The Ghost Town of our Zeitgeist

Near my Grandfather’s Montana cabin was a ghost town. There was not much of it left in the late 1970s. My Grandfather pointed out that young people liked to go there to get drunk, and burn down one of the buildings now and then. The town was the only thing standing as a testament to the existence of the people who constructed it, and their long lost memories and identities. But slowly, it faded away with time.

I came across a number of metric artifacts online that are interesting, as they are part of the Ghost town of metric. One is a bamboo ruler created in Japan, and marked with what look like millimeters, but 100 mm is about the width of your hand, so it seems it must be a very long ruler if metric. It is likely one that was used for scale drawings of some sort. The rulers are all about 300 mm, so clearly the units are a bit apocryphal. The rulers in the collection were exhibited in 1876 by the Japanese Empire Department of Education at the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, and finally ended up at the Smithsonian.

Another curious artifact is a US DecaLitre vessel with dual handles, which I guess one would need to handle 10 liters of any beverage, and it also shows how lack of a scale allows perception to decide intuitive volume. Yes, this brass vessel was made in the USA, probably about 1870, not long after the US made the metric system legal, but clearly not mandatory. The maker is said to be the United States Weights and Measures in the District of Columbia. Apparently 10 000 mL seemed like a good idea at the time, it could have been called the MyraMilliliter. As I’m sure you all recall, this volume would more properly be written daL, as the only two letter prefix, da, is the “proper” one. These are all members of the Metric Ghost Town of Our Past.

A pro-metric mug from around 1975 from the American National Metric Council.

The final Metric Ghost Town was constructed in the 1970s, and many of our existing structures are from that time. I recall Pierre looking through some contemporary metric newsletters and remarking something like: “It’s all so frozen in time, and depressing, there is nothing but a sad nostalgia left to embrace.” There is no contemporary metric city in the US, only a Ghost Town in My Brain.

In the 1970s, Reader’s Digest put out a pamphlet to help ease their readers into the new metric era. The balance of non-metric countries in the world were converting over to the metric system, but not with feckless pleading to pretty-please use metric as a conversion strategy. They realized that it was best for the industry of their country. The US post office was created to encourage commerce, the Erie Canal was created by US industrial policy, yet when metric was to be introduced in the US, it was wink-wink nudge-nudge. Perhaps it was because understanding the movement of cargo on a canal was much less abstract than a numerical simplification.

“Living With Metrics” is a Reader’s Digest pamphlet that was published to help the average American understand and cope with the change to metric. The subtitle of the pamphlet is: “How to Feel at Home with the Metric System.” It was published in 1978. They state:

… the United States is now committed to the change. It became national policy under The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to work toward making the metric system dominant in all aspects of national activity–trade, industry, education, science, services—in an expeditious, planned coordinated way. No timetable has yet been set, but progress has been rapid, even without one, in science, education, and industry.

The second chapter is titled What Makes Metric Easier? and then proceeds to use the prefix cluster around unity to “illustrate.” They “helpfully” point out that one cubic decimeter of water is a liter, and weights a Kilogram. The illustration:

It is then explained:

The kilogram was adopted as the standard unit of mass because the gram, which would normally be used as the base unit, weights only about as much as a standard paper clip, an amount that would be inconvenient to work with in everyday usage. That also explains why the kilogram is the only base unit having a prefix.”

The metric three bears argument has long ago worn out its emotional impact when
confronted with practice. If the metric three bears argument held any sway, it would be Goldilocks choosing grams, millimeters, and milliliters as everyday units and then sleeping. When I’m confronted with the units are too small assertion, I ask why we use feet to measure the altitude of aircraft, and mountains. People in Colorado all want to climb the 14ers, which are mountains 14 000 feet and above. As has been discussed ad nausium on this blog, metric construction uses millimeters, and the side of a house can easily be 30 000 mm, or 30 meters along one side. The assertion that a gram is inconvenient, and that is why the Kilogram is a base unit in the MKS system, rings hollow. The linear unit used to define the volume of a liter is the decimeter, which has very little utility compared with millimeters. The pamphlet does use spaces rather than commas to separate metric triads “which is metric style.”

The pamphlet realizes there may be clouds on the metric horizon:

If conversion is permitted to be so vague and open ended, it will take far longer, and be difficult for all concerned. Experience in recently metricated countries has shown that people learn fastest and most easily from a quick conversion to metric…

When they get to discussing everyday metric in the grocery store, it is essentially in grams, as makes sense compared to using decimals paired with Kilograms. They state:


Remodeling projects–from new window screens to built-in shelves–demand fit, whether materials are in inches or centimeters.

