Category Archives: Metric Reform

Never Mind The Bollocks!—Here’s The New Civil Engineer

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

Wikimedia Commons

John Bull Edition

Much of my knowledge about Civil Engineering comes from reading popularizations. One icon who is no longer with us who wrote about Engineering is L. Sprague de Camp. He penned such classics as The Ancient Engineers, and The Heroic Age of American Invention. They are both very interesting, especially the latter. There are a few others who have written books  for a general audience on the subject of Engineering over the years, but the contemporary person who is the most prolific current author is Henry Petroski. I have read enough of his books to have lost count. The book which caused me the most reflection is his book The Essential Engineer.  It is for me a hidden history of Engineering in the US which is well beyond the scope of this blog, but a fascinating read. Professor Petroski exclusively writes using Ye Olde English units. Unfortunately when I read this very praiseworthy book, I hit a number of bone jarring metric speed bumps. On page 153 of The Essential Engineer he uses Gallons/100 miles. Sigh, this type of fuel efficiency is never used in the US generally, but is expressed as Liters/100 km in enlightened countries. Metric please!

When reading the The Essential Engineer I felt Petroski gave way, way, too much credit to Thomas Edison for making Engineering a profession in the US. The actual person he left out, who deserves exclusive credit is George Westinghouse. He pioneered the use of detailed engineering drawings. Westinghouse drew steam engine parts, modeled them in wood and then machined them from metal. Unfortunately, further elaboration on the contributions of Westinghouse to the engineering profession is beyond the scope of this blog. I wrote to Professor Petroski in 2011 and went into great detail about the importance of George Westinghouse, and it was my hope that he might correct this oversight in the future. This discussion re-kindled a metric mystery about which I’ve been curious for sometime. In the early metric hearings of the 20th Century it is stated that George Westinghouse was very much pro-metric, but when another representative from his company arrived, he contradicted this assertion. This metric reminder caused me to throw this statement in at the end of the email to him:

I don’t recall you ever discussing the lack of the metric system in the US as a problem. It is a real pet-peeve of mine. It is my understanding is that in Australia bricks are 90 mm (yes mm not cm, cm are a bad idea) and the mud is 10 mm. One then knows that each brick in a wall takes up 100 mm and ten of them are a meter. If you have written about the lack of the metric system in US construction or elsewhere, please direct me to your work. I would very much like to read it.

Henry Petroski replied:

As for the metric system, I certainly agree with you on the benefits and practicality of it. Much of my reading and writing has revolved around nineteenth and early twentieth century bridge building in America and Britain, where the English system of units was dominant. This has, no doubt, given me a predilection for using those units. I understand that the rest of the world uses the metric system, and for good reason. Perhaps I should look further into why the U.S. has failed to adopt it.

His reply gave me some hope he might write on the subject. Recently I read his book To Forgive Design, which was published in 2012. Each use of Olde English Units in the book was like the sound of screeching fingernails on a chalkboard for me. In between, the book was a very interesting read, at least for an Engineer. On the few occasions when he used metric, Professor Petroski seems dismissive and apologetic for introducing metric units into a popular book about Civil Engineering:

The lifting capacity of a tower crane is specified in terms of the moment its main boom can sustain. Thus a crane with a sixty meter main boom that can lift fifty metric tons at that distance would be designated as a 3,000 tonne-meter crane. The closer the load is to the mast, the heavier it can be. Because most large cranes are made outside the United States, the metric system of measurement predominates in their specification. (Page 313)

I also learned this:

The term civil engineer had begun to be used in the late eighteenth century to refer to all engineers who were not associated with the military. In the middle of the nineteenth century, with the development of such technologies as the railroads and the telegraph, engineers in many countries increasingly distinguished themselves with classifications like mechanical, electrical, and mining engineers and, where the numbers allowed, formed their own specialized professional societies.
(page 182)

The whole body of construction by Civil Engineers in the US, by all the evidence I have, shows there is essentially zero metrication here. The writings by Professor Petroski in the publication American Scientist to this day, and his books, along with the evidence of my own eyes, produces a view that Civil Engineering is the absolute least metricated engineering discipline in the US.

