And now for something completely different….

Posted on by

By Sven

Guest Post

Ok, not completely, as it obviously has to do with the metric system. But we think we have something unique: a detailed—and nearly forgotten—history of one of the world’s most successful national metrications. It will shortly be filed in Metrication Resources, where we hope it will gain recognition as the pride of the collection.

For some years, a couple of fellow metric advocates in Australia had been telling us of a mysterious book. Mike Joy, who had gotten us some excellent measuring tapes and rulers, unlike anything available here, was the first to mention it: If there was any metrication we had to understand, it was Australia’s, and if there was anything about Australia’s we had to read, it was Metrication in Australia, by Kevin Joseph Wilks. His own copy was lost, lent and never returned, but he could put us in touch with the author. Unfortunately, Mr Wilks was down to his last author copy, which he understandably would not part with. He had tried to get the publisher, DITAC, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, to reprint the book, but without success: the copyright was held by the Commonwealth of Australia, so he had no control. We could find only two libraries in the US claiming a copy: one in Los Angeles, unavailable at the time; one closer to home, but after diligent search the librarians had to report the book presumed lost. We were getting the impression—no great surprise—that the one-and-only edition had been very small.

It was another friend from Oz, Peter Goodyear, who finally tracked one down, and scanned the pages for us, giving us our first look. It was instantly clear that everything Mike and Peter were saying was true. (Aside: Peter’s task was much easier than it would have been in the US, because the library copy machine had a USB port. No need to create a huge pile of waste paper, just bring your own flash drive. What a fantastic and blatantly obvious idea. I’m sure this technology is available in the US, but I’ve yet to see it in libraries, or for that matter, aerospace companies. The US may catch up with Oz someday, but until then I am envious.) So, what is all the fuss about?

In 1972, Australia was an imperial nation. In 1982, it was as metric as any on earth. It got from point A to point B, not only in a single decade, but with the support of its citizens, with little trouble, opposition, or resentment—and very few missteps. The monetary cost was small, and recovered instantly. Australians have been enjoying the dividends ever since. This brief book—less than 90 pages in its original form—tells the story. How then did Australia metricate so rapidly, and so painlessly? A number of reasons, but here is one elephant-in-the-room clue, from page one:

It was sometimes asked why the decision to go metric was not reached by referendum. This would have presupposed that people would have had a comparable knowledge of both the imperial and the metric systems and of the impact such a change might have. While metrication has certainly had a massive cultural impact on people in their lives as ordinary citizens it is, nevertheless, a predominantly technical change, affecting commerce, industry, engineering, science and education. For referendum purposes, relatively few people would have had sufficient knowledge of both systems to make an informed decision.

The decision to go metric was achieved through an open committee of inquiry, appointed by the Government, which collected evidence from any person who felt interested or competent enough to give it.

In other words, it was recognized from the beginning that there was more than one way to frame the debate. The magnitude of the cultural change wasn’t ignored, but it wasn’t allowed to dominate the discussion to the exclusion of all else.

Metrication began with an Act of Parliament: the Metric Conversion Act 1970. This was binding legislation that committed the nation to an active program of metrication. Curiously, once this commitment was made at the national level, very little other legislation was needed:

The change was largely voluntary and no new legislation, other than the Metric Conversion Act, was introduced by State or Federal Governments to enforce metrication. In some cases where compulsion was necessary, metric units were substituted for imperial units in existing Acts and Regulations.

A Metrication Conversion Board was formed to conduct conversion at the national level. Although established in law, the Board sought to act as a coordinating service within and between industries and constituencies. What will be astonishing to US metric advocates is that the kind of inertia and obstructionism we’ve become inured to, apparently never developed:

At no stage did the Board seek to force a decision of its own on an industry committee. Instead, each industry, within the requirements of the Metric Conversion Act, decided, by consensus, when and in what way it would be practicable to metricate its industry. To that extent, conversion to metric must be seen as one of the most democratically executed government projects in Australia’s history.

