News: 1674376688

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

It's been 230 years since British pirates robbed the US of the metric system

(2023/01/22)


Feature In 1793, French scientist Joseph Dombey sailed for the newly formed United States at the request of Thomas Jefferson carrying two objects that could have changed America. He never made it, and now the US is stuck with a retro version of measurement that is unique in the modern world.

The first, a metal cylinder, was exactly one kilogram in mass. The second was a copper rod the length of a newly proposed distance measurement, the meter.

Jefferson was keen on the rationality of the metric system in the US and an avid Francophile. But Dombey's ship was blown off course, captured by English privateers (pirates with government sanction), and the scientist died on the island of Montserrat while waiting to be ransomed.

[1]

And so America is one of a handful of countries that maintains its own unique forms of weights and measures.

[2]

[3]

The reason for this history lesson? Over the last holiday period this hack has been cooking and is sick of this pounds/ounces/odd pints business – and don't even get me started on using cups as a unit of measurement.

It's time for America to get out of the Stone Age and get on board with the International System of Units (SI), as the metric system used to be known.

[4]

There's a certain amount of hypocrisy here – I'm British and we still cling to our pints, miles per hour, and I'm told drug dealers still deal in eighths and 'teenths in the land of my birth. But the American system is bonkers, has cost the country many millions of dollars, an increasing amount of influence, and needs to be changed.

Brits and Americans…

The cylinder and rod Dombey was carrying, the former now owned by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, was requested by Jefferson because the British system in place was utterly irrational.

When the UK settled in the Americas they brought with them a bastardized version of weights, measures and currencies. A Scottish pint, for example, was almost double the size of an English equivalent until 1824, which speaks volumes about the drinking culture north of the border.

British measurements were initially standardized in the UK's colonies, but it was a curious system, taking in Roman, Frankish, and frankly bizarre additions. Until 1971, in the UK a pound consisted of 240 pence, with 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound.

To make things even more confusing, individual settlements adopted their own local weights and measures. From 1700, Pennsylvania took control of its own measurements and other areas soon followed. But this mishmash of coins, distances and weights held the country back and Jefferson scored his first success in the foundation of a decimal system for the dollar.

[5]

"I question if a common measure of more convenient size than the Dollar could be proposed. The value of 100, 1,000, 10,000 dollars is well estimated by the mind; so is that of a tenth or hundredth of a dollar. Few transactions are above or below these limits," he said

[6]PDF

.

[7]

So of course he's on the least popular note

Jefferson wanted something new, more rational, and he was not alone. In the first ever State of the Union address in 1790, George Washington [8]observed : "Uniformity in the Currency, Weights and Measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to."

America was a new country, and owed a large part of the success of the Revolutionary War to France, in particular the French navy. The two countries were close, and the metric system appealed to Jefferson's mindset, and to many in the new nation.

And this desire for change wasn't just limited to weights and measures. Also in 1793, Alexander Hamilton hired Noah Webster, who as a lexicographer and ardent revolutionary wanted America to cast off the remnants of the old colonial power. Webster wrote a dictionary, current versions of which can be found in almost every classroom in the US, which includes, color, center, aluminum and other new versions of old words.

And then politics and Napoleon happened

Jefferson asked the French for other samples including a copper meter and a copy of the kilogram, which was sent in 1775, but by then things had changed somewhat since he was no longer running the show. On January 2, 1794, he was replaced as US Secretary of State by fellow Founding Father Edmund Randolph, who was much less keen on the government getting involved in such things.

To make matters worse, relations between America and France were deteriorating sharply. The French government felt that the newly formed nation wasn't being supportive enough in helping Gallic forces fight the British in the largely European War of the First Coalition. In something of a hissy fit, the French government declined to invite representatives from the US to the international gathering at Paris in 1798-99 that set the initial standards for the metric system.

Jefferson's plans were kicked into committee and while a form of standardization based on pounds and ounces was approved by the House, the Senate declined to rule on the matter.

Not that it mattered much longer. In 1812, Napoleon effectively abolished the enforcement of the metric system in France. Napoleon was known as Le Petit Caporal, with multiple reports he was five foot two. This was a possibly deliberate misunderstanding since the French inch was then shorter than the British standard and Napoleon was around average height for the time.