In a couple discussion boards I interacted with people who claimed to be from the UK and argued about purchasing centimeter tape measures to change to metric for their construction work. Centimeters!—hah!—but to my surprise when I explained my position, the person at the other end of the cyber-exchange decided I had a point and would go with millimeters. But when I went online to look for metric only millimeter tape measures, or even dual ones in the UK—I found none. This absence caused me to make an assumption about the UK, which is that they are only marginally less belligerent about adopting metric than we are, and their building construction is done in Ye Olde English units just like ours.

This unstated assumption must have been readily observed in my writing about the US. Derek Pollard of the UKMA emailed me with a bit of bewilderment. He wondered why I always talked about Australian construction in metric, as if the UK did not. He tried to persuade me that construction in the UK was done in metric, and I was mistaken. This seemed hard to believe. After all, just like us in the US, they have miles on their road signs. Why the British are even responsible for the units that we are saddled with—three barleycorns to an inch. They must be even more stuck on them than we are?—right?—and we’re stuck on them like a postage stamp on a black hole. I had worked closely with a UK Engineer a few years back.  Using inch-pounds and other maddening units didn’t seem to bother him at all—even though it did me. He clearly must have grown up with Olde English units—although I admit, I never asked at the time. All this metric talk I heard about the UK,  well it must be as much BS as those  who claim America is a “metric country.” Indeed all of this was conjecture on my part as I’ve never been to the UK, or visited a construction site there.

Derek sent me a very short guide for metric conversion in construction from back when it happened in the UK. It looked like the sort of thing that was from the 1970s here in the US, and in the US that meant—the conversion that never happened. All we have are artifacts of the 1970s non-event to contemplate here, it seemed unconvincing. It was like a US relic from the decade that taste left behind, testifying to the lack of metrication in that period. But I had this nagging feeling of uncertainty. Was construction in the UK metric or not? The UKMA blog comments seemed to argue they were. Derek stated they were. One thing I knew was that I really didn’t know much of anything about the UK and metric use for certain. I did know that Australians sent me metric only mm tape measures, scales, and other tools. They were not relics, they were contemporary. I even purchased more online. I felt confused and ignorant of the situation in the UK, and intended to avoid writing anything concerning a situation about which I felt so ignorant and uncertain. I blissfully ignored the question.

Then, with no announcement, and with the impact of a color photocopier which had been suddenly transported into a medieval monastery, a publication appeared in my mailbox. It was from Derek. The publication is New Civil Engineer (www.nce.co.uk). Derek had highlighted in yellow numerous metric units used in the publication. I thought “well, that’s nice, but lets count up the number of Ye Olde English units and compare them with the number of metric.” I began reading, and reading, and all I found were meters, and kilometers. I began to feel a little light headed as I read an article By Alexandra Wynne called Urban Conversion: The Shape of Things to Come? Here’s where the rubber would meet the road, it’s about New York’s Highline Park, and discusses similar works in the US, and overseas, of course It would have Olde English units:

“America’s other industrial powerhouse, Chicago, is following suit. As NCE went to press, final plans for The Bloomingdale — a 4.3km long elevated linear park and trail….”

No Miles? No Yards, No feet?  No inches? No Way!—this can’t be true.

Then I ran across prose which almost induced hyperventilation. It was an article about a dam which is under construction in a seaside town called Porthcawl in South Wales. Here is the article insert which threatened my ability to retain consciousness.

T..t..t..two thousand kilonewtons!? It says kilonewtons, not pounds (force)?  I would never see that in a US publication. They were going to dredge 11,000 cubic meters of of mud from the harbor according to New Civil Engineer. Ok, no need to panic, even great publications like American Scientist seem to be dependent on the author of the article as to which units are used within. I keep looking, and then found articles that also use only Celsius temperatures and the “square footage” (not used in the publication) of buildings is given in square meters. They do use t for metric ton, but, despite the fact I really don’t like metric ton, and would use Megagram Mg instead, it’s not fundamentally using non-metric units. Then, I found a straw to grasp upon. New Civil Engineer is a publication of an engineering society, and is like IEEE Spectrum in the US, which has all metric units, whereas the greater US engineering community does not. This publication is simply an anomaly!—yeah–that’s it.

