Category Archives: Metric Reform

The Metric Philosophers

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

One Year Anniversary

This is the one year anniversary of The Metric Maven blog. One year ago on π day (2012-03-14) I published my first blog post. At about the same time, I contacted several prominent engineers, scientists and a celebrity chef, hoping for endorsement, or at least comment, on my proposal for a revival of the original Shafroth Bill  for the mandatory metrication of the US. I was looking for people who were well known as effective communicators in science and related fields, and who might have been expected to be sympathetic to metrication, or had made metric-favorable comments in their public venues. These included astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, fellow engineer Bill Nye, and proponent of science in cooking, Alton Brown of Good Eats, and others. I sent requests by e-mail and by USPS.

Now, I was not expecting a 100% response. In fact, I would have been astounded. But the actual response was just as astonishing: deafening silence. Perhaps it was a fool’s errand, but I wanted to try the experiment anyway.

One thing I believe I’ve learned over this year, is there seems to be three vertices to an impossible triangle of US metrication. At one vertex are anti-metric people,  at the second vertex are people who insist they are pro-metric, but never want a law, or compulsory plan, or public funding, or penalties for not using metric, or intervention of any kind. The third vertex consists of those, who, like myself, want metric legislation to press the issue, institute a quick metric changeover, and finally bring the  US into the modern era.

The anti-metric people probably will not change their minds about the issue unless something catastrophic occurs to them personally. Something like a misdosage of medicine is given to a loved one, or themselves, because of the lack of US metrication. Perhaps not even then.

The people who state they are pro-metric but are unwilling to see any legislation mandating metric, despite the clear mandate found in the US Constitution to do so, are the most curious to me. They cite “philosophical reasons” for their resistance to legislation. Every time I hear this from one of these “pro-metric” personages, I can only think of a scene from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Two philosophers show up to stop a computer named Deep Thought from computing the answer to Life The Universe and Everything. Here is the exchange:

“We’ll go on strike!” yelled Vroomfondel.

“That’s right!” agreed Majikthise. “You’ll have a national Philosopher’s strike on your hands!”

As Deep Thought wryly observes:  “Who would that inconvenience?”

These pro-metric “philosophical allies” seem to believe that history does not apply to the enlightened culture in which we live. We apparently have no need for laws against child labor, driving on the wrong side of the road, selling contaminated food, perhaps even murder? Philosophy will eventually vanquish it all. They might object that there is a line, and I’ve crossed it by indicating they would be for repealing laws against murder. I’ve had enough philosophy to identify a (slippery slope) continuum fallacy. How about we move that imaginary philosophical line so that mandatory metric legislation is included in what may be done, somewhere just before murder?

Being of a more empirical and practical bent myself, I see that we’ve had over 150 years of no laws, and also no metrication. That, as Vroomfondel the philosopher argued, “is a solid fact!” So, the plan from these metric advocates is that we continue without a plan and wait
for philosophy  to metricate the US. Could I humbly suggest, that perhaps after 150 years we should try something else? All other countries use metric, with the minor exception of the tiny two, Liberia and Myanmar, and have since the 1970s—you know, back in the 20th century.

The pro-metric philosophers however claim to have a plan, a plan they are sure will work. In their view it’s clearly a problem of product labeling. If we would just allow metric-only product labeling, then suddenly metric only labeled products would flood in from countries all over, business and commerce would suddenly move to all metric. So the problem is we have not “allowed” metric-only labeling in the US? This is asserted even as the same philosophers point out that we already have laws stating that metric is the “preferred” US measurement system. How could I think that we would need anything else beyond a statement to achieve metrication? Perhaps a nice letter, or thinking happy thoughts would be the catalyst that would finally bring metric to the US. When I hear these assertions, how can I not but think of the eloquent philosophers Vroomfondel and Majikthise?

So, how strictly is the US requirement of imperial units along with our “preferred” measurement system enforced? Well, in terms of enforcement, I think it’s probably somewhere just below jaywalking, but possibly above disposing of chewing gum on a public sidewalk.

These days I find more and more metric only labeling on store shelves. For instance, at a local meat market, I purchased French butter, which has proven very good for making cookies. Below is a photo of the dangerous contraband!

The butter lists only grams! and has graduations on the back in 25 gram increments! Worse yet!  It’s all in French! Indeed I had to ask the proprietors if it was butter to be certain. They looked at me as if I was daft and said: “It’s in the butter section, right? Yes, it’s butter.” As most unsalted butter is foil wrapped I could also assume that. Later I spied a sign in the window of my local convenience store advertising one liter bottles of soda, period, no imperial value listed! I observed convenience store non-imperial scofflaws again, during a recent road trip, where 0.5 liter bottled water was advertised on another convenience store window sign. This of course does not violate packaging laws, but does show no one really notices.

I’m then confronted with “Well, see, it’s working, we are right, you’ve made our point.”  Really?

