The Metric Populist Revolt That Didn’t Happen

By The Metric Maven

Bulldog Edition

On February 12, 2012 CBS News Sunday Morning discussed, in their Almanac segment, the appearance of the first metric road signs in the US, which had occurred thirty years earlier. Charles Osgood states: “Americans content with measuring the old way, were opposed to a conversion, dia-metrically  opposed, you might say.” Then a video clip from the 1970s is shown to validate the assertion. An antagonized man professes: “It’s too damn confusing for a person brought up on the English system.” The formation and later dissolution of the US Metric board is related to the viewer. It is also authoritatively proclaimed that the metric system is based on ten.

The anti-metric Wall Street Journal’s “Numbers Guy” Declared in his blog on March 9, 2012:

Americans foiled 1970s-era predictions of a national shift to metric, the collection of
units such as kilograms and meters designed to be easily computed and scaled by factors of 10.

Reading and listening to American Journalists talk about the metric system demonstrates one certainty, they have never used what they are talking about, and have no working knowledge of metric. They sound as knowledgeable an average American citizen lecturing an Englishman about cricket. The everyday metric units generally used are separated by a factor of 1000, not ten. In everyday life you will almost never encounter anything more than millimeters, meters and kilometers. No, no centimeters—don’t get me started, that’s another blog.

The other notion which has become a proverbial American myth, is that there was a “Metric Populist Revolt” in the 1970s. In order for a populist revolt to occur, one assumes there was mandatory metric legislation, a plan with funding, and the entire society was then compelled to use metric. As this metric mandate was implemented in the 1970s, public spirited citizens gathered with their torches and pitchforks, and fought back the metric invader. Democracy was restored to the Republic and we now live in a metric-free land.

There is just one problem with this narrative, it’s completely fictitious. It’s the sort of narrative Joe Isuzu might have employed. In the 1970s, all of the metric legislation was entirely voluntary. The 1970s legislation had all the impact of a symbolic declaration it was National Macaroni and Cheese day. Without a mandate for change, or availability of metric tools and products, human inertia resists any deviation from our eleventh century Anglo-Saxon barleycorn definitions of weights and measures. We defined a pound as the weight of 7000 barleycorns, and an inch as three barleycorns in a row. Our plastic rulers have fractions instead of decimals and so on. It was all very high tech in the sixteenth century.

There was a US metric board created in the 1970s that had no official power to compel metric usage in the US. But the board’s very existence was deemed unacceptable to a pair of bi-partisan Washington political insiders, and it was disbanded during the Reagan Administration.

Since I first encountered the metric system in my youth, I liked it, and wanted it to become the standard in the United States. Many years passed, and when I found a renewed personal interest in metrication, I wanted to know what happened, or more correctly, why metric didn’t happen. It has been very hard to find out. The complete story is still obscure and difficult to research. This much I do know:

George Washington in his inaugural address asserted that uniform weights and measures were of paramount importance to the United States and would be addressed as quickly as possible. Washington’s aides, and congress let him down through inaction. Bills were offered, tabled, ignored, and met with the indifference. The weights and measures of the US became unwelcome orphans in political discourse.

John Quincy Adams famously examined the US weights and measures question, and like his predecessors deferred the question indefinitely.

Finally, because new imperial replacement standards sent to us by the UK were so flawed we could not use them, Thomas Mendehall had to make a decision the US congress has refused to do for well over a century now. The only standards that were technically acceptable for use, were those provided when the US signed The Treaty of the Meter. In 1878,  The Mendenhall Order of April 5, 1893, became the de facto, un-legislated law which defined all the imperial units in terms of metric ones. John F. Shafroth, of Colorado, began introducing metric system legislation into the House of Representatives around 1895. His bill would have made the metric system the mandatory system of weights and measures for the US. The legislation was not passed, despite a number of attempts. Shafroth continued to urge metric legislation until his death in 1922.

I have thus far found very little history from 1922 until the metric study act of 1968. In 1975 the completely voluntary Metric Conversion Act was signed. There was no plan, no funding, and no vision. Apparently the metric system was expected to organically spring forth, without any effort required. The Metric Conversion Act was amended in 1988 and only punctuated the fact that metric adoption was voluntary—just in case the 1975 Act didn’t make this clear enough. The year 1988 appears to be where the trail goes cold again. Almost no metric legislation appears after that date. One wonders if perhaps the US should apply to the Guinness Book of World Records for a procrastination world record. It’s been 236 years after George Washington’s address on the subject of standardizing weights and measures. After this long without inaction It seems we should be in the running for some kind of record.

While ninety five percent of the worlds population converted to metric long ago, The United States only offered non-binding, vacuous legislation. It is easy to have a successful revolt against non-existent, feckless metric system legislation. You can do it from your living room while asleep in an easy chair. The absence of public leadership by congress and the executive branch, means we all now pay an invisible “Imperial System” tax, of around $16.00 per day per person. Because US citizens don’t realize the costs of the current non-system, it neuters public objection, and encourages the status quo. The most successful parasite, is one who’s existence is not perceived by its host. Taxation without metrication is tyranny!

The myth of the metric populist revolt, is used by people who didn’t even want to try changing over to metric, to explain why there is no use bothering to try now. We tried mightily! they assert, there was a metric revolt! It was horrible!, the nation was torn apart, we can’t even talk about it again! Democracy prevailed. We the people decided, and we are not doing it! This pernicious myth continues to reverberate in our newspapers, magazines, television and blogs. It short circuits discussion, and provides a convenient and illegitimate cover for why we are different, and can never become metric, like the rest of the world did long ago. Other countries of the world reap the financial and intellectual benefits of metrication. We just keep adding the collective cost to our tab–no worries–it will never come due—and so far we haven’t been forced to sober up—and face our metric hangover.. Will we ever?