I immediately went to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) website to investigate. I pulled up an article about Seattle’s sewer system. There they were, gallons, miles, square miles, and an 84 inch pipeline. This is the same group that issues the report card on US infrastructure, which is currently a D+, and no metric is to be seen. Perhaps they have a policy on metric? I called ASCE and spoke with a representative. “No, we have no policy on metric—sorry about that.” Well, I give them an F for metrication on their SI report card.

New York Herald 1910-01-20

I know of at least one case where the ASCE didn’t feel that way. On Thursday January 20th 1910, The New York Herald had a story on page 4 with the title: Engineers Want Metric System. The sub headings read: American Society Invokes Aid of State and National Legislative Bodies | Point Out Its Merits | Declare Measurements Expressed By The English System Awkward and Inaccurate. The news story begins:

Adoption of the teaching of the metric system in public schools of the country was urged yesterday by a special committee which made its report to the annual meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers, in session at its metropolitan headquarters, at No. 220 West Fifty-seventh street.

Professor David A. Molitor, of the chair of civil engineering at Cornell University submitted the report of the committee of which Mr. Stacy B. Opdyke, of this city, is the chairman.

“I measured quantities of iron pipe of American make,” Professor Molitory said, “and found that most of it varied an eighth of an inch from the dimensions ascribed to it. For instance, a so called inch pipe is really seven-eighths of an inch in diameter. The measurements are expressed with far greater accuracy in the metric system, while much of the pipe which is listed in awkward English fractions can be much better designated by round numbers in millimetres, such as fifty or sixty or one hundred millimetres, which as a matter of fact, is the accurate measurement, while the designations, while the designations they bear now are often an eighth of an inch or more off the scale. The present standards in such work allow for a variation of two percent.”

The Baldwin Locomotive Works, of Philadelphia, in a letter to the committee told of building fifty French locomotives under the metric system without the slightest inconvenience either to its draughtsmen or the workmen.

That was in the enlightened period of 1910, and not the unenlightened US of 2013. It was now clear that the UK uses metric in construction, and there is no reason to believe that we in the US will in my lifetime.

I then have to ask myself the hard question as to why I was so ready to doubt that Civil Engineers in the UK use metric. Clearly all the evidence has becoming overwhelming, they must build everything in metric, their roads, bridges, dams—you name it. They must use millimeters. Then it hits me like a tonne of 90 mm bricks. I don’t want to believe they are metric because this makes me feel really, really isolated. It’s horrible, we’re the last country building irrationally in Ye Old English. We are just plain backward.

Then, the final blow. I noticed the unusual size of the publication. I quickly obtained my Australian mm only metric ruler. Yes, it’s 297 mm x 210 mm–A4 size paper! And the envelope in which it came—exactly fits A4. OMG, all metric. It’s all metric. It must be true, they’re metric.

We are clearly the last country which is still non-metric, with little hope for change. Misery, without any company. Sigh. Wait a minute, the Canadians!—yeah, those hosers appear to be building things with a set of Olde English units which are as messed up as are we. Whew, with their proximity to an economically powerful, screwed-up, non-metric influence like the US, it will insure we’re still not the last country building in irrational Olde English! Wait, that doesn’t make me feel better.

Postscript:

Two weekends ago my street had a block party. I met many of my neighbors and told a rather pleasant older woman that I write a blog about the metric system. For some reason she furled her brows and said “Well, the British use our system too.”  I told her that they did not. “They have miles on their roadsigns and pounds in their markets” she asserted. Like most Americans she thinks that because of the roadway signs, the British have our backs, and use old units everywhere in their society—but they don’t. Their industry is mostly metric from what I can tell. Need more proof?

A recent news story in The Star (a UK publication) entitled Imperial Past to Boost Steel Sales (2013-08-01) points out how we cost the UK money because of our belligerence. Tip o’ the hat to Peter for bringing this to my attention. This is from the story:

Tata Steel has invested £1.3 million in its Stocksbridge rolling mill to boost its North American Business

[Tata Steel] has installed seven new rolls and new laser size gauges on each of the mill’s two finishing lines, so that they can roll to imperial as well as metric sizes.

The US market remains wedded to the old imperial system, where sizes are measured in feet and inches, and has never adopted the metric system, which uses metres and millimetres.