Which brings me yet again to my pet peeve. The comparison of inches to centimeters simply helps to cement the notion that the metric system is just a similar replacement to our own non-system, which promotes apathy and lack of interest in metric. They go on:

Just as we make rough estimates of inches, feet, and yards we can get a feel for the meter and centimeter.” They rightfully assert: “What does NOT seem helpful in learning to think metric is reliance on conversion tables. … For length, distance, and depth, and other linear measurements, a meterstick, tap, or ruler subdivided into centimeters (and sometimes millimeters) are all useful.

Well, no, no, and three times no, use millimeters only, dump the centimeters. This
will provide the same integer values that grams and milliliters do in everyday life.

The authors make a pragmatic point about supermarket shopping, that was also in Metrication in Australia (you know, a country that can actually implement reform):

Very little about metric weights and measures will really change the way we shop, or the amount we buy. Take meat, for example. When it is precut, wrapped, and put in the display case, we will look at the size of a roast or the number of chops and the total price, just as we always have. We buy many things by eye, according to our needs. We select fruits and vegetables by the piece, bunch, or back, and pay the price marked. Even our shopping list seldom specifies amounts. … So long as customary information appears on food labels, we will tend to refer to it first. But in time, the amounts, directions for use, and recipes will be in metric units.

Pat Naughtin realized and warned that dual-scale markings simply suppress conversion to metric. This seems to be the case in the US.

“A 500-gram loaf of bread may contain one or two slices more than a pound loaf.” This sentence caused me to realize I had no idea how much a loaf of bread weighs (masses in the metric system). I have the good fortune of having a nearby independent baker, and I just purchase the sizes of bread he bakes. I never ask how much it weighs, or how many slices it contains. In their chapter The Metric Supermarket, Kilograms and Pounds are directly related, with grams eschewed in their graphic:

They begin:

So what will it be like, shopping in a predominantly metric food store? The question, “What is it like?” was asked in a survey of shoppers in Australia, one of the “late arrivals” to metrics, and now almost completely converted.” Ninety percent said they had no great difficulty in learning and using the metric system. And the majority felt Australia’s fairly fast changeover had made it easier for them.

Australia changed to the metric system so long ago; it is becoming a faded memory for them.

Under the rubric Some laws need to be changed they inform us:

Federal, state, and local regulations for many food products are written in customary measures; some will have to be changed to allow metric quantities. Current labeling laws give preference to customary. Weighing and measuring equipment in factories and stores, subject to regulation and checking, will have to be replaced or converted.

But when the plans made for these changes materialize, and producers make the move to hard conversion, we’ll be able to shop in metric. It is then that we, as consumers, will be grateful for a comfortable familiarity with the basic system.

There is discussion that the scales will be in Kilograms in 50 gram intervals, you know, like pounds and ounces, even though all our scales I’ve seen are decimalized in pounds. They also indicate milk and other liquid products will be in liters and milliliters. That’s reasonable. After arguing that Kilograms will be the “base unit” they logically have grams for most products, including breakfast cereals. They even argue that 500 gram, 250 gram and other sizes will be common. That also seems reasonable.

When they offer up the proverbial metric recipe for Chocolate Cookies, (everybody goes for them as a metric example in the US) they use volume and not mass. All the ingredients are in mL, and the one time grams appear, it is quickly related to volume. This is a very poor way to cook, and makes US citizens look like pathetic provincials when they do. They mention that measuring spoons will be in mL, and have a nice illustration. The use of spoons has been a bit of a debate for me. Often one might like 30 mL of an ingredient, this is two 15 mL measuring spoons. How should we list this on a recipe? I’ve started experimenting with the total quantity first, and then the metric spoon equivalent, but only up to about 50 mL, because a measuring cup makes more sense after that (yes I have one that is about 80 mL, and cute.) It might be good practice to use the number of milliliters as an adjective or pseudo-prefix with spoon. We could have a 5 spoon, 15 spoon, and so on. We could state we need 2 Fivespoons, or 2 5-Spoons of flour. We could even put the total in parenthesis afterward as a check: 2 5-Spoons (10 mL). I really don’t like metric countries using Teaspoons and Tablespoons. It seems so unnecessary only produces opportunities for error.

Whoever made this drawing, apparently has never heard of preferred numbers, or their use in cooking.

The Home and Its Furnishings chapter uses meters exclusively, with some minute nods to centimeters. Home Care and Repair also nods at centimeters, with a tiny mention of millimeters, with decimals! Then comes Measuring and Metering our Environment. They then go full metal imperial on the metric system: “As other elements are converted, we’ll measure rainfall in millimeters (mm), snow in centimeters (cm) …” And why would this be? Well because it just makes more sense to change between scales that need conversion when talking rain and snow? No, just use it for both. 30 mm of water and 30 mm of snow are the same dimension when we measure them. 1235 mm of Snow? that’s quite a bit, like 1.235 meters. Of course 300 mm of rain would be a lot of rain. Why change units? To make the metric system mirror the antiquated difficult to use non-systems of the past, and make them seem more “comfortable.”