After the French dictator was defeated, the case for the metric system in France sank into near-limbo at first, as it did in the US. But it gradually spread across Europe because you can't keep a good idea down and science and industrialization were demanding it.

Welcome to the rational world

What has kept the metric system going is its inherent rationality. Rather than use a hodgepodge of local systems, why not build one based on measurements everyone could agree on configured around the number 10, which neatly matches the number of digits on most people's hands?

Above all it's universal, a gram means a gram in any culture. Meanwhile, buy a pint in the UK and you'll get 20oz of beer, do the same in America and pints are only 16oz – a fact that still shocks British drinkers. The differences are also there with tons, and the odd concept of stones as a weight measurement.

Metric is by no means perfect. For example, in the initial French system, a gram, or grave as it was initially known, was the mass of one cubic centimeter of water. A meter was a 10 millionth of the distance between the pole and the equator – although the French weren't exactly sure how far that was at the time.

[9]

The original metre carved into the Place Vendôme in Paris, some adjustment required

Since then the system has been revised a lot with discoveries of more natural constants. For example, a meter is now 1/299,792,458 of the distance light travels at during a second. As of 1967, the second itself has been defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom," but better measurement by atomic clocks may change this.

The chief adherents to the metric system initially were scientists who desperately needed universal sources of measurement to compare notes and replicate experiments without the errors common when converting from one measuring system to another.

This is down to convoluted systems like 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, 1,760 yards in a mile, compared to 100 centimeters in a meter and 1,000 meters to a kilometer. A US pound is 0.453592 kilograms, to six figures at least, these are the kind of numbers that cause mistakes to be made.

Most famously in recent memory was the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999. The $125 million space probe broke up in the Martian atmosphere after engineers at Lockheed Martin, who built the instrument, used the [10]US Customary System of measurement rather than metric measurements. The probe descended too close to the surface and [11]was lost .

A more down-to-earth example came in 1983 with the Air Canada " [12]Gimli Glider " incident, where pilots of a Boeing 767 underestimated the amount of fuel they needed because the navigational computer was measuring fuel in kilograms rather than pounds. With roughly 2.2 pounds to the kilogram, the aircraft took on less than half the fuel is needed and the engines failed at 41,000 feet (12,500m).

The two pilots were forced to glide the aircraft, containing 69 souls, to an old air force base in Gimli that luckily one of the pilots had served at. It was now being used as a drag strip but thankfully there were only a few minor injuries.

And don't even get me started on Celsius and Fahrenheit. With Celsius water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 at ground level, compared to 32 and 212 for Fahrenheit. It's a nonsensical system and the US is now the only nation in the world to use Fahrenheit to measure regular temperatures.

The slow and winding road

Back in 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams reported to Congress on the measurements issue. In his seminal study on the topic he concluded that while a metric system based on natural constants was preferable, the amount of kerfuffle needed to change from the current regime would be highly disruptive and he [13]wasn't sure Congress had the right to overrule the systems used by individual states.

The disruption would have been large. The vast majority of America's high value trade was with the UK and Canada, neither of which were metric.

In addition, American and British manufacturers rather liked the old ways. With the existing system, companies manufactured parts to their own specifications, meaning if you wanted spares you had to go buy them from the original manufacturer. This proved highly lucrative.

[14]Metric versus imperial: Reg readers weigh in

[15]US space programme in shock metric conversion

[16]Pints under attack as Lord Howe demands metric-only UK

[17]Britannia triumphs over Johnny Metric

By the middle of the 19th century, things were changing... slightly. The US government scientists did start using some metric measurements for things like mapping out territory, even though its domestic system was more common for day-to-day use. The Civil War also spurred a push towards standardization, with some states like Utah briefly mandating the system.

Two big changes came around in the 20th century following two World Wars. Interchangeability of parts, particularly bolt threading, seriously hampered the Allied forces. In 1947, America joined the International Organization for Standardization and bolt threads went metric. Today the US Army uses metric to better integrate with NATO allies.

This has continued ever since American manufacturers realized they would have to accommodate the new systems if it wanted to sell more kit abroad. Today there are technically US measurement parts still being manufactured, particularly in some industries, but there is at least a standardized system for converting these to metric measurements.

In the 1960s, metric was renamed as the Le Système international d'unités (International System of Units) or SI and things started moving again in America. After Congressional study, President Gerald Ford signed the Metric Conversion Act in 1975, setting a plan for America to finally go metric as "the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce."

