Category Archives: Metric Reform

Terminating Metric With Extreme Prejudice

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In the US there are people who take a perverse pride in making a decision knowingly based on ignorance. “I’m not a scientist, but it’s obvious that heavier things fall faster than lighter ones.” John Q. Strawman is right, I would never confuse him with a scientist, and definitely not with an engineer.

The history of the non-adoption of the metric system in the United States is littered with people who are definitely not numerate or scientifically literate. Despite this deficiency they are generally the people who are in control of the political system, and decide the technical policy, or the lack of a technical policy, for the nation. This is true of Charles Davies who quashed the metric system during the time of John Kasson. The stacking of the congressional metric committee with anti-metric members during the tenure of metrication promoter John Shafroth revolved around men ignorant of the interplay of design and measurement, let alone science. In 1921 the chairman of the metric hearings argued for the judgement of the blind “science of the market” over the opinions of the scientifically minded who did not rely on the blind actions of perceived market Darwinism to provide knowledge. They argued that actual knowledge would be better.

In general these historical derailments took place with the full knowledge of the participants. Ronald Reagan decided to request that the US Metric Board be disbanded in 1980. Then in 2006 Lyn Nofziger died and a curious footnote to this decision surfaced.

Lyn Nofziger (1924-2006)

Who was Lyn Nofziger? He was Born in Bakersfield, California in 1924 and earned a degree in journalism from San Jose State College.   He worked as a reporter for a number of years. Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 and Nofzinger began to work in various capacities for the Nixon administration. According to John Dean, who was Nixon’s White House council, Nofziger helped to compile Nixon’s infamous enemies list. Lyn Nofziger worked to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. Following Reagan’s election, he held positions in the Reagan White House.

When Nofziger died in 2006 he was eulogized by Frank Mankiewicz (1924-2014) in the Washington Post.

Frank Fabian Mankiewicz II (1924-2014)

So who was Frank Mankiewicz? He was born in Beverly Hills, California in 1924. His father co-wrote Citizen Kane. Mankiewicz is credited with coining the term retronym. This is a name that has been modified because it’s original meaning has ceased to be relevant because of technical innovation. Generally a leading adjective is used. Examples are: mechanical typewriter, analog watch or film camera. While these are observations of technical change, there is no evidence that Nofziger ever educated himself about technical issues of any kind. Like Nofziger, Frank Mankiewicz earned a degree in Journalism. He worked on Robert Kennedy’s campaign as press secretary. Mankiewicz would announce Robert Kennedy’s death to the world in June of 1968. He would work as a campaign director for George McGovern in 1972. Mankiewicz would be on the “Master List” of Nixon’s political opponents. One wonders if Lyn Nofziger helped to place him there? Mankiewicz would return to political campaigning briefly by serving with the Presidential Campaign of Gary Hart. During this period he claimed that politics had changed. It was all about personalities, and not “does he [the candidate] have the right ideas?” In my view this observation is more ironic than if Lyn Nofziger had helped put him on Nixon’s enemies list.

What Mankiewicz wrote about in his remembrance of Nofziger is perhaps the strangest, enraptured, orgasmic-laced expression of schadenfreude toward the metric system ever put on paper:

So, during that first year of Reagan’s presidency, I sent Lyn another copy of a column I had written a few years before, attacking and satirizing the attempt by some organized do-gooders to inflict the metric system on Americans, a view of mine Lyn had enthusiastically endorsed. So, in 1981, when I reminded him that a commission actually existed to further the adoption of the metric system and the damage we both felt this could wreak on our country, Lyn went to work with material provided by each of us. He was able, he told me, to prevail on the president to dissolve the commission and make sure that, at least in the Reagan presidency, there would be no further effort to sell metric. It was a signal victory, but one which we recognized would have to be shared only between the two of us, lest public opinion once again began to head toward metrification.”