***

In the past, all Stocksbridge’s high integrity steel bars, destined for the aerospace, energy, industrial bearing, bright bar and forging sectors, have been metric.

When it came to supplying the US, Stocksbridge would roll steel to the nearest metric size and then skim off a layer of steel on a lathe to produce the required imperial size.

All I can say is bollocks.

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.

Australian Metrication & American Procrastination

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

One day while surfing the web I ran across this rainfall graph which was produced by the Australian Government. I longingly look at the rainfall amounts in mm, and would like to see millimeters used for rain and snow in the US. As one advocate I know said: Australia is “Metric Heaven.”

When discussing the success of metrication in Australia with another metric advocate, I quickly noticed he had looked at me in earnest, and almost pleadingly said “How did they do it?” His vocal pattern seemed to indicate that Australia had somehow solved a hyper-dimensional Rubik’s Cube while locked inside a trunk falling to earth to obtain metric. Australians are an English speaking, democratic society, and were able to become metric. The US claims to be the same, but is unable to change to metric.

The story of Australia’s metrication is well told in the book For Good Measure by Jan Todd. This book was published in Australia in 2004 and is a nostalgic look back on the history of the Australian metric change-over that is now becoming a distant memory.

In the 1970s Australia decided it would convert to the metric system. Australia would choose Alan Harper (1913-1991) to shepherd the change. Here is what historian Jan Todd has to say about this man:

Alan Harper was Australia’s metric man. From research scientist at NSL to Secretary of the NSC, he would next don the mantle of metric missionary and then head a metric conversion board. His goal was to convert the nation to the sole use of metric measurements. The all-pervasive nature of measurement made it a massive task, with all the minutiae of life put under the microscope and myriad decisions required on all implements—big and small, monumental and mundane—from the tiniest screw to the largest tanker. For that reason it had been avoided for decades by Britain, and therefore by Australia

Those in the know agreed that Alan Harper made it happen. His major opponents were tradition, comfort and apathy, as well as a little fear.

On May 29, 1968 an Australian Senate Committee concluded to unanimously to adopt the metric system exclusively as soon as possible. The majority of Australia’s trade was with metric countries. It was a clear, practical, economic decision.

Then government inertia took hold, there was uncertainty as to what department of government would take charge, which lead to political paralysis. The Metric Conversion Act was finally accepted and a Metric Conversion Board was assigned the task. Alan Harper was the obvious choice to head it. He was a rare combination of brilliant physicist and administrator, who had a passion to bring the metric system to his country.

Harper realized that in countries where the metric system was implemented quickly and decisively by the government, conversion had gone well. In countries which allowed the process to shepherd itself (such as in Britain) momentum was lost.

The process was to be voluntary, but pressure would be applied using strong legislative initiatives, and there would be significant penalties for non-compliance. Harper also saw that metrication should take place over as broad a spectrum of society and industry as possible all at once. This would immediately create a metric environment for as many citizens as possible, with no islands of imperial ecosystems to hinder the transition.

Communication with the public was of paramount importance in order to enlist them, and make Australians understand the changes. Perhaps the most important aspect of metric conversion was to use it as an opportunity for commerce to reexamine current industrial practices, and to streamline, simplify, and rationalize industries and practices. The Metric Board would act to shepherd and facilitate to this end, not to dictate details.

Alan Harper had a very effective partner in this undertaking, one John Norgard. He had the industry contacts which would smooth out, and help coordinate the metric conversion. The two complemented each other like salt and pepper. Norgard approached the heads of all the countries newspapers and asked them not to take an editorial stand against metric. Only once was this promise violated.

The Metric Board enlisted an army of specialists in multiple fields to help with this broad transition. They would act as liaisons on behalf of the nation in the coming transition. Despite some wavering by the Government during the decade, the transition remained firm

Weather reporters started to convert in 1972, and were finished two years later. Dozens of industries followed suit. Strangely, the conversion of women’s bras and biscuits (crackers) proved to be stumbling points. The number of fasteners used by a Ford plant, were reduced by a factor of four after metric conversion. The implementation of metric threads reduced the hodgepodge of bolts by 88% and nuts by 72% “In just one item, an inventory of 10,000 fasteners before metrication was cut to only 2500.”  According to Todd:

Greater uniformity in state legislation was making life easier in certain areas, especially in roads and building regulations. And rationalizations had been possible in many industries. The change to metric threads cut the variety of bolts from 763 to 93 (88 percent), nuts from 1368 to 387 (72 percent) and machine screws from 1248 to 300 (76 percent). BHP’s rationalization of rolled steel sections almost halved its range, while its flat sections were reduced from around 500 imperial lines to 160 metric ones.