But it suffered some drawbacks. Firstly, the system was voluntary, which massively slowed down adoption. Secondly, a year later, the new US president Jimmy Carter was a strong proponent of the system, and this caused the opposition in Congress to largely oppose the plan.

President Reagan closed most of the moves to metric in 1982, but his successor, Bush, revived some of the plans in 1991, ordering US government departments to move over to metric as far as possible. The issue has been kicked down the road ever since.

Different cultures, different customs

These days the arguments over metric versus American measurements are more fraught, becoming a political issue between left and right. Witness Tucker Carlson's cringe-worthy rant in which he describes metric as "the yoke of tyranny," hilariously mispronouncing "kailograms."

What in the world is he even talking about? [18]pic.twitter.com/KhL8eS7mO1 — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) [19]July 25, 2019

Given that trust-fund kid Carlson was educated in a Swiss boarding school, he knows how it's pronounced, but never let the facts get in the way of invective.

As such, it seems unlikely that we'll see anything change soon. But that day is coming – America is no longer the manufacturing giant it was and China is perfectly happy with the metric system, although it maintains other measurement for domestic societal use like Britain does with pints and miles.

There's really no logical reason to not go metric – it's a simple, universal system used by every nation in the world except for the US, Liberia and Myanmar. That's hardly august company for the Land of the Free.

It will be a long, slow process. No country has managed a full shift to metric in less than a generation, with most it took two or more, and the UK seems to be going backwards. Former prime minister Boris Johnson suggested Britain should go it alone with the old UK Imperial measurements, which make the current American system look positively rational.

It may take generations before the issue is resolved in the UK, and longer still for the US. It may, in fact, never happen in America, but the SI system makes sense, is logically sound, and will remain the language of science, medicine and engineering for the vast majority of the world.

If the US doesn't want to play catch-up with the rest of the world it will have to take rational measurements seriously. But that day isn't coming soon, so in the meantime this hack will have to remain using old cookbooks and we'll face more measurement mistakes together. ®

Get our [20]Tech Resources



[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y80XUr0sVgj0XociU4wm8gAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y80XUr0sVgj0XociU4wm8gAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y80XUr0sVgj0XociU4wm8gAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y80XUr0sVgj0XociU4wm8gAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y80XUr0sVgj0XociU4wm8gAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-0adbb6ace3b9fcbb09cd7fd0fbd5f76e/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-0adbb6ace3b9fcbb09cd7fd0fbd5f76e.pdf

[7] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/01/16/jefferson_shutterstock.jpg

[8] https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources/state-of-the-union-address/

[9] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/01/16/metre_shutterstock.jpg

[10] https://blog.ansi.org/2018/06/why-pint-bigger-in-uk-than-in-us-volume/

[11] https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/mars-climate-orbiter/in-depth/

[12] http://hawaii.hawaii.edu/math/Courses/Math100/Chapter1/Extra/CanFlt143.htm

[13] https://www3.erie.gov/consumerprotection/john-quincy-adams

[14] https://www.theregister.com/2012/10/12/metric_imperial_poll/

[15] https://www.theregister.com/2012/05/22/falcon_metric/

[16] https://www.theregister.com/2012/05/16/metric_uk/

[17] https://www.theregister.com/2007/09/11/britannia_triumphant/

[18] https://t.co/KhL8eS7mO1

[19] https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1154430259556749323?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



Hooray for Avoirdupois and pounds, shillings and pence

PhilipN

It’s how many of us learnt arithmetic.

The amount of times...

xyz

I've found exactly what I want on the internet only to be presented with measuements in American and I just leave the site. You guys must be losing a fortune in sales if I'm typical.

At least , after having read the article, I now have a rough idea of what weight they are banging on about on Gold Rush when they're going on about something weighing 50,000 lbs.

Learn both?

chivo243

Surely, as learned scholars reading Reg.com, we have the capacity to learn two standards? It's easy, I learned the metric system when I was in 12 going to school in the US! Yes, there was a big push to go metric! I still have the binder we made in school in 1976! The contents are long gone. In the end, all that became metric was soft drinks in large quantities. 3 liters of Pepsi anyone??