By far, one of the more interesting constructions in this metric ghost town brochure, is the chapter on Hobbies, Sports, Leisure Activities. This is where the dimensions of a metric football field are proposed in this graphic:

I really like it. The field will be longer, and wider. This could really spread the game out and make it a bit more biased to offense and scoring. I’d like to see it adopted, but that would only be in the realm of science-fiction at this point.

What this Reader’s Digest pamphlet describes, is an evanescent ghost town of our minds, that was never constructed, but was abandoned. If it had been constructed, like rest of the world did, it would not have been abandoned. As it was stated in the early 20th century, no country that ever adopted the metric system, then decided to abandon it and go back (ok France did, but just for a bit, and they are the only ones). The metric system in the US is just used at times as a political football, without any intention of a metric town ever actually being constructed. It is only useful to politicians as a bloody shirt of fear, in the ghost town of our Zeitgeist.


If you liked this essay and wish to support the work of The Metric Maven, please visit his Patreon Page and contribute. Also purchase his books about the metric system:

The first book is titled: Our Crumbling Invisible Infrastructure. It is a succinct set of essays  that explain why the absence of the metric system in the US is detrimental to our personal heath and our economy. These essays are separately available for free on my website,  but the book has them all in one place in print. The book may be purchased from Amazon here.


The second book is titled The Dimensions of the Cosmos. It takes the metric prefixes from yotta to Yocto and uses each metric prefix to describe a metric world. The book has a considerable number of color images to compliment the prose. It has been receiving good reviews. I think would be a great reference for US science teachers. It has a considerable number of scientific factoids and anecdotes that I believe would be of considerable educational use. It is available from Amazon here.


The third book is called Death By A Thousand Cuts, A Secret History of the Metric System in The United States. This monograph explains how we have been unable to legally deal with weights and measures in the United States from George Washington, to our current day. This book is also available on Amazon here.

Quetta, Ronna, ronto, quecto, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree.

Four new prefixes for the metric system have been approved by the Metric Bishops. We now have Quetta, Ronna, ronto, and quecto. They are 1027 1030 10-27 10-30. No doubt that true believers of the metric clergy are already incenced that I used my own elements of style to capitalize Quetta and Ronna, and left ronto and quecto lower case. Why would it not make sense to use capitalization to designate magnifying and reducing prefixes in prose? I have no idea, but it’s apparently as questionable as an Oxford Comma in some circles—yes, I like the Oxford Comma. That said, apparently, according to Wikipedia, we now need eight words to describe this essential set of additions to the metric system. Quetta is nonillion (short scale) and quintillion (long scale). Ronna is octillion and quadrilliard, ronto is octillionth and quintilionth, and quecto (with one c not two as that’s a big deal), has nonillonth and quintillionth. I’m taken to task for capitalization that would help the reader realize if ronna is bigger than ronto?

Well, they’ve done it, added four more prefixes without depreciating the prefix cluster around unity, that is: hecto, deca (the one with two letters da), deci, and centi. What is the reason these were needed? According to one article in the press, a reason given was:

“The change was largely driven by the growing requirements of data science and digital storage, which is already using prefixes at the top of the existing range (yottabytes and zettabytes, for expressing huge quantities of digital information),” said a release from the UK’s National Physics Laboratory, which was involved in the new prefix adoptions. “These can be used with any SI unit, for example in the future we can be expected to talk about ronnametres and quettagrams.”

Of course, data storage generally involves factors of two, so the metric prefixes don’t work in an exact manner. This is how the kibi, mebi, tebi, pebi, and exbi came about. They are binary prefixes meant for computers, so the use of powers of ten does not confuse. It appears to me that the rational for the four new prefixes is that computer people need a new metaphor for the size of their storage, but only that, as it is not a technically descriptive of a power of two.

I have previously discussed my view of expanding the metric prefixes past yocto and Yotta in my earlier essay On Beyond Yotta. The prefix Yotta can describe the dimensions of the observable universe, but mass is where things really become astronomical. In my earlier essay:

Dr. Asimov states that about 4.2 Tg (Teragrams) of mass is converted to energy every second inside of the sun. He uses pre-metric terms to describe this value as “4 600 000 tons of mass per second.” Unfortunately so does Wikipedia: “the Sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second.” As I understand it 1 million is  106  and a “metric ton” is a Megagram or 106 grams for 4.2 x 1012 grams per second or 4.2 Tg per second. That’s a lot of grams. Dr. Asimov inquires: “Is it possible  for the Sun to support this steady drain of mass at the rate of millions of tons per second? Yes, it certainly is, for the loss is infinitesimally small compared with the total vast mass of the sun.”  The currently accepted mass of the sun is, approximately 2 x 1030 kg. This means it’s 2 x 1033  grams, and the proper metric prefix would be?—oh, well, there isn’t exactly a metric prefix for this value. The last magnifying metric prefix is Yotta, which allows the mass to be written as 2 000 000 000 Yg (Yottagrams). Which by current convention it appears there are about three extra metric prefixes needed to express the mass of the sun with a 2, and a minimum of two extra prefixes to use 2000 as a magnitude.