The public demonstrated considerable anxiety concerning the single day changeover of all road signs and traffic rules. This was to take place on July 1, 1974. There were terrifying warnings of mayhem that would take place. In a non-event reminiscent of the Y2K bug, the ocean remained blue, and the cars on the freeways traveled as easily as they always had. When voluntary conversion time tables were violated, legal actions were taken to enforce the changes. The most important mandate was no use of dual units, they were not allowed.  Pat Naughtin, an expert on metric usage and conversion states simply “Don’t dual with dual!”  Direct metrication takes about a year, allowing dual units can inhibit conversion for decades.

The best path to direct metrication is the use of millimeters. Centimeters should not be used or encouraged in any way. No industry has converted with centimeters. The Australian metric conversion was nearly 75% complete by 1976, and by 1980 the committees had essentially finished their tasks.

As Jan Todd summed it up:

Australia’s conversion process had shown how a centralized, coordinated national program of measurement change could work. With strong government commitment, full legislative backing and a national body dedicated to developing policy and leading implementation, even a federation of six unruly states could be brought into uniform order.

 Meanwhile in the United States of 1975

Metric hearings were underway in October of 1975. Person after person appeared and testified that a voluntary metrication with no real government involvement and without penalties would work effectively. The hearings took notice that Australia’s metrication was successful. Their assessment was that Australia is “Currently moving rapidly toward a strongly metric environment—more quickly and easily than expected.” (pg. 59)

To my amazement The American Bar Association seemed to understand the importance of the Australian experience:

The reason why the Australian Post Office is converting its internal operations is to avoid becoming a customary island in a metric ocean with all the permanent training and recruiting problems which would be incident to that status.

Sports were selected as pacesetters because it was recognized that their early conversion would be a most effective way to generate public familiarity with metric usage  on a widespread basis.

So that the U.S. Metric Board may have a pole star to guide it rather than to be left to fend for itself without adequate congressional direction…[we recommend these changes to the law]

Yes, sports were converted, and considered a vanguard to pave the way for metrication in Australia. The American Bar Association (ABA) realized that the American metric legislation of 1975  made “no change to existing law.” They suggested stronger wording be introduced into the bill.

Esther Peterson of Giant Food also understood the importance of following and learning from the Australian example:

The Australians have given us a fine example of a smooth transition to metric which involved the public all the way. The primary aim of The Australian Metric Conversion Board was to overcome public apprehension. Dual labeling and conversion exercises were avoided for a “think metric” approach. The consumer was saturated with metric information. Special target dates were set for each sector—speed and road signs, temperature, clothing, et cetera—so the consumer knew what to expect and when. The board published booklets, distributed posters, showed films, gave speeches, and utilized the media. There were very few cases of unfair practice in the marketplace, because no-one dared to cheat the consumer with a metric-sensitive press watching every move.

The success of the Australian metric program was also enhanced by a strong initial and sustained support by the Australian Government. We need that same kind of support from all branches of our own Government. Many agencies have already begun to prepare for metric. All need to move ahead.

The most important point here is that the Australian legislation utilized a metric conversion board which kept their public informed right from the beginning. Today, a little over 5 years after legislation was passed in Australia, the conversion process is almost completed.

Esther argued that “guidance in the form of Federal Legislation is needed, We need a uniform approach in order to implement a smooth and total conversion in all areas…..where standards are set and followed, target dates are met, and uniformity in practice exists.”  Her wise words would fall on deaf ears and the vacuous metric legislation would not be strengthened.