What about the costs of metrication: weren’t they significant, even if only one-time? Here the problem was that Australian metrication was so highly coordinated and well-planned that, ironically, it was very difficult to say. One figure given at the time by metrication opponents was $2,500,000,000:

Even assuming, for a moment, this cost to be accurate, it represented $179 per person or $18 per person per year for ten years which was a small enough cost compared with the benefits which resulted from metric conversion.

One problem with such figures was that they probably included all sorts of things that weren’t really costs of metrication. Petrol pumps (gas pumps to us Yanks), may have been an example: prices were rapidly approaching $1.00 per gallon, at which point the mechanical counting mechanisms then in use would have overflowed. Their replacement was imminent, metrication or not. (With modern electronic pumps, the cost of switching to liters might be near zero.)

One extremely effective strategy for metrication was the “M-Day.”  Each industry would prepare for metrication on a given date, quite often within a year or less, while continuing to do business in imperial units. Dates for related industries were coordinated by the government Metrication Conversion Board. On its M-day the entire industry would switch, sometimes within particular states or regions, but the most successful M-Days were nationwide. So-called “transition periods” were reduced to near zero. The greatest success was in changing the road signs of the nation. Technically, it should probably be called an M-Month, but given the magnitude of the task, it was still spectacular:

One of the most important and publicly visible of the metric changes was the change in road speed and distance signs and the accompanying change in road traffic regulations. M-Day for this change was 1 July 1974 and, by virtue of careful planning, practically every road sign in Australia was converted within one month. This involved installation of covered metric signs alongside the imperial sign prior to the change and then removal of the imperial sign and the cover from the metric during the month of conversion.

Except on bridge clearance and flood depth signs, dual marking was avoided. Despite suggestions by people opposed to metrication that ignorance of the meaning of metric speeds would lead to slaughter on the roads, such slaughter did not occur.

The book is a how-to manual for national metrication. Most of it is an industry-by-industry account of the Australian experience. A wide selection of industries, products, and services is represented: agriculture, light and heavy manufacturing, raw materials, finished goods, health care services, sport and recreation. It is here that the value of the book for today may be greatest: it’s hard to imagine anyone reading through the success stories, and the few failures, without being disabused of the notion that metrication just happens. Nor is it possible to maintain that two disjoint systems of measurement can coexist, anymore than it’s possible to jump on a horse and “gallop madly off in all directions.”

The Maven and I were convinced this was something special, but while we might have shared it privately with other metric advocates, we both wanted a wider distribution. The problem was that it was still copyright Commonwealth of Australia. In its dead tree form it was very nearly a lost document, but it dealt with matters that should be of some national pride to Australia. Throwing caution to the winds, we decided to contact Canberra about the possibility of an electronic distribution. DITAC, the original publishing agency, no longer existed, but finding the proper people to speak with was fairly simple, and we were pleased and surprised when our request was not dismissed out of hand. We then learned that, even in a relatively civilized universe like Oz, the mills of government grind slowly—but to our amazement, they do grind. We had several indications that things were, in fact, going on, and probably our anxiety made this period seem longer than it was. Actually, it was quite short: a few months. And just last month, we were informed that Metrication in Australia was now licensed under the Creative Commons. Better still, it was “the most accommodating type” of license, allowing us to create a searchable PDF. This turned out to be essential, as the scan files were huge, and we could never have put them up in that form.

The book was formatted in the A4 (ISO 216) paper size. Our PDF retains this, but we increased the original font size slightly, and renumbered the pages as a result. The file is set up for double-sided printing, suitable for four-hole “888” punching, or comb binding. It should also print well single-sided, or on the bizarre “US Letter” paper size if you “scale to fit” (the margins will just look a bit odd). Not that we expect many Americans to try to find a ream of A4 paper, but if anyone still doubts the existence of the Invisible Metric Embargo, it might be an instructive exercise. Yes, you can find it, but online, not at your local office megamart. And lest our Australian friends are cringing: we were careful to have only the Australian English dictionary loaded in the spelling checker during all proofreading, so we’re pretty sure no American orthography has crept in. We’ve tried to make this book as good looking as our limited desktop publishing experience permitted.

