which hhave 2240).

Let's all go back to BS, Whitworth, ASA and AF whilst we're at it, so we can have 4 spanners all labelled 1/4" and all different sizes.

And please let's keep in the difference between British gallons and American gallons and stick to pounds, stone and hundredweight so we have to count in 16 and 14 while we're at it.
Yes down with metric.
Ian

ianR said:

ianR said:

travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So much more sensible than inches.

Click to expand...

Yes, because that is an accurate way of measuring it, but of course
it is also an accurate integer of the circumference of the earth,
something the yard also tried to be (eventually) and nearly got
right. Originally of course the yard was the distance of a man's
arm from finger to nose. (great if we are all made the same size)
An inch was a thumb, a foot was -you guessed it, a furlong was the
distance a man could plough in a straight line.
Yes, easier to count in 12 than 10. And 1760yds to a mile is so
logical. (Except for nautical miles of course which hhave 2240).
Let's all go back to BS, Whitworth, ASA and AF whilst we're at it,
so we can have 4 spanners all labelled 1/4" and all different sizes.
And please let's keep in the difference between British gallons and
American gallons and stick to pounds, stone and hundredweight so
we have to count in 16 and 14 while we're at it.
Yes down with metric.
Ian

Click to expand...

I do favor the metric system in most situations. The one article did answer several of my questins.
1. That there is a logical starting point.
2. That there are other sizes; "B" series which no one ever mentioned before.

3. That you guys know more about the "A" series than the professionals who take part on this site [months ago I got several very vague answers].

4. For those of us who never see "A" sizes except here the conversion to CM's posted along side the "A" size would still be easier for a while till we learn to visulize the "A" sizes.

5. For once I can say the "Old English" system of 4X5 inches, 8X10inches AKA 8X10", 16X20 actually is simpler and easier to visualize.

6. It was not a man's measurements but A MAN "the king" we were always told for foot, and yard.

7. I was taught the metric system was based on 10 [the number of digits on our hands] and water. But for standardization the light wave measuremet is used. [Aren't you glad we do not have 13 or 17 fingers?]

PS I did not want to upset anyone I just have difficulty relating to the "A" series since it does not give measurements and the fact there is another "A" series that is used in printers [more often plotters] over here.

Hi again Ray

I was always taught that each worker had to make his own tools as part of his apprentisship and so each yard, foot etc., was originally just his alone. Yes it probably was standardised later, but a lot of early houses bear witness to the fact that they were made by people using differing measurements.

As for weights and measures, Hydrogen is the lightest element and the smallest independently sustainable quantity of that is given the number 1 and thus one gram. (That way everything else is a whole number.) Naturally, 1000g is a kilogram and then for simplicity they took 1000g of water and that is a litre. (This is also 1000 cubic centimeters :10cmx10cmx10cm I've just realised so maybe the measurement comes from that too rather than the circumference of the earth as I was always told?)

I think for paper, the dimension is more for its ability to be cut in half indefinitely and still keep the same ratio. I don't know how many different shapes you can do that with .

Yes 8x10 is easy to remember but none of us ever think about the size of the paper anyway. We never print edge to edge do we?

8"x10" is 20x25cm which is also easy to remember, and a 6"x4" print is a 15x10. That's not so bad is it?

I was brought up using both systems. I first had to learn all about rods and perches, chains, furlongs bakers dozens etc. then I had to learn the ISO system a couple of years later so I was one of the generation in England that were totally conversent with both. Apart from the natural feeling of tradition about the imperial measurements they really have absolutely nothing to offer in way of an advantage over metric. I promise you, working in millimeters is a lot easier than 8ths, 12ths, 16ths and 32nds.
All the best
Ian

(PS I realise in your job you have to use a lot of metric and probably know all about molar quantities, dilution factors and such like.)

RJNedimyer said:

ianR said:

RJNedimyer said:

travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So much more sensible than inches.

Click to expand...

Yes, because that is an accurate way of measuring it, but of course
it is also an accurate integer of the circumference of the earth,
something the yard also tried to be (eventually) and nearly got
right. Originally of course the yard was the distance of a man's
arm from finger to nose. (great if we are all made the same size)
An inch was a thumb, a foot was -you guessed it, a furlong was the
distance a man could plough in a straight line.
Yes, easier to count in 12 than 10. And 1760yds to a mile is so
logical. (Except for nautical miles of course which hhave 2240).
Let's all go back to BS, Whitworth, ASA and AF whilst we're at it,
so we can have 4 spanners all labelled 1/4" and all different sizes.
And please let's keep in the difference between British gallons and
American gallons and stick to pounds, stone and hundredweight so
we have to count in 16 and 14 while we're at it.
Yes down with metric.
Ian

Click to expand...

