International Dating

By The Metric Maven

Bulldog Edition

It is a strange aspect of human social interaction that often two people will become embroiled in an argument, part ways, go home, continue to fume, and then be unable to recall what the subject was that  precipitated the argument.

I have had an opposite situation occur when talking with my friend Sven. I find myself involved in a conversation, Sven brings up a point I’m only slightly absorbing. I tend to dismiss the information from my mind as not that important, pay little attention to it, and then go home. When home I suddenly become highly agitated as I recall what he said, think it over, and then violently agree with his point.

This has happened twice that I recall. One instance was my initial half-hearted entertainment of the idea forwarded by Sven that perhaps centimeters might not be a good idea. I only vaguely recall what that conversation was about. In the second instance, my mind cannot recall what initiated Sven’s comments at all. What I do recall, was what he said in response: “You know, you should consider using the International Dating method.” No, this is not a suggestion for a method I might use in order to meet and date attractive women from overseas. What he was suggesting is writing dates as YYYY-MM-DD or year first with a dash hyphen, month next with a dash hyphen and then the day. So the founding of the US would be on 1776-07-04. The Gettysburg Address was given on 1863-11-19. Pearl Harbor was attacked on 1941-12-07. The Day The Music Died was 1959-02-03. Strangely, by coincidence, my father called  for the ambulance that day.

My mind showed about as much interest in the information Sven offered as it might have when shown the losing numbers printed on a year old lottery ticket. I went home, my mind started thinking about what Sven had suggested. It first it struck me that this dating method was a bit odd and perhaps unworkable. The more I thought about it, the more I realized how useful it would be, and then began violently agreeing with him. I realized that International Dating (ID) could solve many problems I had with my business data, engineering data, my outside work—well—it would help with a lot of things.

It is common in the US to write a date like July 4, 1776 as 7/4/76. Of course this leads to a problem that without some prose to provide context, that the date could be interpreted as July 4, 1976, which was the bicentennial of the US. A person in say Britain could look at the 7/4/76 as April 7, 1976. Other countries use day first, month second and year third. These ambiguities are eliminated when International dating is used. It is important to understand that leading zeros must be included when using ID. So 1776-07-04 is the correct way to write July 4, 1776. 1776-7-4 is not a valid representation, there must be leading zeros as shown previously. The date 1976-07-04 is unambiguous as the date of the US Bicentennial.

Our Hindu-Arabic number system always has the largest digit first and the smallest last from left to right. So 1234 has the one-thousand digit first (1), the one-hundred digit second (2), the tens digit next (3) and the final digit is the ones (4). This of course continues if a decimal point is added: 1234.567. It only makes logical sense to have the year first, month second and day third like we do for all other numerical representations.

When dates are written using the international standard (ISO 8601) computers automatically sort files and folders by date. This may seem like a small and inconsequential thing, but it is not. It completely changed how I did my work as an Engineer and non-professionally. The first thing I realized was that I could use it to name engineering drawings and their revisions with greater utility. The file naming form is something like this for most of my files and folders.

Name or Title which is constant YYYY-MM-DD Changeable Title or Description.

Example:

Des Moines Register 1975-08-23 Islands in a Metric World.pdf

This allowed me to have a common method of naming technical papers, newspaper articles and other files so they would automatically sort into the name of the journal, the date and the title of the article. I create folders for my consulting projects with a Project Number-YYYY-MM-DD Client Name and Project Description. Here is a screenshot of my backup folders for this blog:

A UK website has a great explanation of the ways international dating can be implemented. It turns out that one can also uniquely add on the time of day using a 24 hour clock. For instance The Apollo 13 spacecraft was launched on  1970-04-11 13:13 CST. Yes, people forget, Apollo 13 was launched on the thirteenth hour and thirteenth minute that day–well in central standard time anyway. There are a number of useful variants allowed by the ISO 8601 standard.

http://www.flightstats.com

Somewhere during my adventure with International Dating I realized that Pat Naughtin was a promoter of its use. I was sold. When people fly to visit me, I track them on a website that has the departure dates in international format. My father volunteers for a small town historical society. One of their projects was to scan all the old newspapers into electronic format. When I looked at the resulting files, the newspaper files were all named with international dating, and sorted themselves automatically. This provided confidence that the company that scanned them probably knew what they were doing. I don’t recall exactly when I discovered that my computer (PC) could be set for the international date standard—but set it I did. It can also be set for 24 hour time if one wishes. The USMA Website has a nice discussion of how to set your computer to display the international date. I have changed all my computers to display ID. The more I used the ID notation the more I liked it. My computer backup folders are always sorted, and I can erase the oldest with ease.

