Re: flimsy paper?

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Wed May 11 2005 - 09:50:06 CDT
Here's a thickness table in inches. Converting your metric range to inches
at 25.4mm/in


Consulting the table, it looks like the covers a goodly range of paper.

Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy
Always work for the common good.
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
I blog now and then at: <>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim March" <>
To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] flimsy paper?
> The best deal I found quickly on a scanner was that high-end Canon - it 
> says it can cope with paper between .05 and .15mm.  Dunno how that 
> translates into "bond weight" or other non-metric measurements.
> Jim
> Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>>Hello Lara and Arthur:
>>IBM and punch cards?  They are probably still thinking
>>about the old Votomatic system.  That's the one with
>>the famous hanging and pregnant chads.  There are some
>>optical ballot scanners that are tough on paper.  A
>>leading example of an optical scanner that would eat
>>regular paper is (surprise!) the Diebold Acuvote. It's based on 
>>'marksense' technology and was used in
>>the 2004 elections in SD County. While I didn't
>>actually try it with regular paper, it sure yanked
>>those big San Diego ballots right out of my hand
>>pretty hard.  However, a typical machine feed scanner
>>should have no real problems with standard paper.  The
>>real answer to the problem is to simply specify that
>>the scanner shall work reliably with 20# bond paper
>>and possibly specify it to be one misfeed per 5000
>>sheets fed.  So, I think your person is talking about
>>either behavior of low quality or older equipment or
>>else is listening to FUD.
>>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>>--- Arthur Keller <> wrote:
>>>I actually prefer 24 lb paper to 20 lb paper. Somewhat sturdier and 
>>>easily handled by printers and scanners.  You can go
>>>up to 32 lb without problems on most printers.  Using card stock
>>>limits the type of printers and scanners to those with a
>>>straight-through paper path.
>>>Punching holes in the ballots do not make them human
>>>verifiable. Barcodes are more reliable than punch cards.
>>>Best regards,
>>>At 11:44 AM -0500 5/10/05, Lara Shaffer wrote:
>>>>I talked with someone in Ohio who was very adamant
>>>that if we used regular
>>>>printer paper it wouldn't be thick enough and would
>>>cause problems (paper
>>>>jams, scanning problems if the papers were folded
>>>or ripped, etc).  He
>>>>suggested we use thicker paper.  He was also a big
>>>fan of IBM cards and
>>>>programming the computer to punch a hole instead of
>>>print out the name of
>>>>the person the voter voted for.
>>>>I promised him I would bring these issues up with
>>>the developers, so there
>>>>you go.... Feel free to respond if you think these
>>>are valid concerns.
>>>>Otherwise, don't worry about it....
>>>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto,
>>>CA  94303-4507
>>>tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
>>>OVC discuss mailing lists
>>>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to 
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:33 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT