A new book "The measure of all things:the 7 year odyssey that transformed the world" by American professor Ken Alder has anaysed history of metrication.
Main conclusions:
1) The 2 French astronomers who introduced the metre spent 7 years meauring the section of the meridian line which lay north from Paris to Dunkirk and south to Barcelona.At the end of it they discovered their sums did not add up so they falsified the figures.So in 1799 the platinum bar which was unveiled in Paris and fixed the length of the metre was actually a fraction short of what it should have been!
2) Metrication has always been a political action to reinforce a change in society and suppress the past.Starting with the French revolution,other examples are German unification, Italian unification,the communist revolutions in the Soviet Union and China,independence for India and other countries in the British Empire and today Britain's entry into Europe.
3) Today the metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds (what an absurd definition).However this was only chosen because it happens to coincide with the metre length resulting from the french error.If the Frebch had got their maths correct the definition would be wrong and another definition would have had to
be discovered.

Interestingly at times force had to be used to introduce metrication and regularly politicians did not explain their real intentions,to use a french saying "plus ca change".

As a note:

According to
http://library.thinkquest.org/12857/earth/index.html
the average polar circumference of the earth is 40,008 km.
That makes the average meridian 10,002 km (1/4 of the polar circumference), which results in an error of 0.02% from the intended definition.

I think that's pretty accurate considering the means they had in 1795.

Ralf

The lie is not the fact that they made an error but that they knew they had but still announced the length of a metre to be whatever it was and since that date the lie has been accepted. Mind you if I had spent 7 years of my life walking hundreds of miles whilst a violent revolution was taking and which was expecting me to announce a major achievement I don't think I would say "Sorry I'll have to start again!!!"

For many years the standard yard was kept in the Houses of Parliament. In 1834 there was a fire and the standard was lost. Oops, we lost the standard. Lets make a new one.

Martin: The new standard yard that was made was based on other yardsticks that were about. You see, unlike the metric system, our units have been around for a long time, and in fact, the yard is in agreement with the oldest yardstick we know of (from the 15th Century), down to the milimetre (pardon my French)

Another interesting twist of history is that the US actually came up with the idea of basing the definition of the yard on the meter. The reason for that was that during WWII the british and the US yard were so much off that military parts manufactured from the same blueprints were non-interchangable.

After all, even the much-quoted Thomas Jefferson was heavily in favor of a decimal measuring system (see
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm), quote:

"Let the foot be divided into 10 inches;
The inch into 10 lines;
The line into 10 points;
Let 10 feet make a decad;
10 decads one rood;
10 roods a furlong;
10 furlongs a mile. "

Ralf

According to this quote, TJ said:

"Let the foot be divided into 10 inches;
The inch into 10 lines;
The line into 10 points;
Let 10 feet make a decad;
10 decads one rood;
10 roods a furlong;
10 furlongs a mile. "

If you keep the mile the same then approximate
sizes of Jefferson units will be familiar to anyone who has
tried bryan units.

His "inch" is our 1.6 cm bone
His "foot" is our 16 cm fist-with-extended-thumb bryan
His "decade" is our pace--some 1.6 m
His "rood" is ten paces
His "furlong" is 100 paces--approximately a city block
His mile is our mile.

As people become more aware of the natural length unit there is even a possibility that something like TJ could be popularized. Because of its alignment with the natural length scale. Odd coincidence.

The yard is struck into the wall in Trafalgar square some 300ft below the stare of Nelson!

It's made of iron and is acurate at 60F

How consistent is it - 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%?, 0.001%?

Is it likely to shrink over time (several decades) due to relaxation of the stresses inside the bar?

Is it vandal-proof?

I think if something is mounted to an outside wall, subject to rain, wind, heat etc. etc. it is not exactly meant as a reference (at least not anymore).
So it doesn't really matter if it shrinks or grows, I guess.

Ralf

Are you sure that the Southern point that was used for the measurements was Barcelona?

I have always believed that Barcelona was in Spain and I would find it very strange if His Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain allowed some republican athesist French Revolutionary astronomers to work on his soil.

The metric pioneers were that truly. Heroes, in fact be they. I certainly know I wouldn't be able to bear the presence of all those pagan catholics.