In my second edition of The Dimensions of the Cosmos, I have a table which demonstrates how quickly mass increases for astronomical bodies.

The use of Yottagrams for our planetary system is two metric triads beyond what makes sense with Naughtin’s Laws when we describe Jupiter’s mass, but Mercury and Mars are both whole numbers. This seems preferable to writing them in Ronnagrams. The list for our planets would become:

Planet Mass
Mercury 0.330 Rg
Mars 0.642 Rg
Venus 4.69 Rg
Earth 5.97 Rg
Uranus 86.81 Rg
Neptune 102.41 Rg
Saturn 568.34 Rg
Jupiter 1 898.60 Rg
Sun 198 900.00 Rg

I don’t see this as a superior way to present this data compared with Yg, other than it shows clearly how much less mass Mars has compared with the Earth and Venus, but really not better than using Yottagrams with integers. But “Richard Brown, the head of the laboratory, told AFP that Earth weighs about 6 ronnagrams, and Jupiter is about 2 quettagrams.” Thanks for switching metric prefixes so they are not directly comparable. The addition of two new sets of prefixes does not seem to help describe our planets better than before.

In my earlier essay I wrote:

Asimov also makes this surprising statement:

Release of energy is always at the expense of disappearance of mass, but in ordinary chemical reactions, energy is released in such low quantities that the mass-loss is insignificant. As I have just said, 670,000 gallons of gasoline must be burned to bring about the loss of 1 gram (1/27 of an ounce). Nuclear reactions produce energies of much greater quantities, and here the loss of mass becomes large enough to be significant.

What I’ve been able find in my research on this subject is both minimal and contentious. It is mostly stated that the amount of mass lost in chemical reactions is “unmeasurable.” The few who venture to put numbers to paper (including a textbook example) end up with magnitudes on the order of 10-33 grams. One example computation has 70 x 10-33 grams as the amount of mass lost in the given chemical reaction. This would be 0.000 000 070 yg (yoctograms) and would indicate a possible need for at least two more metric prefixes. It appears that, at least in theoretical discussions, it might be useful to have two more metric prefixes on the dividing side of the prefixes.

Well now we have two more prefixes, so we can write the mass changes as 0.070 quectograms. This does not seem to be a considerable improvement either. The place where these prefixes could come in handy is for subatomic mass energy equivalents. A single electron is 910 quectograms, or 910 qg. In The Dimensions of the Cosmos I have a table which relates the mass of the electron clouds of atoms to their equivalent energy:

We can rewrite the table from The Dimensions of the Cosmos as perhaps:

SubstanceMass in quectograms Energy in Femtojoules
Single Electron 910 qg82 fJ
Beryllium (4) 4 000 qg328 fJ
Sodium (11) 10 000 qg901 fJ
Bromine (35) 32 000 qg2867 fJ
Uranium (92) 84 000 qg7535 fJ

We are now able to write the entire table with integers if we wish. In this case, the two new reducing prefixes are definitely of utility. We now have two extra sets of prefixes, that seem mostly driven by computer metaphor at the magnification end, so I don’t plan on expanding The Dimensions of the Cosmos anytime soon.

Sorry for the typo spelling error on Quetta in an earlier draft.


If you liked this essay and wish to support the work of The Metric Maven, please visit his Patreon Page and contribute. Also purchase his books about the metric system:

The first book is titled: Our Crumbling Invisible Infrastructure. It is a succinct set of essays  that explain why the absence of the metric system in the US is detrimental to our personal heath and our economy. These essays are separately available for free on my website,  but the book has them all in one place in print. The book may be purchased from Amazon here.


The second book is titled The Dimensions of the Cosmos. It takes the metric prefixes from yotta to Yocto and uses each metric prefix to describe a metric world. The book has a considerable number of color images to compliment the prose. It has been receiving good reviews. I think would be a great reference for US science teachers. It has a considerable number of scientific factoids and anecdotes that I believe would be of considerable educational use. It is available from Amazon here.


The third book is called Death By A Thousand Cuts, A Secret History of the Metric System in The United States. This monograph explains how we have been unable to legally deal with weights and measures in the United States from George Washington, to our current day. This book is also available on Amazon here.