Finally, some acknowledgments. To Mike Joy and Peter Goodyear for the initial heads up, a great deal of detective work, and a list of Australian terms that we used as the basis of a short glossary for non-Australians. To all persons involved in this effort, known and unknown to us, at the National Measurement Institute, Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. (Whew!) We have no idea what was going on behind the scenes, but we suspect it was significant. And to the author, Kevin Joseph Wilks, for having given us this record of a remarkable cultural transformation. We hope it may now inform metrication efforts for years to come. It’s almost enough to make us believe the Land of Oz really has intersected our own space time continuum.

Here is a link to download Metrication in Australia (built 2013-06-24).

Postscript: We’ve been notified of three minor OCR errors in our original PDF file of Metrication in Australia. Two occurrences of modern were rendered modem, and one occurrence of the word be was rendered he in the final paragraph. The current file corrects these. The glossary has also been slightly augmented. (Thanks again to Peter Goodyear.)

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 not of direct importance to metric education. It 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.

Euphemism and The Metric System

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

“What’s in a name?”  Shakespeare inquired. Well, today I would have to state: “generally a lot of marketing, euphemism, and spin.” I’m not a fan of fish as dinner, but years ago a person I knew told me I just had to try orange roughy. This time my experience with fish would be different it was claimed. He could steam it and the fish would be great. I ate the portion presented, but it did not make me a convert to seafood. Sometime later, when I was reading about fish depletion in the oceans, I read that the reason orange roughy was now sold was because the population of other more desirable fish had collaspsed. The original name of the fish now known as orange roughy?—the slimehead. You can imagine what my answer would have been if I was told I being offered slimehead for dinner.

Marketing people know that consumers can be “primed.”  What this means is that they can be given an expectation, and within reason, this will color the perception of their experience. The National Geographic Channel has a program called Brain Games, where they demonstrate the many ways that our brain tries to make sense of our world. In one episode they have a person dressed in a suit and tie, with microphone and camera person in tow, to ask people their reactions to fictitious news-stories. The stories were a bit over the top, but the people interviewed tended to immediately believe they were real because of their expectation of how a news team looks. They did their best to provide reactions which assumed the truth of the story. If the “reporter” had been dressed in a torn tee shirt and jeans, with a small consumer looking camera, people might not have been so quick to believe the stories. Orson Welles made a big name for himself this way in 1938. The radio broadcast of his adaptation of H.G. Wells, The War of The Worlds, was said to have been mistaken by many for an actual news broadcast of an alien invasion and created actual public fear.

Many persons are quick to correct people who use the word metric system in the US, stating that it’s properly called SI. The problem is that very few US citizens have any idea this is true, but they all have an idea what the metric system is. When I lived in Montana, everyone there could point to an antelope, but had I asked if they had seen any pronghorn around, well, I would probably have received a blank stare.

There is a particular problem  with our potpourri set of measurements in the US. There are some attempts to provide a single unifying name for the completely unrelated and non-systematic measurement mess. One of my least favorite is US Customary (USC) which is sometimes called the US Customary System. This name is much like the Holy Roman Empire, which was not Holy, not Roman and not an Empire.  The name US Customary System implies that it might have been created in the US, that it is our custom, and that it is a system. It must be something, because we us a TLA (three letter acronym) to describe whatever it is, as USC. Some of the basic “American” units go back to the Anglo-Saxons of the 10th century. The Winchester Bushel and Gallon are from that era, and were used prior to the imperial “system.” They are what we use for pricing corn and selling gasoline—in “modern” America. The inch we used (before it was defined in terms of metric) was three barleycorns end to end, from the center of the ear full and round. The ten penny nails we might buy today are a “size” defined by the price of 100 nails centuries ago in England. I think Ye Olde English might be a better description of the US non-system.

