Document created: 18 August 03
Air University Review, March-April 1975

The Metrics are Coming!

THERE is an old saying to the effect that you don't know much about a subject until you can answer the questions "How much?" or "How many?" In short, qualitative information is useful, but far from complete. To be complete, the information must be quantified. When a motorist drives up to a filling station and asks for gasoline, the reply is usually, "Fill her up?" or "How much?" or some other form of a request for quantitative information. The same idea holds in the much more exciting business of space travel. To understand anything about space, one must think in terms of velocity or speed. And it is not sufficient to say "very fast" or "very slow" or "quick as a wink" or any other qualitative description of speed. One must use units of measurement.

Recently a master of ceremonies was presiding at a meeting where space scientists were reporting on their research. One after another the scientists read their papers, and one after another they spoke of speed in different units of measurement. The first spoke about feet per second. The next, miles per hour. After that came speakers using knots, feet per minute, meters per second, centimeters per minute, kilometers per hour, etc. The units that may be used are almost without limit. The master of ceremonies, before introducing the next speaker, remarked on this diversity of measurement units. He said, "I recognize the impossibility of standardizing upon a single unit for use in the whole world. But surely we could select a unit to be used in this one room for one day. However, I know better than to ask you gentlemen to select the unit. If I did, we would be right back where we are now. One would want feet per second and another meters per hour, and voting would bring no agreement. So I won't ask you, I'll tell you! From now on I want everyone to use furlongs per fortnight! "

The story illustrates nicely the current foolishness regarding systems and units for weights and measurements. In the United States a gallon is 231 cubic inches. In other English-speaking countries a gallon is 277.3 cubic inches. Thus a gallon of gasoline in Canada is bigger than a gallon of gasoline in the United States. A quart of milk in Canada contains more milk than a quart of milk in the United States. Even without leaving the United States, we have plenty of confusion. One must remember that it takes four of one kind of quarts to make a gallon, but it takes 32 of another kind of quarts to make a bushel. A child must learn that there are two different ounces: there are 16 of one kind of ounce to a pound but 32 of the other kind of ounce to a quart. In fact, the situation is so confusing that the author of a delightful little book, Let's Go Metric, mixes things up when he says on page 66: "He must know that there are" 16 of one kind of ounces to a quart but 32 of the other kind of ounces to the pound."* When the system confuses an expert, pity the poor school children.

* Frank Donovan, Let's Go Metric (New York: Weybright &: Talley, 1974, $5.95), 154 pages.

In Let's Go Metric Mr. Frank Donovan says:

By 1971 all but fifteen countries in the world were using the metric system or were in the process of converting to it or were studying how they would convert to it. The only non-metric countries were Barbados, Burma, Gambia, Ghana," Jamaica, Liberia, Muscat, Oman, Naura, Sierra Leone, Southern Yemen, Tonga, Trinidad, and of course, the United States. All of the non-metric partners of the United States in an otherwise all metric world are small islands or backward or emerging countries. More than 95 percent of the people of the world measure by the metric system or are learning how to. Most of those who do not are in the United States.¹ (pp. 31-32)

In response to this statement I made a survey of the larder in my wife's kitchen and found that packaged food was almost universally labeled only in pounds, ounces, gallons, pints, fluid ounces, etc. There were two exceptions. A box of corn muffin mix was labeled, "Net Wt. 81/2 oz." in large print and "241 grams" in small print. A box of breakfast cereal called Total was labeled "Net wt. 12 oz." in large print and "net wt. 340 gms" in small print. This is, of course, a start and indicates the route of change. Household products and common articles of commerce will be labeled in familiar units and in metric units. This dual system will be required for perhaps a generation until education and time make the metric system of units familiar.

The impact of the change to the metric system is probably less striking on household products than on national defense and industry. The August 7, 1974, edition of Air Force Times includes an article entitled, "Panel Plans Metric Move," which states:

. . . under the direction of Dr. Joseph Ryerson of the Rome Air Development Center, N.Y., a defense panel has been formed to plan for the pending conversion of the nation's present measurement system to the metric system known around the world as SI—the system international d'unites.

The U.S. is the only major industrial nation that's non-metric. However, some American manufacturers use both the metric and U.S. weights and measures systems.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress for converting the nation to the metric system over a period of years. Some defense industries have already, begun the conversion process.

While it is true that Air Force medical, scientific, and technical personnel have been using the metric system for a long time, the coming change to a widespread and general use of the metric system in the United States makes Let's Go Metric a particularly appropriate book for members of the Air Force.