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.

Don’t Get Engaged with Gauge

By The Metric Maven

Bulldog Edition

One day many years ago I had a strange experience with a word. It lost its meaning. I could pronounce it, and think about it, but the word had become temporarily disconnected from its assigned meaning. The sensation was one of disengagement with a description of  my world. Thankfully I experienced this for only a short period of time. Recently I discovered this phenomenon  has a name: semantic satiation. Here is a definition:

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who can only process the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

Semantic satiation describes a situation where a word has a meaning but it is temporarily lost. I have also experienced the loss in meaning of a word that is not just used in a repetitious manner, but is also assigned a multitude of meaningless meanings. This word also has at least 14 definitions. This mercurial word is gauge.

We have 12 gauge shot guns, wire gauge, railroad gauge, drill bit gauge, stubs iron wire gauge, sheet metal gauge, film gauge, loading gauge, structure gauge, and who knows how many dimension gauges of which I’ve never heard.

But gauge can also refer to a measuring or comparison device such as an air gauge, rain gauge, gauge blocks, water gauge, needle gauge, and many more.

The idea of gauge is batted about by Engineers and technical people with certainty—as if there should be an immediate comprehension. Yet, if you examine gauge as a dimension standard, you will immediately realize this is an oxymoron. Gauge is a dimensionless number. Gauge seems to be the measurement equivalent of the throw away phrase “Ya know what I’m sayin’?”

For instance, let’s suppose I want to drill some holes into a printed circuit board for a solid bare wire to pass through. I want the wire to have a hole that is as close to its diameter as possible. If I had a metric wire with a diameter of 1 mm, I could go to my drill index and select a 1 mm drill bit. It would then be easy to drill a hole as close as possible to fit the 1mm wire. Metric wire sizes correlate with metric drill bit sizes. It’s so easy even a caveman could do it.

There is only one problem with this simple solution, I live in the United States and thus far I’ve found no distributor of metric wire. I must rely on American Wire Gauge for wire sizing. I must go to a wire gauge table and find the American Wire Gauge number is 18 (AWG 18), for wire which has a 0.0403″ diameter (1.024 mm). The wire gauge numbers go from 0000 (0.4600″) to 40 (0.00314″) with larger gauge numbers proportional to smaller sizes.

Now I need to find a drill bit with a 0.0403″ diameter. The gauge sizes for drill bits are from 1 to 80 and A to Z. I locate Drill bit gauge 59 which is 0.041″ (1.041 mm). This is close to 1 mm and probably acceptable, but the wire gauge number is 18 and the drill bit gauge number is 59. There is no correlation. Don’t ask 18 what?, or 59 what?, they are just dimensionless integers, chosen by our infallible Anglo-Saxon ancestors–who used three barleycorn in a row to define an inch—and used the weight of 7000 barleycorns for a pound.

Why does the drill bit gauge designations change from numbers to letters?—I have no idea. This complete lack of correlation between gauge sizes of wire, and drill bits, illustrates that gauge is a meaningless dimension designator. Gauge simply stands between you and a useful, accepted, accurate, and understood dimension—like millimeters.

I find myself astonished that there is considerable resistance to metric system adoption, even when I point this irrationality in gauge designation out to machinists. It begins to look like they want a set of mystic runes to read, so their profession remains esoteric, and difficult to understand by outsiders. Why have a system this confusing?—when there is one—the metric system—which is ready to go. If you have 0.7 mm wire and a drill set with a 0.7 mm bit, what’s to dislike? No look-up tables, no strangely odd numbers and letters, just drill the hole.

How about American Standard Sheet Metal Gauge?  Let’s take 19 gauge sheet metal, how close to a millimeter thick is that?  Well it depends on the material:

Gauge       Steel               Stainless Steel           Aluminum                  Zinc

19     0.0418″ (1.06 mm)     0.044″ (1.1 mm)     0.036″ (0.91 mm)     0.060″ (1.5 mm)

So what does gauge number mean if the dimensions are all significantly different! It doesn’t seem to represent a constant dimension.  Why on earth can’t we just shoot for say 1 mm +/- a tolerance?—and have numbers with units attached? Or, if there is a manufacturing reason for the differences, just use millimeters. The larger the gauge numbers for sheet metal, the smaller the thickness. If we want the closest 1 mm drill bit, it’s 59 gauge. The closest 1 mm wire is 18 gauge.  The closest 1 mm sheet of metal is 19 gauge. We won’t even go into Stubs Iron Wire Gauge, and tubing gauge. There is no rational correlation between gauge number and physical dimensions.

A 12 gauge shotgun has a barrel diameter in which twelve balls of lead, of the same diameter as the barrel, are equal to one pound. It takes twenty lead balls of the same diameter as the 20 gauge shotgun barrel to equal a pound. What if you obtain a .410 shotgun?–well that’s in caliber.  I would argue that 9 mm is more descriptive than 12 gauge, 20 gauge or .410, even to Americans.

The use of gauge, as a  size description in America,  is a perfect illustration of the completely irrational dimensional arrangement of our building construction materials. They are the materials that drive our physical economy.  This causes confusion and waste, for no reason. Our system is long past being ripe for reform—it’s rotting. I don’t understand why the American public, and the technical community, doesn’t demand mandatory conversion to the metric system. I just can’t gauge why.

Related essay:

Without Metric Threads We’re Screwed


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.