h a l f b a k e r yWhat's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Most books that I've seen are bound in one of two ways, either:...
- double-width pages are folded together in 20'ish page "sheaves"[edit: they're called 'signatures'] which are then sewn to the spine: this produces a robust book that can take handling, however when laid flat on a table the pages
will only stay open if you're near the centre of a sheaf; or...
- the innermost 1/32" or so of the pile of pages is soaked in glue to keep it together then glued to the binding: this results in a book that when open has a much more pronounced characteristic 'seagull' cross-section; while cheaper than the multi-sheave kind, it's either harder to read or easier to break, depending.
To produce a Fanfold Bookbound, start with a roll of paper which sheet is half the desired page-thickness. As the paper is unrolled, print the book on the top side of the paper, and apply a light spray of glue to the bottomside. Fold the paper thus: WWWWWWWW and press to seal each pair of pages together. Then glue (and or sew I suppose) the spine and cover (or the combination in the case of a paperback).
The result should be a robust book which pliability is limited only by the pliability of the spine.
Inspired by:
Three-dimensional_20book_20printing
building books from raw materials in one process. [FlyingToaster, Mar 20 2010, last modified Mar 21 2010]
Zigzag book
http://images.googl...m=7&ved=0CDcQsAQwBg
Baked baked baked [pocmloc, Mar 21 2010]
[link]
|
| |
The "sheaves" are called signatures
The second method is called "perfect-bound" (a misnomer
if ever there was one) |
|
| |
I would like your procedure better if the paper were
printed on both sides. You'd have an "uncut" book (like in
the old days, when you could tell someone hadn't read the
books in his library because the pages were uncut). |
|
| |
Add a device to trim the outside (opposite binding) edge
(a normal part of bookbinding, easily automated) and you
not only get a neater edge, but avoid the messy process of
gluing together two sheets //half the desired page-
thickness// to get the desired thickness. (You'd
still have to glue, or sew, the spine.) |
|
| |
//paper were printed on both sides// yes, but... that would make the print on the pages that are on the inside, glued together a bit hard to read, no ? |
|
| |
//trim the outside... avoid gluing together two sheets//again... yes, but... gluing together two pages is pretty much the basic idea. What are you thinking of that obviously has nothing to do with this idea ? :) |
|
| |
[edit] ahh i see... but that would cost in structural integrity: one of your single-ply "signatures" could fall out if the glue failed since they aren't connected to each other. And (personal gripe) every second turn of the page would have a different feel to it as you went from between-signatures to mid-signature. Still good if you've a fine enough thread I imagine. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] how could your anno even possibly be related to the post or previous annos ? |
|
| |
//(personal gripe) every second turn of the page would have
a different feel to it// And _that_ is why they call a binding
without signatures a "pefect" binding. (Enlightenment
dawns: this is an idea for a binding which is perfect, but has
signatures. Cool.) |
|
| |
[mp] downside [of my idea] is that the spine-fold would only be half the thickness of a page. It would probably respond best to gluing, whereas your single-ply signatures would probably be best sewn. |
|
| |
//twice as much paper// 2 x 1/2 = ?
//Cutting//that's [mp]'s idea... now that I think about it I've gotten the odd book where two pages are joined at the outer edge, maybe some print processes print continuously from a roll already ? |
|
| |
[bs] ah, I thought you were [mp] |
|
| |
yes, spine design would be important... [ramble] definitely a stretchy material so as not to strain the pagefold overly when the book is flattened out on a desk or something.[/ramble] |
|
| |
If you look at [19thly's] post, he's got the paper being built from scratch though. |
|
| |
ah yes, link verbiage edited |
|
| |
Whereas this is inspired by my idea, it's both different and feasible, and i like it. Were Aztec books like this? |
|
| |
huh bs, if you had posted that link before I posted the post I could've written "Make a zigzag book and glue half the pages together."... big help you are. |
|
| |
If the binding was reversible you'd be able to have two books in one. |
|
| |
This is an okay idea, but I remember making books like this in kindergarten. |
|
| |
[bs] you mean the one that I talk about in my second paragraph ? |
|
| |
[edit] and in the last anno, I apparently confused you with pocmloc... not my day. |
|
| |
[pocmloc] not not not. read the post. |
|
| |
So the only difference between your idea and a zigzag book is that you are glueing the zigzag shut, which makes the pages unpleasantly stiff, inflexible and cockled? |
|
| |
[pocmloc ]//cockled// Thank you for that word. Ah, the
pleasure of learning the one right word for a concept I was
having trouble expressing. In fairness to [FlyingToaster],
however, it's perfectly possible to glue two pages back to
back with no cockling whatsoever. I used to do it all the
time with 3M High-tack spray adhesive. |
|
| |
I'm glad I don't have to cockle it. |
|
| |