As someone who lived in Western Europe for nearly 25 years, knowing both has been a life saver. I worked for an American flavored company with many local hires. As we often received some products and equipment from the US, my knowledge of both standards was extremely useful, and saved the day a couple of times.

Now let's go watch the Maltese Falcon, and the comedy remake The Black Bird....

Re: Learn both?

jake

When I first got to the UK, school kids were still being taught both metric and imperial (just before sixpence became 2.5p, a whole 'nuther kettle o'worms). I still think in either, or both, depending on the situation. It's not exactly difficult. Strangely, at least for an American, I think of my own weight in stone ...

Nobody should ever have a need for even 1 liter of carbonated sugar water. Disgusting stuff.

Re: Learn both?

Anonymous Coward

I think in the UK there's a cohort born around 1960 that went through school learning both and are probably still OK with both. In junior school (age 8-12) I did lots of arithmetic with oz, lb, stones, CWT, tons, inches, feet, yards, chains, furlongs, miles, pints, gallons and can still remember the conversions. Ditto pounds, shillings, pence (or LSD as we knew them) and guineas, but we went decimal while I was at junior school, so spent a lot of time on decimal arithmetic. In In later years everything was metric. I'm perfectly happy working in both but I default to feet, yards, miles, pints, gallons if I'm not talking technical. I'm ok cooking with imperial or metric but not cups.

That explains...

Captain Hogwash

why, when once at an American bar, my request for a pint was greeted with "a large pint or a small pint?"

US Survey Foot

Alan J. Wylie

At least, as of three weeks ago, the US has deprecated the [1]Survey Foot . Before 1959, the US defined the foot as 0.304 metres, rather than the exact value of 0.3048.

The 1959 redefinition of the foot was legally binding and intended for the entire United States. But a single exception temporarily allowed continued use of the previous definition of the foot, exclusively for geodetic surveying. To distinguish between these two versions of the foot, the new one was named the “international foot” and the old one the “U.S. survey foot.” It was furthermore mandated that the U.S. survey foot be replaced by the international foot upon readjustment of the geodetic control networks of the United States. Although such a readjustment was completed in 1986, use of the U.S. survey foot persisted. This situation has led to confusion and errors that continue to this day, and it is at odds with the intent of uniform standards.

[1] https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot

Re: US Survey Foot

jake

"Although such a readjustment was completed in 1986, use of the U.S. survey foot persisted."

What did they expect? That's what all the tools in the wild were (are) calibrated for. I know I'm not planning on replacing my kit any time soon.

Not that I ever have to file anything official ...

Re: US Survey Foot

Richard 12

Which is why they should have gone metric in one step.

Changing the definition of an existing measure always causes confusion. Particularly when it's a relatively small change, as the numbers look plausible and you can't tell the difference without having both old and new sticks beside each other.

If they'd just changed to metres, then the old kit could still be used with a conversion factor, and it's reasonably obvious if the conversion has not been done.

Costly

Anonymous Coward

I was part of a due-diligence team assessing a European company for a US private equity firm that was looking to buy it. Part of the justification for the deal was that they would transfer some of the products to their US factory. I did the engineering/manufuacturing assessment; it was was mostly a fabricated product - metal bashing, welding, assembly, etc. no multi-axis CNC, exotic materials, EDM, - the IP and novelty was in the SW and performance. The deal collapsed because the costs of converting the drawing packs to metric which the US factory proposed were astronomical - and because they were so high the PE guys saw it as a very risky proposition. Even though they'd have had access to the European design team they'd assumed that they'd have to just about re-design and qualify the whole thing and wouldn't back down. They just seemed to be terrified by the very concept of metric.

Re: terrified by the very concept of metric

Pascal Monett

Yes, I understand.

Cavemen were terrified by fire as well.

So, not to worry. In a few millennia they will grow bigger brains and be able to comprehend the system. In the meantime, they'll be happy measuring in smelly feet.

Re: Costly

jake

"They just seemed to be terrified by the very concept of metric."

Ore perhaps it was a convenient way to back out of a deal that they discovered wasn't nearly as lucrative as they had first thought.

mark l 2

Don't forget how the Tory government only last year was cheering a 'benefit' of Brexit of being able to go back to shops selling goods in pounds and ounces since the UK left the EU, despite every one for the last 40 or so years only having been taught metric at school. And also ignoring the fact even when we were in the EU it was legal to sell in pounds and ounces that as long as they also gave the weight in Kilos / grams.

jake

"Meanwhile, buy a pint in the UK and you'll get 20oz of beer, do the same in America and pints are only 16oz – a fact that still shocks British drinkers."