Mankiewicz appears eager to claim credit for destroying metrication in the US. In fact he is so eager, one might not immediately notice his choice of words: “He was able, he told me, to prevail on the president.” Well, the he refers to Nofziger. When Mankiewicz makes this assertion it is essentially hearsay. Neither Nofziger or Ronald Reagan is alive to corroborate this assertion. It shows an amazing amount of contempt toward the metric system by Mankiewicz, and indicates he was a black hole of ignorance when it concerns technology, numeracy, and the general welfare of the US. Mankiewicz did not ask if one has the most up-to-date scientifically accepted weights and measures, he was only interested in if a person has “the right ideas” not the best ideas. His eagerness to take credit for crushing the metric system in the US makes me wonder if “the ignorant journalist doth protest too much that he did it.” He seems to be confessing to a murder he wished he had committed. It is amazing that Mankiewicz’s zeal to destroy the metric system was so strong that as a person who worked on Robert Kennedy’s campaign he would be so proud as to have lobbied a person who worked for both Nixon and Reagan  to “nix” the metric system.

Wikimedia Commons

Neither Lyn Nofziger, nor Frank Mankiewicz had any scientific, technical, or manufacturing qualifications or experience. They were “journalists.” In Mankiewicz’s mind they determined that the two of them could judge and collude in secret to kill the metric system in the US. They terminated “…the adoption of the metric system and the damage we both felt this could wreak on our country…” Why?—because they felt it could wreak havoc on the United States. It is an admission that instinct was more important than investigation when it came to the metric system. That was all it took for this callow duo (at least a duo in Mankiewicz’s mind) to decide the fate of the metric system in the United States. In a faux bi-partisan manner, they did this dirty work out of the sight of the public, from whom their destructive secret should be kept, “lest public opinion once again… head toward metrification.” The democratic sentiments of this duo underwhelms me, but in light of the political climate of 2014, and what has been revealed about the way Washington historically fails to act in the public interest, their contempt for the  public does not surprise me. It does however nauseate me. What retronym we might apply to a pair of journalists who might have existed before Mr. Mankiewicz and Mr. Nofziger? How about investigative journalist?

Pat Naughtin in his Metrication matters newsletter (2009-11-10) stated: “The sad part is that Frank Mankiewicz did not make his silly decision to inform Lyn Nofziger with facts based on research; he simply acted on the basis of personal whimsy.”

Perhaps I’m being too hard on Frank Mankiewicz. After all he was over 90 years old when he died recently, and perhaps with age and retrospect, he might have realized that his opposition to the metric system was a mistake. He clearly must have known that the entire world other than the US now uses the metric system. Surely this would give him pause to contemplate his position.

On November 12, 2013 Frank Mankiewicz appeared on Reddit to answer questions.

Someone with the handle Thereminz asked about the metric system:

Thereminz: “why the anti-metrication? metric is easy,.. personally i know and use both but i would like to see imperial phased out”

FrankMankiewicz: “….Metric–I just think it’s too disruptive, requiring too much sudden change, not only in numbers but in language—especially in sports—and mostly for the benefit of the manufacturers of equipment, tools and kitchen appliances.”

Thereminz: Ok, but it’s been like over 30 years since they wanted to convert

I’m almost thirty and i still find myself having to refer to a conversion chart when dealing with liquid measurements for imperials, ex: you can’t quickly tell me how many tablespoons are in a gallon without thinking about how many tbs in a cup howmany cups in a quart howmany quarts in a gallon

Going from one thing to the other is always different and you have to think about it, uh 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 5280 feet in a mile, ok, how many yards in a mile? Bet you can’t tell me that without having to divide by 3

With metric it’s all some power of ten and you can simply tell by the name

Maybe they should have tried a little harder on changing to metric because now we have the internet, and all science uses metric and if you don’t know metric today you seem kind of dim… It puts americans at a disadvantage. It’s kind of funny to me when you see someone try to convert measurements from imperial to metric and they don’t know the conversion or someone from a different country asks their height and they can’t even tell them

Sorry if I’m rambling, i just think it would be better for us if we knew both imperial and metric

FrankMankiewicz: Let them convert. Seriously, both may be the answer, as we all become more global.

That was the end of Frank Mankiewicz entertaining any questions about metric conversion during his Reddit interaction. He has no second thoughts, or as we have seen, first thoughts about metric. Apparently in 2014 there is no need to worry about manufacturing in the US—only the importance of sports. Mankiewicz remained willfully ignorant of the subject which he vociferously opposed until his death on 2014-10-23. Frank Mankiewicz is gone, but anti-metric stalwart Senator Charles Grassley remains as deeply committed to ignorance as he and Mankiewicz did in 1975, 1978 and 1981. As Charles Darwin noted: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

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.