Ref: Accuracy of the metal bar at traff square:

I don't know! You'll need to talk to a scientist or engineer or something

Mark's original summary of Prof Alder's book is somewhat different to "The Guardian's" review. I have reproduced an extract from "The Guardian" below:

<<
According to Dr Alder, the error in the original metre has been perpetuated in every subsequent redefinition of its length, including the current definition of the metre that relates to the distance travelled by light in a fraction of a second.

But he also claims that Méchain was probably too hard on himself, and that the task he and Delambre had set themselves was probably virtually impossible to attain.

"Basically they made a false assumption that the Earth is uniform when it turns out it is lumpy and warped," he said yesterday.

"The distance between the pole and the equator will be different depending on where you measure it from. The mistake he made was believing in the perfection of nature."

But Neil Herron, one of the leaders of the metric martyr campaign, was less forgiving.

"As far I know, they have changed the length of the metre three times anyway," he said. "It is quite an irony that this system that is supposed to be based on science is in fact a fallacy ... We are not and never have been anti-metric, we just prefer to use a system that people understand and is based on human measurements rather than a system made up by scientists who do not live in the real world anyway."
>>


Ken Alder is a Professor of History and Science at Northwest University in the USA - writing on science and history is his field.

Neil Herron is a marker trader - selling goods is his field. It is clear that he does not understand why the definition of the metre has been changed ... the changes have been done is such a way so as not to affect his trade. It is also worth noting that every time the defition of the metre changes, the definition of the yard also changes. This is because 1 yard = 0.9144 metres *exactly*.

I would therefore take more notice of Ken Alder's comments that of Neil Herron's and disregard Mark's summary as being that of a prejudiced reviewer.

Yeah, lets ignore the man on the street! Real life is simply science nothing more nothing less. I will see my friends as simply a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons rather than Neil's "Food" and "life" type stuff!!! Let's here it for a "science only" world!!

[silence]

(P.S. The last time the metre changed was in 1983 i think - strangely the length of road home from here stayed the same - including all the yard marker boards, signs etc)

Steve,

Science does its best to ensure that the man in the man in the street need not really care about the formal definition of the metre. The definition only changes when a more accurate way of representing it is developed.

These new developments do not affect the man in the street directly - a 0.1% ruler is usually good enough for DIY etc and there is no need to change your ruler when every time science develops a better way to represent the metre.

Therefore this idea about the yard being rubbish and connected to the metre is itself complete rubbish. If the metre changed outside of that 0.01%(?) space, then the yard WOULD NOT change. For example, if the metre was changed along Leonard's lines to become 1.6cms, the yard would still remain it's present length and would not change to be 1.5cms (or whatever)

The metre will *not* change by 0.01%.

What happens is that every time its definiton changes, it becomes reproducable to a finer degree. Thus, if you and I each calibrate our metre sticks against the official definition, then as with each new definition, we know that the maximum difference between our metre sticks has been reduced (unless we a clumsy in our calibration)

How on earth do you calibrate a metrestick? It's a piece of wood, for heavens sake!!!

[note: This is a disingenuous question]

If the meter-stick is nominally one metre long, you measure it against a reference metre. (Better quality metre-sticks have brass ends).

If the stick is a little longer than a metre, then you measure the distance between 0mm and 1000mm against a reference metre.

Either way, you will then know how accurate your metre stick is. Its precision (reproducability) will of course depend on how you treat it and on the temperature etc.

So most of the time its a "not a metre stick" then?

I'll stick with the foot rules, easier to handle.

"Back to school" ads by numerous shops (Asda, Woolworths, Staples) referred to their "half price rulers" as 6" and 12" (no reference to 15cm/30cm).

Cue the usual "oh yes but the ads were made by old retired men" or something!!!

... and the official definition of a foot is 0.3048 metres exactly. If you do not believe me, ask the National Physical Laboritory.

My previous discussion hold good for a foot rule as well.

"... and the official definition of a foot is 0.3048 metres exactly. If you do not believe me, ask the National Physical Laboritory."

Not that old hat again! How many times have we cycled through this?

The issue may be new to Martin, if he joined the forum after we discussed it last time. A metre does not define itself; it is defined via the speed of light.

