The Americans Who Defined The Meter

By The Metric Maven

On April 13, 1668 the metric system was born. It had been devised by the English scholar, John Wilkins (1614-1672). The system was elegantly defined. One would take a length of string with a mass attached, and adjust that length until the pendulum had a period of two seconds (one second each direction). Now that you had a standard length you would divide that by ten, and use that length to make a cube, which became the liter. Fill the cube with rain water and the mass is a kilogram.

This system was to be a “Universal Measure” that everyone could use. There was just one perceived problem, the period of a pendulum depends on its latitude, so a seconds pendulum would not be universal. The alternative, measuring a distance on the surface of the earth, was however, a very questionable alternative. James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) in his A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism sums up the situation with the meter in 1873:

In…countries which have adopted the metric system, …[the base unit] is the metre. The metre is theoretically the ten millionth part of the length of a meridian of the earth measured from the pole to the equator; but practically it is the length of a standard preserved in Paris, which was constructed by Borda to correspond, when at the temperature of melting ice, with the value of the preceeding length as measured by Delambre. The metre has not been altered to correspond with new and more accurate measurements of the earth, but the arc of the meridian is estimated in terms of the original meter.

One can sense that Maxwell is satirizing the idea of a measurement unit based on the earth, and exposes the “earth based” meter as being essentially a defined artifact which is not exactly “universal.”

Maxwell had his own viewpoint of how a universal standard of length might be created:

In the present state of science the most universal standard of length which we could assume would be the wavelength in vacuum of a particular kind of light, emitted by some widely diffused substance such as sodium, which has well-defined lines in its spectrum. Such a standard would be independent of any changes in the dimensions of the earth, and should be adopted by those who expect their writings to be more permanent than that body.

Yes, it’s clear. Maxwell is not particularly keen on the current definition of the meter in 1873. Indeed light did seem to be the best option for a standard.

Charles Peirce

This is when the eccentric and abrasive American-born Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) enters the story. Robert P. Crease, author of World In The Balance states:

“He was also one of America’s most important metrologists. He made precision measurements, and improved techniques for making them. His work helped remove American metrology from under the British shadow and put American metrology on its feet.”

Charles was introduced to a spectroscope, which is a device that separates light into its constituent frequencies, by Joseph Winlock of the Harvard Observatory. Spectroscopy was allowing scientists to identify the chemical elements which make up stars. The element helium was first identified as a yellow spectrum line seen during a solar eclipse of the sun in 1868, prior to its identification on earth. I suspect they thought it would probably be a metal given the ium suffix. With the help of his father, Charles became head of the Office of Weights and Measures in 1872. Peirce traveled to Paris in 1876 and brought back brass meter standard number 49, which would be used for the calibration of American standards.

The idea of using light for a standard had been contemplated for some time, but there was a potential problem. Light is a wave, waves travel through a medium (water for water waves, air for sound waves). It was thought that light traveled through a medium, which they called aether. It was believed that the wavelength of light would be altered because of the earth’s rotation in the aether and its solar orbit. This would be like the problem of a seconds pendulum having a different period depending on its latitude. Peirce was aware of this and is quoted by Crease on page 195:

[T]here may be a variation in wave-lengths if the aether of space, through which the solar system is traveling, has different degrees of density. But as yet we are not informed of such variation.

In 1887 the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether. This caused a considerable scientific brouhaha, but the aether was not dead yet. It was too powerful of an idea. In the end, after repeated experiments failed to detect the aether, it was decided it must not exist, and light could be relied upon to be a universal standard for the definition of a meter.

One can create light which is produced by a known element by placing its gas inside of an evacuated tube. The tube can then be exited with electricity. We all know that when the gas is neon we call it a neon light, or neon tube. Peirce chose to use sodium for his tube. Peirce attempted to calibrate the distance between the  machined  lines on a diffraction grating, back to his number 49 meter standard using the sodium light. Unfortunately, the lines on the diffraction grating had imperfections that made the lines a bit fuzzy, which limited the resolution. The distance between the lines on the diffraction grating would change with temperature, further decreasing the accuracy. The accuracy of the thermometer he used to monitor the temperature also introduced error. Peirce published his results in 1879. He had tied the meter to a wavelength of light by way of the lines on the diffraction grating. He was the first to do this, but it was still not the method described by Maxwell, which involved counting wavelengths of light.