In response to the conjecture by The Metric Philosophers, who believe that passing a law allowing metric only labeling, would bring about metrication in the US, I point out that the requirement for imperial labeling is ineffective, and not enforced. It has probably not been enforced the past, so passing legislation allowing metric only labeling is moot. That I find metric-only examples is seized upon by The Metric Philosophers, as proof metric is springing up all around us and they were right all along! Yet, I see no metrication occurring, and unfortunately observe numerous cases of metric backsliding. Perhaps it would be best if this  group of Metric Philosophers did go on strike.

There is an interesting twist to this “labeling issue”—Australia’s experience. You know, the English speaking country that did change to metric. The country which was poo-pooed in the 1975 US metric hearings. They might have some insight to offer. In his monograph Metrication in Australia, Kevin Wilks offers this assessment:

In hindsight, the early conversion of quantity statements on packaged goods and changes in package sizes had little impact on public education due largely to the universal existence of the supermarket method of marketing, in which packages were selected by the customer by visual size rather than by quantity name in either imperial or metric.

The supermarket proved to be one of the least effective educational tools. A longtime friend, who a couple of years back listened to a few of my conversations about metric, confessed to me not long ago: “I never really looked at the quantity labels in the supermarket until after you talked about them.”  I doubt she still looks at the labels to decide what size she will purchase. Metric Philosophers who believe that allowing metric only labeling will produce a philosophical tsunami which would directly lead the US to metric conversion, should consider looking into the actual experience of other countries before they make such a pronouncement. In the days before supermarkets, when people purchased commodities in bulk quantities, which were only meted out by someone like Sam Drucker,  going to the grocery store might have been more effective and instructive—because there was no pre-packaging..

I would like to believe that the “pro-metric,” anti-legislation cohort of Metric Philosophers is small, but that does not seem to be the case. It appears that pro-metric pro-legislation, pro-funding, pro-active, pro-plan persons like myself are a metrication minority. Like the impossible triangle shown above, none of the three vertices connect, at least not in this world. In my viewpoint, the pro-metric anti-legislation Metric Philosophers are more effective anti-metric apostles than are the passive anti-metric people. These Metric Philosophers seem willing to wait forever, generation after generation for their philosophy to bring metrication to the US. I myself, would like to see it happen during what’s left of my lifetime. In the end, it could be laws that bring metrication to the US, but they might be laws which are penned by the rest of the world, which finally force the issue. This possibility might be smaller than just waiting. Still, I’m sure the metric Vroomfondles and Majikthise in the US would still insist their philosophy would have worked—eventually.

Most of all what I learned during this year, is that there is probably no rational hope that this country will change to metric, perhaps for generations. Mother Jones magazine had an article in January of 1999 called Waits and Measures which invited its readers to “Meet the least powerful men in Washington.” The author was of course speaking of metric advocates. We are identified as the least powerful political lobby. If it’s possible, it appears we have become even less relevant over the last 13 years. The article profiles Jim McCraken who at that time ran the United States Metric Program. Today it appears that this position is held by Elizabeth Gentry. She won an award for her metrication work. The press release states:

• Elizabeth Gentry, NIST, Department of Commerce
Ms. Gentry was selected in recognition of her exceptional leadership as metric program coordinator with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. Ms. Gentry serves as the nation’s focal point for voluntary conversion to the metric system. She led an effort to persuade states to amend their laws and regulations to permit manufacturers and retailers to voluntarily use metric units on their packaging. At the same time she worked to ensure the laws of other countries to continue allowing current U.S. labeling while the transition occurs.

Indeed, metric in the US is voluntary, voluntary, voluntary. But, what measurement “system” must be ensured and preserved by our government? And backed by the same compulsive laws The Metric Philosophers claim to abhor? Why the farrago of imaginary units used in the US of course—certainly not metric. The Metric Philosophers never seem to object to these laws. Apparently this disused rusting junkyard of units is so important, and sacred, that all other countries must keep living with our Imperial/USC/ACSOWM/IS packaging—forever. Oh, I’m sorry—I mean during the “transition.” This would be the same open ended transition period approved by The Metric Philosophers, during which metrication will be achieved by the vigorous action of Philosophy. Metrication must not be held to any definite time constraint. I guess Tinkerbell would die otherwise. Ms. Gentry’s big metrication accomplishment, for which she received an award, is to try to allow metric only usage on packaging?—I think I’ve made myself clear on the potential effectiveness of that tactic.

I also learned this year that in every era, from John Kasson in the 19th Century until today, the US has such pressing problems, which are so important, that metric should never think itself worthy enough to be on the national agenda–ever! We just can’t fit it in. It’s not a serious issue Very Serious People contend. Congress has more important work to do investigating the use of steroids in sports, and re-naming public buildings.

I’ve written 40 essays, including this one, over the last year. You can imagine my embarrassment at not realizing that I should never have bothered. I should have just waited for The Metric Philosophers to make it all happen, with their efficient and effective inaction and reliance on the certainty of philosophy. I should have just waited at home until Home Depot, Lowes, ACE and TrueValue Hardware stores, suddenly sold millimeter metric only rulers and tape measures, in response to the intense philosophical pressure the Metric Philosopher’s ideas will certainly exert.