After three chapters dealing with the history of attempts to measure effectively, the creation of the metric system and its spread, and the debate in the United States as to whether it should be adopted or not, Frank Donovan presents some telling reasons why we must change to the metric system. He notes that the important reasons have little to do with whether the housewife measures flour by the cup or by 250 milliliters. Rather the important and principal advantages for changing are in the areas of government, economics, industry and commerce, international trade, and international relations. He notes that the United States will go fully metric in any international cooperative space program; that measurements are just as important as prices in determining the amount of machinery sold by the United States to major foreign countries. He also notes that the Department of Defense issued a metric study listing numerous advantages of the metric system. These included decrease in training time for engineers, mechanics, and maintenance personnel, reduction in errors, and easier and quicker repair.

Chapter five poses the question, "What's wrong with the system we have?" and develops in detail the general answer that it is "much harder to, learn the many unrelated units of the Customary system and even more difficult to learn the fractional arithmetic that this system requires: And when it is necessary to calculate measurements . . . the decimalized metric system is so far superior that there is no comparison." Specific examples of calculations are provided to document the argument.

The effect of the change on people in various types of jobs is next considered (chapter six), and it is noted that the effect will vary markedly with the kind of work. A man who sweeps floors will not be affected at all. A secretary will be only slightly affected in that she will have to learn the spelling of some new words. The effect on a factory worker will be slight. On the other hand the conversion will cause great changes in the construction industry. Almost the entire pharmaceutical industry and the entire medical profession are now on the metric system, so that there will be little change in these professions. Probably the greatest cost and impact of change will be in industries that manufacture machinery, machine tools, agricultural equipment, motors, and automobiles. There may be a few industries where the impact will be so severe that they will not convert for many years, if ever. Railroading is a probable example. The chapter is replete with specific examples of the probable effect on many occupations. It should be noted, however, that the actual effect will not be fully known until the system is tried, and it will not be fully anticipated until experts in each occupation and industry seriously consider and plan for the conversion. This is already happening in many industries, and the current periodical literature is increasingly reporting the results. In Automotive Engineering for August 1974 is an article entitled "The Optimum Metric Fastener System." Fasteners are nuts, bolts, screws, washers, clips, rivets, and similar devices used to join components into assemblies. The article concludes that "the optimum metric fastener system can be the basis for direct and administrative savings worth millions of dollars annually to a company like Ford" and "the long range cost saving available to North America will be several hundreds of millions of dollars, not just one time, but repeated each and every year."

In chapter seven the author addresses himself to the problems of daily living that will be posed by the change to metric. He starts by pointing out that those who oppose the system claim that the change will cause complete chaos in our daily lives. They maintain that all existing yardsticks, measuring tapes, scales, kitchen measuring cups, and other measuring devices will have to be scrapped. All cookbooks will have to be rewritten. All quart bottles, gallon cans, bushel baskets, and one-pound weights would have to be replaced. All gasoline pumps and water meters would have to be junked. All road signs would have to be changed.

He counters this argument by saying that the change will be slow and gradual, over a period of years. Originally there will be some inconvenience because of the need for thinking in two systems. Conversion from one to the other may be necessary in some circumstances. He then provides a most interesting speculation regarding the specific effect upon a long list of daily living activities. In many cases he supplies rule-or-thumb methods for quick conversion of units when necessary.

I think that there probably is an easier way out of the difficulty. In spite of inflation, which is making almost everything more expensive, small portable calculators are getting cheaper every year. Soon they will be within reach of everyone. Even today Rockwell International has a portable calculator that will make all the conversions from the Customary system to the metric system and vice versa. With it in hand, the conversions will be quick, easy, and almost free from error. It may take a whole generation, however, before conversions become unnecessary.

The author provides an interesting speculation about the game of football (pages 121-22).

One sport that may defy conversion is football, because the yard is so much a part of the game. Of course, the field could be changed from 100 yards to 100 meters, with 10-meter end zones instead of 10-yard end zones. But this change would make quite a difference in the game. It would be necessary to move the ball about 10 percent farther to retain possession, and this would result in fewer first downs. Because of this, and because American football is not played anywhere else in the world, it is possible that the yard will remain as the standard of measure. ²

The book concludes with the explanation that while the coming system has been referred to as the metric system, that is not its official name. Since 1960 the official name is Le Systeme International d'Unites or the International System of Units. In both French and English it is called "The SI System." A brief description of the SI System and a set of conversion tables are provided.

The book is not a profound treatise. It is not even a scholarly book. But it does do what it set out to do. It provides a short, clear, basic introduction to the coming system of measurement in the United States. It also provides interesting speculation regarding the effects of the new system. As such it is stimulating and could easily form the basis for a discussion. Many readers will disagree in part with some of the predictions. But after all, no one can see clearly into the future, and intelligent efforts to foresee change make us better able to cope when change is thrust upon us.

Notes

1.The quotation is verbatim, but the countries cited total only fourteen.

2. Football is played in Canada also.

Contributor