Illustration of Interferometer from Michelson and Morley’s Scientific American Paper

Albert Michelson read Peirce’s publication and realized that the interferometer he and Morley had developed to detect the ether could be used for the precise measurement of wavelengths which Peirce was pursuing with diffraction gratings. An interferometer splits a single beam of light in two and later recombines it so the two beams are out of phase. This produces a series of light and dark interference patterns. A screw is attached to a mirror that can be used to move the mirror and count the number of light and dark oscillations. Michelson and Morley published this work in 1888. The first sentence of the paper is: “The first actual attempt to make the wave length of sodium light a standard of length was made by Peirce.” The inaccuracies of his method  are described and the advantages of an interferometer are discussed.

They determined that it would take the counting of 400,000 wavelengths to obtain a decimeter (100 mm). Michelson and Morley suggest in their paper:

Probably there would be considerable difficulty in actually counting 400,000 wave lengths, but this can be avoided by first counting the wave lengths and fractions in a length of one millimeter and using this to step off a centimeter. This will give the nearest whole number of wave-lengths, and the fractions may be observed directly. The centimeter is then used in the same way to step off a decimeter, which again determines the nearest whole number, the fraction being observed directly as before.

In 1892 Michelson went to Paris to relate he and Morley’s interferometer work. Unfortunately, Michelson discovered that his sodium light did not produce a single frequency line but was actually a composite of two lines. This caused enough fuzziness to not allow for measurements which were as precise as he needed. Michelson tried both mercury and cadmium and settled on the latter.

In the 1906 book Outlines of The Evolution of Weights and Measures and The Metric System, the authors, William Hallock and Herbert Wade, state (pg 265) that Michelson used “three different kinds of light, viz. the red, green, and blue of the cadmium spectrum, he determined the wave-length of each or the number of times this wave-length was contained in the standard meter. The wave-lengths for each color were as follows:”

Hallock and Wade can hardly control their enthusiasm and excitement at this technical breakthrough:

The accuracy of this work is almost incredible, as the variation in measurements was only about one part in ten million. …..here is an absolute measurement which gives the length of a standard in terms of a natural unit, under conditions reproducible at any time. This, of course, gives a permanent check on the integrity of the meter, as in the event of the international prototype being damaged or destroyed……

It was decided by the participants that pursuing a method of tying the natural phenomenon of light to the meter was to be undertaken. Charles Fabry and Alfred Perot made improvements to Michelson and Morley’s interferometer, and were able to obtain a precision near that of their artifact standard. Improvements to the interferometer continued.

A survey of candidate elements was undertaken to find the best one to use for a new standard for the meter. This uncovered the fact that various isotopes of the elements were emitting light at different wavelengths which caused blurred lines. The search was on for elements that were heavy and had few isotopes. This work continued throughout the 20s and 30s. World War II delayed progress, but in the 1950s enough improvements had been made to schedule a re-definition of the meter in 1960. By international agreement the meter was defined in terms of the wavelength of light emitted by the krypton86 isotope. The meter was now a length available to all countries without respect to an artifact or geography.

Despite the fact that Peirce, Michelson, and Morley—all American scientists—were instrumental in achieving the dream of a universal meter available to all, America did not convert to the metric system or metric lengths. Even though the lengths used in the US: the inch, foot, yard and mile, are all defined by the meter, America rejects a system of length first defined by an Englishman, and then made universal by Americans. I find great irony that most Americans believe that German Chocolate Cake is of Germanic origin. This is not the case. It was created by Sam German—an American—in the 19th Century. It is almost as ironic as Americans refusing to adopt The French Meter.


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.

It’s a Gas, Gas, Gas

By The Metric Maven

Bulldog Edition

“Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door”

This phrase is attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson, and has been taken to indicate that people will immediately recognize the utility of a new invention, and especially in the US, adopt its use and abandon the inefficient. It’s contrapositive is also used as a rationalization that if an idea has not been adopted, then it clearly is deficient, and deserves oblivion. It is an assertion that people are not creatures of habit, who will cling to familiar methods and viscerally reject new ones.