Sort of. Yes, the standard American unit of measure called "the pint" contains 16oz, However, almost all bars that serve pints of beer serve it in standard, British made (or reasonable facsimiles thereof), 20oz pint glasses. At least the bars that I've been in over the last several decades. I have also noticed in the last ten or so years that many bars are keeping 22oz glasses on hand to decant the 22oz bottles which many/most micro/craft breweries ship at least some of their brews in.

This might be a West Coast thing; I haven't been in a bar East of the Rockies in decades.

Richard 12

It varies a lot by chain and location.

Almost all of the places I've visited actually specified whether their "pints" were 16oz or 20oz on the menu/price list.

Quite a few of them used both sizes, because that's not confusing at all.

Graham Dawson

The problem with the jars climate orbiter wasn't that it was using customary units; the moon landings used customary units throughout and went off without a hitch. The problem was that units were being converted between two teams and someone made a mistake in the conversion. It's a perfect demonstration of the need to standardise units across a project, rather than proof that any particular system is superior to any other.

We should all be using duodecimal, anyway. 12 mm to the douximetre, 120 doux to the metre, and so on. More factors.

It's not all bad

johnB

I've spent years ranting about non-metric measurements.

But I've got to admit the American usage of cups in certain recipes is by far easier than using spoons, weigh scales & measurers.

Some recipes are actually more dependent on ratios, not volumes / weights.

e.g. my morning porridge (for two) is one cup of porridge (oatmeal) & two cups of semi-skimmed milk. No scales, etc & washing up simpler.

Otherwise, yup, systems other than metric are simply bonkers. (And far too error-prone).

Re: It's not all bad

jake

ALL recipes are dependent on ratios, regardless of how you measure them.

Most Brits are shocked to discover that England has official standard size measuring cups. If you don't believe me, you can purchase them from none other than John Lewis.

Re: It's not all bad

Richard 12

Eggs is a bit of an issue though.

There are EU standards for the size of a small/medium/large hens egg, but I've no idea what they are or whether US standards match.

Of course, the Conservative Party just handed ministers carte blanche to accidentally delete those standards. Hopefully the Lords will save us from their idiocy.

My MP just quoted the first paragraph at me to justify his vote, so it's pretty obvious he's not bothered to read it.

No to cups or spoons

Pascal Monett

Especially in cooking, you state the ingredients in grams or milliliters and that should be all.

Spoons, really. What size spoon do you ? And don't tell they're all the same size, that's simply not true. The spoons from our wedding tableware are bigger than the spoons of our daily tableware, so there is no standard there.

Not easy to get rid of some standards based on the wrong system

bartsmit

Global shipping uses (non-k8s) containers measured in feet and PCB's are still riddled with parts in thou's (mili-inch) which is especially rife in connectors, i.e. their interfaces.

*Sigh*

Re: Not easy to get rid of some standards based on the wrong system

Richard 12

2.54mm spacing is fine. The inch is in fact defined in terms of millimetres, so you're just going back to the source anyway.

Only annoyance is that it's really difficult to distinguish 2mm, 2.5mm and 2.54mm spacings.

Jeff Smith

Whilst you're at it could you have a word about your date format too please. Thank you.

Pascal Monett

Agreed, but they're not the only ones. How's about 22.01.2023 ? Or 2023-22-01 ?

And I have a few more that I found while importing CSV files from various customers - sometimes with different formats inside the same file .

I swear, it's a good thing firearms aren't easily availble 'round here because when I snap I'll be reduced to strangling the bastards instead of shooting them - that'll give someone more time to drag me off.

Richard 12

YYYY-mm-dd is the ISO standard. Use it everywhere you can, it sorts.

And feel free to use the septic tank for anyone writing YYYY-dd-mm. The cover is loose.

katrinab

I mostly use 2023-01-22.

22/01/2023 certainly makes more sense than 01/22/2023 which makes me completely cross-eyed, but 22/01/2023 is still mixed-endian, because the most significant digit, the millennium digit is in the middle.

Richard 12

Hurray for middle-endian, the worst of all possible worlds.

Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function.
-- Garrison Keillor