One Hundred is Everywhere!

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

On March 2nd, 1962 Wilt Chamberlain set the single game scoring record in the NBA. He scored 100 points. This record is an astonishing achievement. The game was not televised, there is no video of it, and only an audio recording of the final quarter exists. The photograph taken by a sports photographer is iconic and succinct. Wilt holds up a piece of paper upon which the photographer has written 100. The closest anyone has come to this record since, was when Kobe Bryant scored 81 on January 22, 2006. Some professions become obsessed by 100. This number is considered a milestone (yes The Metric Maven can use this as a metaphor) for some television programs. The program is then eligible for syndication. Frylock from Aqua Teen Hunger Force becomes obsessed by 100, in their one hundredth episode. This is the 100th essay published at The Metric Maven, and so 100 is the topic.

Why do I bring this up? Well I’ve become concerned that people might have the impression I don’t like 100 because I would vanquish centimeters (actually centi-anything). There are many cases where I encourage, in fact almost demand the use of 100. Much like the epiphany about eliminating centimeters, it took me a while to embrace 100, and understand its importance in other metric contexts. Let me begin at the beginning, which involves gas mileage.

I had stumbled across the fact that most Europeans do not compute their fuel efficiency in Liters/kilometer, but in Liters/100 kilometers. I could not see why on earth they would do this. What possible benefit could it have? On my last trip, my car got  32.87 miles to a US gallon, which is 7.16 Liters/100 kilometers. The formula is Liters/100 Km = 235.21/mpg. Here is a quick table:

MPG  L/100 Km

10     23.52
15     15.68
20     11.76
25      9.41
30      7.84
35      6.72
40      5.88
45      5.22
50      4.70

The liters per 100 Km values give a much better intuitive understanding of the actual fuel efficiency. Fearlessly using Naughtin’s Laws, let’s remake the table in terms of milliliters

MPG  mL/100 Km    Gasoline Volume Saved

10     23 520
15     15 680              7840 mL         (10-15)
20     11 760              3920 mL         (15-20)
25      9410                2350 mL         (20-25)
30      7840                1570 mL         (25-30)
35      6720                1120 mL         (30-35)
40      5880                  840 mL         (35-40)
45      5220                  660 mL         (40-45)
50      4700                  520 mL         (45-50)
100    2352                2348 mL         50-100 MPG is close to difference from 20-25 MPG

Rick’s 1968  Roadrunner 10 MPG  23.5 L/100 Km

What this shows us is that going from 45 MPG to 50 MPG saves 520 mL. Bottled water is generally sold in 500 mL bottles. What’s the difference when we go from 20 to 25 MPG?—2350 mL which is over two liters (i.e. a two liter bottle of soda). We can immediately envision the change in fuel economy, and it is large. Going from 10 to 15 MPG saves 7840 mL or almost four 2 liter bottles of soda. Going from 45 to 50 MPG saves only about two aluminum cans of soda. We can see that increasing fuel efficiency from 20-25 MPG (5 MPG increase) saves about the same volume of fuel as going from 50 MPG to 100 MPG (50 MPG increase).

My friend Rick owned a 1968  Plymouth Roadrunner in the 1970s. It was the era of Muscle Cars and Ed “Big Daddy” Roth. Rick’s car had nearly a 3/4 cam and was designed for high performance, but not fuel efficiency. It was the last of the cars from the era defined by the film American Graffitti, which was released in 1973, and proved to be a swan song. Rick’s Roadrunner averaged about 10 miles per gallon or 23.5 L/100 Km. My current car averages about 35 MPG or 6.7 L/100 Km. It takes 16.8 liters less than Rick’s old Roadrunner to traverse 100 Km. Rick’s old car may seem like an anachronistic gas guzzler, but should you happen to drive an M-1 Abrams tank, it has a fuel efficiency of 470 L/100 Km. Now that’s a gas guzzler.

My friend Kat on the other hand, is at the other end of the fuel efficiency spectrum She drives a  2010 Honda SH150i and has a calculated mileage of 114 MPG. Wow, that’s 2.1 liters per 100 kilometers.  While that’s serious fuel efficiency, Kat tells me the 2011 Genuine Scooter Company’s Stella scooter claims 140 MPG or 1.7 L/100 Km!