The Australian notion of a “voluntary” metrication appears to have been lost on Dr. Ernest Ambler who was Acting Director of the National Bureau of Standards:

They have taken great pains to emphasize education. Not only education with regard to the technical details of the metric system, but also with regard to the public information aspect of the conversion. They have taken great pains to tell the public what is happening, when it is happening, and why it is happening.

So the public information aspects have been an important factor.

I would say that these are the main features of the Australian experience and plan that we might well emulate. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Inouye. Was it mandatory or voluntary?

Dr. Ambler. It was voluntary, certainly, Mr. Chairman; voluntary, but well coordinated and managed.

He seems to believe that all of the metrication in Australia just happened, and the government just stood back and offered some advice as the country changed. Everyone could just do what they wanted to become metric. The current NIST director has an even more lax attitude toward metrication.

Detractors appeared to attack the credibility of Australia’s metric conversion methodology. Donald Peyton of the American  National Standards Institute (ANSI) had this to say:

Senator Ford. Thank you Mr. Peyton

I asked Representative McCauley and Professor Johnson what kind of timetable would be desirable—the minimum and maximum. Do you have a recommendation as to what target dates and number of years we should plan for completion?

Mr. Peyton. Well, frankly, Senator, having worked in the field where you have to get a reasonable consensus to be effective, we have concluded that mandated time spans long or short, really are counter-productive. I’ll tell you why. In the United States, you have an entirely unique situation. People have been talking about Australia, comparing a nation of 13 million people to one of our size, and the concentration of industries is like comparing a high school football team with the Green Bay Packers. With all the things you have to coordinate and all the different facets, we really believe that the flexible approach of H.R. 8674 without mandated times is preferable, the major reason being if you give some people 10 years, they are going to take 10 years, but there are other segments that are going to be ready to go and they shouldn’t be held up.

Well Mr Peyton, it appears that your fictitious High School team won the Superbowl and the Green Bay Packers have yet to win a single game when it comes to your metric simile. Your statement is 37 years old now, and just as incorrect and naive.

Alan Harper did not appear at the 1975 Metric Hearings. But after the verbal  testimony there is a long written section entitled: “Additional Articles, Letters and Statements.”  Nine pages in (pg 177-178) we find:

Congress of the United States,
          House of Representatives,
          Washington, D.C., October 7, 1975.
Hon. Warren G. Magnuson,
Chairman, Semite Committee on Commerce,
Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that your committee will be having hearings on metric conversion legislation on October 8 and 10.

The enclosed correspondence from Mr. Alan Harper, Executive Member of the Australian Metric Conversion Board, points out the difficulty in considering a voluntary conversion plan.

If possible, I would like to have Mr. Harper’s letter inserted in the hearing record for consideration by members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Thanks very much.
Sincerely,

          Donald M. Fraser.

Enclosure.

          •        •        •

          Metric Conversion Board,
          St. Leonards,N.S.W. 2065, September 23, 1975.
Congressman Donald M. Fraser,
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman: Thank you very much indeed for sending me the pages of the Congressional Record containing your statement and the report of the debate on the Metric Conversion Act, H.R. 8674.

I was, of course, aware of the passage of the Bill in Congress and of the very gratifying voting figures but it was not until I read the Record that I realized just how strongly the Bill was supported on the floor of the House and that there was no spoken opposition to it.

Initially the event did not receive in our Australian papers the publicity it deserved (a brief announcement is attached) so I endeavored to rectify this with comments for the press, a copy of which is also enclosed. This was taken up in some of our major newspapers.

The treatment given by the papers to this decision in the House of Representatives was in marked contrast to “Metric Bill Rejected” headlines used by the papers when the previous Bill was defeated. I think this is symptomatic of the general metric climate in Australia now, that it would be big news if USA decided not to go metric but merely a normal development, not worthy of headlines, that a Metric Bill has been supported.

Nevertheless, we can make very good use of the presumptive passage of the Bill, of the strong vote in favour of it, of the many “quotable quotes” in the text of the report of the speeches and of the fact that there were no speeches opposing it with those who still refuse to acknowledge that USA is well and truly on the metric path. Our small but vocal “Australian Anti-Metric Association” has lost another handful of feathers from its plumage and must be finding it increasingly difficult to remain airborne.