PC Display when set to International Date Scheme

It is after I used ID for about three to four years that I could really see how nicely it allows one to organize folders and files on a computer. This is yet one more important international standard, which we probably do not teach in our public schools.  Which like the lack of the metric system in our country, hinders our society, and keeps it mired in the past. The time for measurement and standards reform in this country has long passed. We need more than just a new metric board with Congressional authority behind it in this country, we need a US Standards Modernization Board which would implement the latest most efficient international standards into our country, teach them in our schools, use them in our government, and use them in our places of business. We can stand still and refuse to change, but the world will continue to progress forward, and we will suffer for it—even if we are not aware why.


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.

The Metric Paper Tiger

By The Metric Maven

I had the privilege to work with a number of television engineers who developed HDTV. Early on there was much discussion about the aspect ratio chosen for HDTV. The idea was to chose an aspect ratio that would fit as many different film formats as optimally as possible. The aspect ratio finally chosen was 16:9. I naively asked why on earth they didn’t just make it 2:1 (18:9). This choice was apparently some manner of committee decision I was told. A detailed discussion of the choice of 16:9 for the HDTV aspect ratio is offered here. The original television aspect ratio in the US was 4:3, but now there was an opportunity to choose an aspect ratio that fit as many film formats as possible. The aspect ratio used for HDTV would be increased and would enhance a viewers experience.

When an image has an aspect ratio that is 4:3 it cannot be stretched (i.e. mapped) onto a 16:9 aspect ratio rectangle without distortion. Early HDTVs were set so that the 4:3 images were expanded, cropped and distorted. I very much disliked this, and I’m most pleased that for the most part the aspect ratio of the old 4:3 television shows are shown with black (sometimes grey) side panels. This leaves the image undistorted. There is no way to stretch an image into a different aspect ratio without distortion.

I attempted to explain this to a number of people in the early days of HDTV, but it clearly was not intuitive to them, and in some cases they found it hard to believe “there wasn’t a way to do it.” There is not, it is as mathematically impossible as squaring a circle. Here are a number of common aspect ratios of films and the side panels they generate when projected on an HDTV screen:

I introduced this discussion of HDTV aspect ratios in an attempt to better explain why the world uses A4 paper rather than 8 1/2″ x 11″.  A-series (ISO 216) paper is used by all countries with the exception of the United States and Canada. This is why quite often a photocopier or printer will request that one “load A4 paper” when its paper cassette is empty. A4 is the international default paper size. At first glance, the size of A4 paper seems odd. It is 210 mm x 297 mm. Despite the random appearance of these numerical values, they have, in fact, been chosen very carefully. Unfortunately, it is  not immediately obvious that this is the case to most people in the US.

I worked as a printer for a number of years, and I can assure you that during that time I never heard of A4 paper. I could tell you right off what the “standard” American paper sizes are:  8.5″ x 11″, 11″ x 17″, 17″ x 22″, 22″ x 34.”   The “approximately equivalent” A-series “metric paper” sizes are:  210 mm x 297 mm, 297 mm x 420 mm, 420 mm x 594 mm and 594 mm x 841 mm.

So why would the rest of the world choose these strange paper sizes over the nice monotonic values of American paper? It all comes down to what happens as one doubles each paper size in one direction only, as both of these paper sizes do. Below I have taken American paper sizes and “Metric Paper” sizes, placed them side by side, and formed a triangle from each of the paper sizes. This is equivalent to cutting a sheet along its diagonal and producing a triangle with exactly half the original area. If one mirrors a copy of the triangle from top to bottom and left to right, and then joins the edges, it produces the original rectangular paper from which it was derived.

Do you notice any difference so far? I thought I did, but then I knew for what I was looking, which can affect my perception. The way to clearly see a difference, is to overlay all the colored triangles for each paper size with a common shared point at the vertex of their right angle:

It should be immediately obvious that the hypotenuses of the A-Series “metric paper” are all parallel and the American sizes are not. But what does this mean? It means that the aspect ratios of the “metric paper” are all identical. They are all equal to the square root of two. If you take 297 mm divided by 210 mm you will obtain 1.414 which is the square root of two. The American paper aspect ratios oscillate back-and-forth between 1.2941 and 1.5455. Why is the aspect ratio important? Well, if the paper aspect ratio is the same, then one can enlarge A4 paper to A3 exactly, and from A3 to A2 exactly. The lengths of the two legs of the “metric paper” triangles can both be altered by the same amount to fit into the next sized triangle without distortion. This is not the case for American paper. One cannot exactly fit an 8.5″ x 11″ image onto 11″ x 17″. One can fit every other size however, so 8.5″ x 11″ will fit onto 17″ x 22″ or 34″ x 44″ and 11″ x 17″ will fit onto 22″ x 34″ but they will not map onto each other without distortion or “letterbox” waste–just like HDTV.