This is all very interesting, but it didn’t still didn’t make me a 100% 100 convert.

What caused the realization of how useful 100 could be was when I worked on controlling and quantifying my Calorie intake. (I will set aside why I’m not using kilojoules for the moment, with a promise to write about it in the future.) I had begun doing all my cooking with grams and mL. Years ago I had used a now out of print book called The All in One Calorie Counter. It had everything in it. When I looked on line I found an incredible website to help me, which is now gone.

The website allowed one to search for almost any type of food, and the output was in calories/gram and grams/100 calories. Like the fuel efficiency numbers, I could quickly understand how “calorie dense” different foods are at a glance with grams/100 calories. Because I had begun using a scale when I went to metric cooking, I could easily measure the mass of any food in grams. This in turn would allow me to compute the total calories very quickly. Here is a list of some common foods and their grams/ 100 calories.

Selected-Foods-Grams-per-100
(click to enlarge)

One can immediately see that bacon is very calorie dense with 19 grams per 100 Calories. The grams/100 Calories for meats increase up to 125 g/100 Calories for chicken. This table immediately shows one why so much chicken is consumed by people trying to reduce their calorie intake, and hamburger is not. It shows that if you’re given the choice between butter and sour cream on a potato, sour cream has far fewer calories for the same mass. Flour and sugar have equivalent energy densities.

When I would weigh out food, I could quickly halve or double the grams to obtain 50 calories or 200 calories of a food. I was very surprised at the convenience. Measuring the components out of which I make a sandwich, has given me a feeling for the amount of calories in different foods. I never had that intuition when using non-metric methods. The most important aspect for me is that because of US Government food labeling requirements, I can compute the grams/100 calories for any food I purchase. I just use this simple formula:

Formula to convert grams in a serving with known calories to g/100 C
Large Egg Food Label
(click to enlarge)

For instance suppose we use this label from eggs as an example. The egg has a mass of 50 grams (1 serving) and contains 70 Calories of energy. We compute 100*50/70 which gives us 71.4 grams/100 Calories. I would round this to 71 grams/100 Calories. We see immediately from our table that it’s similar to eating Ribeye Steak at 65 grams/100 Calories. It is about two times fewer calories than eating hamburger with the same mass.

This is when I was completely convinced of the utility of 100 in certain instances. You can imagine how hot under the collar I became when I found out that some groups want to take grams off of the nutritional labels on foods and change them to Ye Olde English!  This would screw me up seriously, and once again be a complete retreat from improving our quality of life in the US by adopting the metric system.

The use of 100 has provided options in my Engineering work that I did not previously have. When a radio wave (electromagnetic wave) travels in a coaxial cable transmission line, like the one attached to a television, it slowly loses energy.  One can measure how much energy enters this length of cable, and how much is remains at its end, divide the two values, and create a logarithmic loss “unit” called the decibel. When I measure the losses of electromagnetic waves through materials and transmission lines, it has been traditionally described in decibels/inch. Decibels per meter does not work well for high loss materials and and decibels per inch does not work well for low loss materials. It suddenly struck me one day that perhaps decibels per 100 mm was a good candidate. It was, it works, and I now use it exclusively.

In the 1970s, Australia, early in their metric switchover, pressed for a uniform price per kilogram for foods. Kevin Wilks in his book  Metrication in Australia states:

In hindsight, the decision to press for “per kilogram” only pricing was unfortunate. While pricing on a common unit basis facilitated price comparisons, it gave no guidance to the public on sub kilogram quantity selection…….

***

In Canada and Singapore, fractional pricing based on halves and quarters of the kilogram was forbidden, but prices per kg or per 100 g were permitted. This simple device ensured that in those countries sub unit quantities were obtained as multiples of one tenth of  a kilogram and successive halving was avoided……

For Australia to gain the fullest benefit of conversion to a decimal system of weights and measures, it was inevitable that authorities permitted and encouraged “per 100 g” pricing in addition to “per kg” pricing

I’m not as obsessed with 100 as Frylock, but I’ve realized it can give me a completely different way to look at important quantities. In the proper situation, 100 is the best way to go.

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.