The root problem with the designation USC is that it is simply a euphemism for a polyglot. Here is what I mean.  Some people might contend that we should call our set of units the English System. There are at least two problems with this designation. The first is that we in the US have also introduced a number of ad hoc American “standards” into our non-system. Examples are American Wire Gauge for wire sizes, or Unified Screw Threads, both of which are not English at all. When the English decided they would reform their old system in 1824, they called the new set of English measures, the British Imperial System of Measures. It was then they established a new yard, troy pound, and gallon. Later they adopted the avoirdupois pound, but kept a troy value for money. The new imperial unit for the gallon is different than the original English gallon used in the US. Americans often call our potpourri of units Imperial, despite the fact that the gallon we are using is a Fundamentalist English Unit. We currently use the English Queen Anne, or Wine gallon, and the British used the Imperial gallon.  But both the troy and  avoirdupois pound and ounces are imperial and still in use in the US for commerce and coinage. So we use Olde English Units, American Standards, and Imperial Units. When you get a bill for natural gas usage, it tells you how many therms you used. Being an American you of course know that this is 100,000 British Thermal Units (BTU). One could easily argue that a BTU is a UK customary Imperial Unit. So thus far in our discussion, USC is made of Ye Olde English Units, American Standards, customary British units and original British Imperial Units. When I get an electric bill, the energy transported to my home is measured in kilowatts. This is a metric unit. The energy provided, for which I must pay my utility company, is described in kilowatt-hours, which is not SI.  Joules are the units of energy in metric, but do not appear on my bill. So the current potpourri of US measurement units consists of Ye Olde English, American, British customary, British Imperial, and Metric. The units and standards which are included in USC is completely open to debate, as it is an ill-defined term, and destined to remain so. There is one word that adequately describes this non-system of units in the US. That would be the word mess. Potpourri sounds way too euphemistic.

When I first encountered the term US Customary or USC to describe our mess, I have to confess I found it revolting. I took to calling our potpourri of measures Imperial if it made a nice literary title or metaphor for an essay, as in my sense, the US potpourri of units (USPU) is all of these: Olde English, Imperial, and even Metric. Because of our mismatched mess of measurement designations, the word Imperial has become essentially a proprietary eponym or generic trademark in the United States. Examples of generic trademarks are when one uses the word Kleenex for facial tissues, Crescent wrench for adjustable wrench, or even verbs a generic trademark by claiming they are  “Hoovering up dirt.”  We take aspirin for a headache, but realize that heroin is illegal, even if we don’t know both were trade-names of the Bayer company.

One Troy Ounce US Silver Coin on an Avoirdupois Scale is 1.1 ounces. Both troy and avoirdupois pounds are imperial units.  (click to enlarge)

When Imperial was first legislated in Britain in 1824 it consisted of only three standards: the yard, the troy pound, and a gallon. The standards were destroyed when Parliament burned down in 1834 and a commission was setup to create new ones.  They took this opportunity to replace the troy pound standard with an avoirdupois pound standard. Both are still in use in the United States. Our coinage is in troy and avoirdupois is in everyday use. This is illustrated by a photo I took of a silver coin which is produced in troy weight and measured it on a scale set to avoirdupois. These two imperial measures are not only legal in the US, but de facto mandatory. The British also had to create new Fahrenheit thermometers to replace those lost in the fire, which were used to define a standard temperature for the standard imperial artifact standards (e.g. the British yard), and  are still used in the US. The imperial “system” also refused to embrace decimals and remained fraction based, as are rulers in the US. In the US, Imperial measurements are still used constantly, and apparently are part of “USC” and legal in the United States.

There is one person who comments on my writing, who has lashed out at me numerous times when I have used the word imperial to refer to our farrago of units. Here are some highlights from his statements:

Imperial is nor [sic] used in the US. The collection of units is called USC for United States Customary. Imperial units are actually  illegal in the US.

If you are referring to older units used in the UK, they [sic] by all means call it imperial. If you are referring to the US, then call it by its legal name: USC.