If I have an engineering drawing which is A4 I can double it to A3 perfectly on a printer or plotter. I could double its size again from A3 to A2 and still it would fit perfectly without distorting the dimensions, or producing “letterbox” waste. I have many times thought about using A4 paper so I could do just that, but try finding A4 paper at your local Office Max or other office supply store. You might as well go on a snipe hunt. Try finding A4 notebook binders at the same location. Because we’ve never had coordinated weights and measures in the United States we waste lots of paper and continue along the path of least resistance, and least intellectual effort, as always. It’s what makes us the “Greatest Country in the World.” I feel so free.

Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) chose 8.0″ x 10.5″ for government use on March 28, 1921. Why he chose this size appears to be unknown. There is conjecture, but no established scholarship. A January, 12, 1979 newspaper article, entitled: Government, After 58 Years, Standardizes Paper Size, printed in the Lawrence Journal-World states it was Senator Clayborne Pell (1918-2009) who wrote a memo implementing 8.5″ x 11.0″ for government use. This was the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP). Clayborne Pell is seen by some as a pro-metric Senator, but he would only support voluntary (i.e. no real) change in 1975. I have written about his testimony in the 1975 Metric Hearings. The newspaper article indicates that government archivists could not find any information about why 8.0″ x 10.5″ paper had been chosen by Hoover in 1921, but there apparently was a government Bureau of Efficiency which appears to have had a hand in the choice. In 1923 the printing and paper industries were consulted and recommended 8.5″ x 11.0″ but government and industry simply continued to disagree on paper size.

Is it possible?—that in 1979, Clayborne Pell, and the members of the JCP could not have known about A4 paper?—had the issue of paper size been researched exhaustively? The simple answer is no. The Germans first created the initial standard in 1922, it was next adopted by Belgium in 1924 and by 1977 A4 was the standard letter format in 88 of 148 countries. Today “metric paper” is used by all countries with the exception of the United States and Canada. Was Pell’s mandate to use 8.5″ x 11.0″ paper in government simply the implementation of what the paper industry wanted in 1923?—and they finally had their way?—I don’t know. What I do know is that Pell did not recommend A4 metric paper—and it was clearly in wide international use.

Some might take exception with my calling A4 “metric paper” but it seems very appropriate to me. The base size is A0 which has a 1 square meter area. The paper sizes exactly halve the area of each sheet:

A0   1,000,000 mm2
A1     500,000  mm2
A2     250,000  mm2
A3     125,000  mm2
A4      62,500   mm2

The weight (paper density) of “metric paper” is given as grammage or grams per square meter, and often called GSM.  So if the grammage of typical office paper is 80 grams/square meter, one can immediately compute the mass in one’s head for all the paper sizes:

A0    80 grams
A1    40 grams
A2    20 grams
A3    10 grams
A4     5 grams

So how is this done with American Paper? Well a common value is 50 lb offset. So, is this the weight of one square yard?—one square rod?—-one square mile?—or one square Ye Olde something? No. The paper weight designation depends on the “basis size” and the “basis weight” of 500 sheets of that basis size. Which is a known as a long ream, which is of course 20 quires of 25 sheets.  Here is a list of the basis sizes for some common papers:

Australian A10 Postage Stamp 26 mm x 37 mm

Yes, they are all random. This table succinctly explains why my father would shake his head with annoyance when he would try to discuss computation using the basis weight of American paper. The baroque nature of this non-system is almost beyond comprehension and is so anachronistic as to be almost beyond description. Some basis sizes are not even manufactured anymore, but exist as “virtual standards.”  This situation is nothing short of an embarrassment. We need a comprehensive set of mandatory weights and measurement reforms throughout what is left of our industries. If every industry in this country cannot be bothered, resists, or waits so they are not the first to change, and continue to subvert governmental reform, as they have for over 150 years, all the worse for “The Greatest Country in the World.”


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.