>(P.S. The last time the metre changed was in 1983 i
>think - strangely the length of road home from here
>stayed the same - including all the yard marker
>boards, signs etc)

Well, here's one:
If the metre was "redefined" (as you put it) but the yard was independent of it, the conversion factor should have changed.
However, it stayed the same. What might that mean, eh ?
Logic 101: The yard is dependant on the metre.

Ralf

<<
The issue may be new to Martin, if he joined the forum after we discussed it last time. A metre does not define itself; it is defined via the speed of light.
>>

I am fully aware that the metre is defned in terms of the speed of light. The accuracy i slimited to nine or ten figures. The foot is defined as being 0.3048 meters exactly and is therefore indirectly defined in terms of the speed of light.

The descision to tie the definition of the foot to the metre in this way was taken in 1959 jointly by the National Laboritories of the United Kingdom, the United Staets, Australia and South Africa.

The metre was changed ever so slightly. The change was, in fact, pretty insignificant. If it was changed by more than just a fraction, the yard WOULD NOT follow.

The following has been "borrowed" from the website of the National Physical Labority, Teddington, UK.

<<
In 1875 the Metre Convention was signed by participating nations and the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) was established just outside Paris. In 1889 a number of platinum-iridium metre bars were produced and one of these (number 6) replaced the Mètre des Archives to become the International Prototype Metre. The remaining bars were distributed to the representative nations, lots were drawn and Britain received bar number 16. The alloy from which the bar was made proved to be exceptionally stable. The same cannot be said of the Imperial Standard Yard of 1885, which was made of base metal and shrank at the rate of one part per million in about 20 years.
>>

This tells me that the Standard Yard is inferior to the Standard Metre and is why it was decided to redefine the yard in terms of the metre. For many years the UK and the US had slightly different definitions until 1959 when they agreed on a common definition.

My oh my, so the yard is "not as good" as the metre then?

The yard looks all shabby and pathetic while the metre looks all shiny and superior.

Jeesh, get a life - pleeeeez!

Hey next time I walk I will stride in metre lengths rather than yards coz the speed of light that defines the yard has to "pass through" the superior light that defines the metre, or something. Hmmm gotta stretch those legs a bit to make a metre!

P.S. One part per how many million? How many hair widths is that?

It's not about superiority or whatever, we're just pointing out that the imperial system changed it status in 1959 from an independent system to an "interpretation" of the SI system.

Ralf

QUOTE: "...coz the speed of light that defines the yard has to "pass through" the superior light that defines the metre..."

That sums it up very well. It does not matter whether we say that one yard is defined as 0.9144 metres, or whether one metre is defined as 1.094 yards. That scientists use the metre for their calculations does not alter the fact that both the yard and metre are linked to the speed of light.

[loud buzzer sound]
Wrong answer!

A "definition" is not the same as an "equivalence" !
A definition is a one-directional relationship, an equivalence a two-directional one.

Meaning: If you change the meter, the yard will follow. If you change the yard, the meter fill not follow, but just make the definition an untrue statement.

I think it's safe to say that everyone BUT the people here on this forum seem to understand that concept, proof for that is that you won't find a document *anywhere* which says :"The meter is defined a 1.094 yards", only documents that say "The yard is defined as 0.9144 meters".

Ralf

It does MATTER that scientists use the metre for defining purposes - they could have used a widget. All the metre/wavelength definition shows is that scientists have a preference for metric when defining things. The key point is that the metre is arbitary. So is the yard, and all other units. The only "constants" are those defined by Mother Nature.

It seems to me that in the area of traditional units we have a certain degree of latitude in how we define them

as long as we are clear and explicit
and as long as we do not stray noticeably from common usage

the metric system is strictly controlled by the general conference CGPM and the bureau BIPM which
are empowered to control it. and these agencies jealously weed out alternative definitions and loudly declare the official ones.

that is fine. it is one way to run a system.

the british traditional system is much looser and more "civil-society" and "common-parlance" it seems to me.

there may be some UK Government definitions of pound and inch which are in slavery to SI, and which would
change anytime the CGPM changes a metric definition.
If you want to revere your own Board of Trade's formulation, that is fine. it is one way to go.