I don’t understand why you are so bullheaded and refuse to use the term USC for the US, and imperial for countries where imperial was once legal. It is ignorance like this accelerates America’s decline.

I don’t understand why you ruin an otherwise very good article with inaccurate information. What is so difficult  about using the term imperial when referring to the UK and the Commonwealth and USC for the US? It really isn’t rocket science.

No, it isn’t rocket science—and I have worked on rockets. The legal name according to Wikipedia:

The United States Code refers to these units as “traditional systems of weights and measures”.[17]

I don’t see USC anywhere in the legal description. The only USC I view, is a possible TLA for United States Code. Perhaps he should use TSWM to be legal? Most people in the US, when they hear the acronym USC will immediately think of the USC Trojans, or the University of Southern California. The term USC must compete with an identical and much better known and used acronym. The second problem is that USC is also a deplorable euphemism. It creates a literary container called USC, which imparts a legitimacy upon the completely and totally unplanned and uncorrelated farrago of measurement units used in the US. Insisting on the use of the acronym USC really makes me question if a person who does so is really a metric advocate. I also believe USC to be an example of idioglossia. Why would I have any respect for it?

I can’t even be certain if the Wikipedia article I’ve cited is correct or not. Andro Linklater in his book Measuring America  states on page 187 “The American Customary System of Weights and Measures had become the law of the land.”  So should I use ACSWM for my acronym?–to be legally precise? Ronald Zupuko in his book Revolution in Measurement on page 257 has “Proponents of the American customary system contended……” So perhaps ACS instead of USC? Just because Wikipedia has a USC entry, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to have one. I take issue with the very first line of the entry:

United States customary units are a system of measurements commonly used in the United States.

Perhaps someone should challenge this Wikipedia statement, or redefine the term system. I’m in favor of the former, and also for including a statement in the entry that USC is an uncommon academic term few in the US recognize.

Anyone who would want to discuss the merits of SI vs USC,  will be involved in a conversation with themselves. Any average citizen in the US will have little idea what SI or USC represent in a measurement context. If the two acronyms were then defined for them, a US citizen could immediately, and incorrectly, infer that SI and USC are two competing and equally valid measurement “systems.” USC is the red white and blue patriotic system, and that other thing, SI, is foreign.  Metric advocates use the terms SI and USC all the time in their cyber exchanges. There is no equivalency; one is a system; the other is a potpourri of accumulated units produced by an invisible hand. Metric advocates that use the euphemism USC, and berate me for not, make me wonder if they are really metric  advocates, or actually stealth apologists for the ad hoc embarrassment of units that are used in the US. In my view, no one has coined an appropriate name for the US unit mess.

There is one larger problem, whose language often seems completely invisible to metric advocates. The US public often uses a term that is far more charged with euphemism, and acts as an intellectual narcotic against change, than USC. Because I’m an American, I did not notice it for a long time. One evening I was watching Ice Road Truckers when one of the Canadian truckers was relating that he was very prepared for an equipment breakdown. He pointed out he had both Standard and Metric tools with him. My mind was suddenly jolted. A Canadian called American tools standard!—how absurd!—then I realized that many, many, Americans call US tools standard everyday. I had been brought up around the term, and so it never struck me what a powerful euphemism it is. When I look on websites which supply fasteners and such, I often see standard and metric as descriptions. Well hell!—who would not want to have standard!—metric is clearly an effete passing fancy. Do you want Standard or Metric?—Orange Roughy or Slimehead? The very fact that this problem is not acknowledged or addressed by metric advocates appears to be a great oversight. Our tools are standard?—for 5% of the world’s population! The other 95% use the metric “non-standard.” As George Gobel once famously said on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson: “Ever feel like the world is a tuxedo and you’re a pair of brown shoes?” We in the US have not realized that the world is metric, and our measurement system is the brown shoes. The joke is on us and we don’t even know it.

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 not of direct importance to metric education. It 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.