Laws, planning, organization and funding have not been tried in the US, but were instituted in Australia, and there, they did make a difference. These policies brought metric to Australia. All they did was alter their existing laws which required the use of imperial to now require metric. Different industries could decide how they would implement metric, but not whether they would. Perhaps we should give it a try here in the US. Perhaps we should adopt a new philosophy?

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.

Building a Metric Shed

Posted on by

By The Metric Maven

One evening over the phone, my friend Lapin told me that he spent the weekend with another Engineer, Mr. Landi, building a shed. Mr. Landi suggested they build it using metric so it would be more accurate. Apparently this exercise in construction went down hill immediately.  “We made all kinds of mistakes cutting lengths.” Lapin said exasperated. I then asked a question which took Lapin by surprise:

“Did you build it using centimeters or millimeters?”

“It makes a difference?” Lapin inquired with incredulity.

“Yes, you’re prone to make numerous errors when you use centimeters. Millimeters eliminate a major source of those errors, by eliminating the decimal point.”

I explained that in Australia, nothing but millimeters are used for their building construction. The numbers are all simple integers, and no addition or subtraction with decimal points are needed. The least numerate of the workers can use a calculator to add and subtract integers with ease and accuracy. It’s saved Australia about 10-15% on the cost of construction since their metric conversion in the 1970s, when compared with imperial.

It was hard to fault Lapin or Mr. Landi for not using millimeters. In the US, obtaining a decent metric tape measure, or other construction tools in millimeters, is almost impossible, because of The Invisible Metric Embargo.

The formal recommendations for metric construction in the United States is in the Metric Design Guide (PBS-PQ260) September 1995. Here is what it has to say about the use of centimeters in construction:

Centimeters (cm)

Centimeters are typically not used in U.S. specifications. This is consistent with the
recommendations of AIA and the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM).
Centimeters are not used in major codes.

Use of centimeters leads to extensive usage of decimal points and confusion to new readers. Whole millimeters are being used for specification measurements, unless extreme precision is being indicated. A credit card is about 1 mm thick.

Here is the Guide’s statement about millimeters:

Millimeters (mm)

SI specifications have used mm for almost all measurements, even large ones. Use of mm is consistent with dimensions in major codes, such as the National Building Code (Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.) and the National Electric Code (National Fire Protection Association).

Use of mm leads to integers for all building dimensions and nearly all building product
dimensions, so use of the decimal point is almost completely eliminated. Even if some large dimensions seem to have many digits there still will usually be fewer pencil or CAD strokes than conventional English Dimensioning

A Canadian building construction guide has nice illustrations of the difference—which are absent in the US guide. Unfortunately, Canada’s building trades have not converted to metric, which is why I generally discuss the Australians instead. I have not been able to locate Australian building guides. This is why you will find none in this blog.

The Canadian guide shows how to read a metric tape measure. This tape measure has two units on it meters and millimeters. You can compare it with an Australian tape measure I own below. It remains all millimeters, but only counts off the 100 mm between without the largest digits.

Canadian Illustration of How To Read A Metric Tape Measure (click to enlarge)
Australian Metric Tape Measure (click to enlarge)

Next the Canadian guide shows a typical wall dimensioned with imperial units.

Example Wall With Imperial Dimensions (click to enlarge)

It never strikes Americans as excessive to use two units to describe every dimension. Feet and inches are found everywhere, along with fractions.

The same wall is then presented as it would be dimensioned and drawn using millimeters. The numbers are all simple integers.

Example Wall With Metric Dimensions (click to enlarge)

No Feet and inches, no fractions, no decimal points, and just one unit used for all sizes. The dimensions are easy for a novice or experienced builder to read clearly. Experience in Australia shows that workers will attempt to cut to the exact millimeter when given tools with that capability. We would have more accurately constructed buildings, which are more weather-tight, simply by switching to metric.

Pat Naughtin relates that the head of AVJennings construction in Australia had two identical houses constructed, one in imperial and one in metric. It took two large trucks to haul away the scrap from the imperial work site. The metric house work site had only about a wheelbarrow full. When reformed in a rational up-to-date manner, metric can provide easy dimension checks.  Pat relates that Australian bricks are 90 mm thick, and are specified to have 10 mm of “mud” between them. This means that if you have ten rows of bricks laid down, they should measure exactly one meter. Imperial units simply do not accommodate this manner of easy check.

One owner of an Australian construction company has a blog entry with a title which is succinct concerning our American building practices: Why not going Metric makes America a laughing stock. He concludes his blog entry thus:

One of the last hold outs in a the push toward metric is the American building industry. The lure of inches for lumber and lengths in feet is seemingly irresistible. (it is even curious that the Americans call that timber a 2X4, where in Australia it was a 4X2) To avoid the confusion…… the Australian building industry declared.

The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), ….. This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.’

We banished the centimetre as some defacto inch measurement and have never looked back.

It speaks volumes about the US that they believe in some unalienable right to an outdated, and uniquely strange system of measures in this current millennium.

Related essay:

The Metric Dream House

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.