I do favor the metric system in most situations. The one article
did answer several of my questins.
1. That there is a logical starting point.
2. That there are other sizes; "B" series which no one ever
mentioned before.
3. That you guys know more about the "A" series than the
professionals who take part on this site [months ago I got several
very vague answers].
4. For those of us who never see "A" sizes except here the
conversion to CM's posted along side the "A" size would still be
easier for a while till we learn to visulize the "A" sizes.
5. For once I can say the "Old English" system of 4X5 inches,
8X10inches AKA 8X10", 16X20 actually is simpler and easier to
visualize.
6. It was not a man's measurements but A MAN "the king" we were
always told for foot, and yard.
7. I was taught the metric system was based on 10 [the number of
digits on our hands] and water. But for standardization the light
wave measuremet is used. [Aren't you glad we do not have 13 or 17
fingers?]

PS I did not want to upset anyone I just have difficulty relating
to the "A" series since it does not give measurements and the fact
there is another "A" series that is used in printers [more often
plotters] over here.

Click to expand...

ianR said:

Yes down with metric.

Click to expand...

No. I've got nothing at all against metric. It does fulfill the admirable function of providing another subject to laugh about.

If it was such a good system, why do the French pack their wine bottles in boxes of 12?

THE SPACE SHUTTLE AND TWO HORSE'S BUMS

The Standard railway gauge in the USA (and in Britain) is 4ft 8 1/2 ins. An odd number, one might think. Why not 5ft? Or 7ft?

The USA takes its railway gauge from England because English emigrants built the first railroads in that country. But why did the English come to that measurement? The simple answer is that railways developed from plateways - sometimes called tramways - upon which horses pulled carts. In fact it was theoretically possible for a horse to pull a cart straight onto a tramway from a road because the cast iron 'plates' or rails were set to the width of the wheels on the cart.

So why use that width? Simply because the same people who built the tramways also built the carts and used the same jigs and tools.

The spacing of the cart or wagon wheels was very much dictated by the wheel ruts on English roads - which became turnpikes - many of which were first laid out by Roman invaders. Trying to drive a wagon or cart of different width would cause severe problems.

The Romans' chariots would have made the first ruts in the roads. Those chariots were made by or for Imperial Rome with a wheel spacing of 4ft 8 1/2 ins simply because this was the most comfortable width in which to harness a pair of horses. So the chariot is the origin of railway Standard Gauge.

The most advanced transportation system we have yet seen, the Space Shuttle, relies on two huge booster rockets in order to escape earth's gravity.

The width of the booster rockets is largely dictated by the fact that they are brought to the assembly site by train on a railroad which passes through a tunnel in the mountains. That tunnel is only a little wider than the railroad, the gauge of which is the width of two horse's behinds.

Thus one of the most advanced transport systems in the world is at least partly defined by one of the oldest systems - the width a pair of horses' bums from Imperial Rome.

Oh, and back on-topic...

Why do cameras have 1/4" or 3/8" tripod sockets, when everything else about them seems to be measured in millimetres?

batty.

RJNedimyer said:

5. For once I can say the "Old English" system of 4X5 inches,
8X10inches AKA 8X10", 16X20 actually is simpler and easier to
visualize.

Click to expand...

Maybe simpler for you, but certainly not for me. I can't readily visualize 4x5 inches without mentally converting it to centimeters or millimeters, whereas I easily visualize A4 -- all the letters I read and write are on A4 sized sheets, most magazines I read are, and so on.

RJNedimyer said:

6. It was not a man's measurements but A MAN "the king" we were
always told for foot, and yard.

Click to expand...

Yes, but he wasn't always available when one had to measure something, was he?

RJNedimyer said:

7. I was taught the metric system was based on 10 [the number of
digits on our hands] and water. But for standardization the light
wave measuremet is used. [Aren't you glad we do not have 13 or 17
fingers?]

Click to expand...