Our operation is still proceeding very well. I hope to send you our 1974/75 Annual Report shortly which summarizes the position not only for the past year but to some extent for the five years since the Metric Conversion Board was appointed. In most of the technical areas conversion is either complete or headed for completion. More intractable are the sectors involving the public in the use of metric units in affairs calling for some decision-making—even if only as minor as deciding whether to buy one or two kilograms of sausages. While one can go a long way in these sectors with a wholly voluntary conversion, we have come to the same conclusion as South Africa, United Kingdom and Singapore that in such activities some degree of control of trading practices is necessary if a prolonged period of consumer confusion and trader disadvantage is to be avoided.

It is, of course, not possible to mount a wholly voluntary metric change in the sense that every individual has a free choice. Consider the conversion of statutory speed limits and other changes calling for embodiment in legislation. “Voluntary” in this context has to be taken to mean that the choice of a program and plan for conversion in a sector is made voluntarily by national leaders in that sector but thereafter it is supported by all the pressures that can be marshalled, through procurement, legislation, appropriate amendment of technical standards, adherence to the program by government and large organizations and so on.

Unless your Metric Board can enlist such support for the programs developed voluntarily, the agreement accorded many of these programs may in the event prove too fragile to ensure their implementation and aspects of your metric operation which provide their own incentives will get out of kilter with those needing some additional stimulus for their accomplishment.

By accident of history Australia is currently several years ahead of USA in metric conversion so I believe we can offer useful experience in situations in which there may be some parallel between the circumstances in our two countries. Please be assured we will be keen to make this experience as fully available as possible. I think the North American-Australian Metric Conference held here last April, in which you were unfortunately unable to participate, was a good indication of what we have to offer.

With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
          A. F. A. Harper,
          Executive Member.

Alan Harper seemed to understand that US metrication authorities like Ernest Ambler of NBS interpreted voluntary to mean “to just do your own thing” in this epistle. Clearly Harper realized that the US had produced legislation that was a 10 kilogram turkey. Alan Harper clearly states that by voluntary, he meant it will be voluntary for industries to decide how they want to become metric. It is mandatory that they become metric, that is not voluntary as persons in the US misrepresented.

To mirror what had been done in the US, with that of Australia would be this:

  1. Pass legislation invoking Section 8  Article 5 of the US Constitution and make metric the exclusive measurement system of the US.  Because it is Federal law, it would supersede any local State and County laws.  The existing weights and measures infrastructure, which is tasked with enforcing and regulating weights and measures, would now switch to metric.  The laws which currently enforce the use of Olde English would now be brought to bear to enforce metric. In 1975 The American Bar Association argued that legislation was not required and this could be directly ordered by the President who could create a “Measurement Czar.”
  2. The change to metric would not be optional because existing agencies would now enforce metric as the exclusive system as they had USC, but the way in which metric would be accomplished would be “voluntary,”  meaning the government would not impose methods on the industries of the US. They could all decide for themselves how they would comply with the law.  A metric board would be set up based on that created in Australia and usher along the changes and attempt to smooth the changes along.  The board would break all of the US economy up into categories like those created by Australia and then appoint committees as they had done.  They would negotiate M-Days as the Australians did for different industries and hold them to compliance. Metrication in Australia: A Review of the Effectiveness of Policies and Procedures in Australia’s Conversion to the Metric System by Kevin Wilks (1992) would be an invaluable initial guide to help US industry convert. A downloadable copy is available under the metrication resources tab.

In April 1979 Mr. Harper was asked in person by a US Metric Board member if Australia could have accomplished what it did, had it been working under metric legislation similar to the U.S. Metric Conversion Act of 1975

“No” was his emphatic single word answer.

Alan Harper was right about metrication in Australia and in the United States. Thirty two years after Australia completed their metric conversion, the US has not even begun to untangle itself, if it ever does, and the Green Bay Packers still use yards. In Australia their signs are in metric:

Parking Ramp Clearance Sign in Australia — Photo by Mike Joy

Related Essays:

How Did We Get Here?

John F. Shafroth: The Forgotten Metric Reformer

Testimony from the 1921 Metric Hearings

The Metric Hearings of 1975 — The Limits of Social Norm in Metrication

A Tale of Two Iowans

John Quincy Adams and The Metric System

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.