This assertion seems to immediately breakdown by not matching the observed actions of humans. The desire to continue with the familiar over the unfamiliar is overwhelming for most people. The familiar is then taught to the next generation and mantled with words like “heritage” and “traditional” to justify continued usage in the face of a possibly better method.

Recently my friend Pierre, who has a considerable knowledge of cooking, brought me a recipe for Steak and Kidney pie. This quite surprised me as I would probably not eat that dish, even after a bet gone bad. Why on earth would he bring a recipe that he knows I would never make, and if told what the dish was, would not eat. It soon became clear the importance of the recipe was not about food, but about methods. The recipe is British, which immediately raises my culinary suspicion. It is described as “British Pub Grub.” If the recipe is not by Robert Irvine, I would almost certainly pass. Here is the recipe:

– Click to enlarge

It starts out well, calling for ingredients in grams, and milliliters, then begins to become less rigorous when it asks for a “few thyme sprigs” then degenerates into tablespoons and a “bunch of flat-leaf parsley,…” The Chef then moves on to instruct us that we should “Cut the beef into 2.5cm pieces.” Centimeters!? No wonder the British lost their empire. After coating the beef with flour we are next instructed to “Heat a wide, heavy based pan, then add a few knobs of butter…” What?! Suddenly grams are no longer of use? The Metric Maven then found himself so light-headed that procuring a paper bag to put over his head became a priority. Couldn’t the recipe be a little less precise?—I still almost have a vague idea what the quantity might be.

The beef based ingredients are then to be enclosed in “500g good-quality ready-made puff pastry.”  But we must first “Preheat the oven to 200C/Gas 6.” Gas 6?! what on earth is Gas 6? Well, Gas 6 is a “Gas Mark” which was originally called Gas Regulo Mark 6. Why? According to Wikipedia:

“Regulo” was a type of gas regulator used by a manufacturer of cookers; however, the scale has now become universal, and the word Regulo is rarely used.

Universal? Universal? I’d never heard of it until Pierre brought me this measurement train wreck of a recipe. Then I’m informed that similar “scales” exist in France and Germany? Here are the conversions (according to Wikipedia):

Gas markFahrenheitCelsiusDescriptive
14225°107°Very Slow/Very Low
12250°121°Very Slow/Very Low
1275°135°Slow/Low
2300°149°Slow/Low
3325°163°Moderately Slow/Warm
4350°177°Moderate/Medium
5375°191°Moderate/Moderately Hot
6400°204°Moderately Hot
7425°218°Hot
8450°232°Hot/Very Hot
9475°246°Very Hot

Different manufacturers and oven types do vary, so this table cannot be relied upon; instead, cooks should refer to the cooker instruction book for the oven type used, or calibrate the scale using an oven thermometer.

What is this? A next step up from the Easy-Bake Oven? The pastry is to be rolled out to the thickness of a ₤1 coin! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!–doesn’t he know what a millimeter is!  In my view Gas Marks and Knobs resonate with an actual quotation of Ralph Waldo Emerson:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

We in the US and apparently some in the UK desire “a foolish consistency” over “a rational simplicity.”

You might have noted that I said “actual quotation.” Well, the mousetrap quotation of Emerson, presented at the beginning, appeared seven years after his death. The original quotation upon which the fictional one is based is (again according to Wikipedia):

The phrase is actually a misquotation of the statement:

If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson

In my viewpoint, this actual quotation appears to praise good craftsmanship, and quality work, and is not an aphorism about technical innovation and the populace. We in the US have embraced “a foolish consistency” of weights and measures for over 150 years by not embracing the metric system, and eschewing the imperial measurement chaff.

The only way we will start to modernize the US, is to first embrace the metric system and other modern international standards. We have been waiting for the fraudulent appeal to our vanity, embodied in the false mousetrap quotation, to bring us the best for over 150 years. It’s time for America to stop playing hooky and pass metric conversion laws, with funding, and a plan to bring metric to the US, and embrace a better future for out nation.

Post Script

Assistant Professor Hong Qin of Spelman College has asked that I make my readers aware of a survey he and his students are conducting on metric, scientific literacy and attitude.  The survey is here should you be interested in taking it to provide them with more data.

Best,

MM


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.