There isn't anything intrinsically logical about base 10. Much smaller bases are cumbersome because of the long strings of digits used for even small numbers (base 2 is fine for computers but even computer programmers prefer base 16) whereas much larger bases require you to memorize a large number of digits, which is just as cumbersome. 10 is actually quite OK, but so is 8 or 12, or 13 if you wish. Now the point of the metric system isn't that base 10 was somehow superior to other bases, but that since we all use base 10 arithmetic anyway, we should design or measurement units accordingly.

• Michael

Oh, Ray.
What did you do with this thread.
This is becoming a new forum.
Ah Ah

Hi Batty
this is getting fun!

batty66824 said:

If it was such a good system, why do the French pack their wine
bottles in boxes of 12?

Click to expand...

Because most of the vineyards in France were planted by Henry II who was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine. The French didn't drink much wine after the punic wars and it was the English court who had a taste for it. That's why the largest commercial trade in the middle ages was the Wine trade between France and England and why ships are measured in 'tons' (tuns and tonnes in French) and bottles are in quantities packed for the English market. Tradition perhaps?
They still sell beer in pints in France too!

batty66824 said:

THE SPACE SHUTTLE AND TWO HORSE'S BUMS

The Standard railway gauge in the USA (and in Britain) is 4ft 8 1/2
ins. An odd number, one might think. Why not 5ft? Or 7ft?

Click to expand...

Good question. In fact after the railways started in England in 1828, there were many different gauges and this was true for a very long time. Some still survive. Why they decided on that size finally I don't know.

batty66824 said:

The USA takes its railway gauge from England because English
emigrants built the first railroads in that country. But why did
the English come to that measurement? The simple answer is that
railways developed from plateways - sometimes called tramways -
upon which horses pulled carts. In fact it was theoretically
possible for a horse to pull a cart straight onto a tramway from a
road because the cast iron 'plates' or rails were set to the width
of the wheels on the cart.

So why use that width? Simply because the same people who built the
tramways also built the carts and used the same jigs and tools.

The spacing of the cart or wagon wheels was very much dictated by
the wheel ruts on English roads - which became turnpikes - many of
which were first laid out by Roman invaders. Trying to drive a
wagon or cart of different width would cause severe problems.

The Romans' chariots would have made the first ruts in the roads.
Those chariots were made by or for Imperial Rome with a wheel
spacing of 4ft 8 1/2 ins simply because this was the most
comfortable width in which to harness a pair of horses. So the
chariot is the origin of railway Standard Gauge.

The most advanced transportation system we have yet seen, the Space
Shuttle, relies on two huge booster rockets in order to escape
earth's gravity.

The width of the booster rockets is largely dictated by the fact
that they are brought to the assembly site by train on a railroad
which passes through a tunnel in the mountains. That tunnel is only
a little wider than the railroad, the gauge of which is the width
of two horse's behinds.

Thus one of the most advanced transport systems in the world is at
least partly defined by one of the oldest systems - the width a
pair of horses' bums from Imperial Rome.

Click to expand...

One question though, does that mean that horses are the same size now as 2000 years ago? I don't think they are. Paintings suggest they are bigger now and most working horses, the 'heavy horses' , like the Suffolk Punch are absolutely huge. This is because they were bred to be larger and more powerful. I'm not sure the cart tracks would be the same size.

batty66824 said:

Oh, and back on-topic...

Why do cameras have 1/4" or 3/8" tripod sockets, when everything
else about them seems to be measured in millimetres?

Click to expand...

Got me there! There are a lot of things like this actually. Textiles are 147cm wide (54") or 120cm (48") Copper piping is 22mm (3/4")

thanks for the chat
Ian

Mike Raus said:

Oh, Ray.
What did you do with this thread.
This is becoming a new forum.
Ah Ah

Click to expand...

If it dies out perhaps we can talk about spelling, then pronounciation, then why I type so poorly. I found 5 typing mistakes already and gave up.

RJNedimyer said:

Mike Raus said:

Oh, Ray.
What did you do with this thread.
This is becoming a new forum.
Ah Ah

Click to expand...

If it dies out perhaps we can talk about spelling, then
pronounciation, then why I type so poorly. I found 5 typing
mistakes already and gave up.

Click to expand...

Ah, I'm one of these who would like it.

Maybe somebody could ask Phil to add an automatic correction system with red underlines, so that people like me (not English) could learn more.
Bye