BUT YOU BWMA HAVE THE POWER AND THE RIGHT if you want to use it OF LISTING DEFINITIONS AT YOUR WEBSITE.
And that would at least be a start towards clarity about what you are discussing.

And you have the power to make them as dependent on SI as you want. or as independent on SI as you want.

you can make the definitions involve the speed of light (which would be modern of you) or you can make them involve barleycorns (which would be antique) or you can make them servile adjuncts to SI and dependent on the whim of the Conference General des Poids et Mesures.

But if you do not have a clear list of definitions posted to show the BWMA view of the units then we do not know very well how to conclude these little discussions like the one with Ralf.

The link to other sites give a muddled picture. You need to post at least a few basic ones yourself.

Ralf wrote

<<
I think it's safe to say that everyone BUT the people here on this forum seem to understand that concept, proof for that is that you won't find a document *anywhere* which says :"The meter is defined a 1.094 yards", only documents that say "The yard is defined as 0.9144 meters".
>>

Before 1959, the conversion between the Imperial System and the metric system in the United Kingdom was 1 yard = 0.9144m; 1 foot = 0.3048m and 1 inch = 25.4mm.

In the USA it was 1 meter = 39.37 inches. The US conversion gave 1 inch = 25.40005mm.

Part of the 1959 agreemetn has harmonising these two different interpretations of the yard.

government agencies are apt to be sympathetic to
administrative uniformity and to sell you out and
make your system an adjunct to metric, by whatever
agreements and official memoranda and regs

granted

but IMHO the traditional units have a common-language
vernacular existence--a life of their own, so to speak, which does not depend heavily on legal documents.

what I'm wondering is: what legal force does it have
for there to be some document at Board of Trade or
diplomatic memorandum that says pound shall be defined as 0.45359237 kilo.

In my physics/chemistry handbook there tend to be several different versions of units (three slightly different watts) which may be deplorable. The metric governors always have one they favor and they "deprecate" (angrily condemn as heretical) the others. But anyway lets not have any illusions about perfect uniformity.

If we all agree that come what may the pound is defined as 0.45359237 kilo then pound is slave of kilo and whenever definition of kilo changes the definition of pound will go along as little brother.

But what forces us to accept that idea of pound?
If on website BWMA says pound is defined in a different way (which however leads to for all practical purposes indistinguishable mass) will the police come?

Will someone sue BWMA for adopting and announcing a different standard?

Maybe there is some legal compulsion here of which I'm unaware. If so please tell me about it.
versions of units

On uniformity of units and grand unified measuring systems:

I have found that I much prefer to measure my distance travelled, when going by foot and if travelling large distances, in terms of the Roman five foot pace (around 4½-6 feet for me). However, when working to the smaller distance scale or with my hands, a cubit based system (fathom, yard, cubit, span, 8ths of span) seems more fitting to me. This system is not in existance, of course, but I am just communicating that in experimenting with units, their sizes, ratios and so on, I find the above has the most "natural" feel to me personally, and that the above system does not neccesarily integrate the various elements.

There have been differences betwen units of the same name in the past. SI (System International) has sought to remove these differences. The co-ordinating body for SI is BIPM (See www.metric.org.uk for a link to their home page).

The value of the pound as a fraction of a kilogram was established by the National Physical Laboritory by comparing the standard pound that they held with the BIPM standard. As with the meter, the pound is now defined in terms of the kilogram.

We are not impressed by whether the National Physical Laboratory or the BIPM defines the pound in terms of the kilo. It does not matter. The NPL and BIPM are only organisations run by people, like any other.

<<BWMA
We are not impressed by whether the National Physical Laboratory or the BIPM defines the pound in terms of the kilo. It does not matter. The NPL and BIPM are only organisations run by people, like any other.>>

I wish to register strong approval of BWMA's attitude here. I respect the science done at NPL but see no reason that organization should be regarded as authoritative. It evidently suits NPL to define pound in terms of kilogram but as for that, BWMA has as much right to its own perspective on the units.

[but I wish BWMA's perspective were more explicitly stated, if you do not wish to have pound defined as
0.45359237 kilo, then how? or is this not a good question?]

Also approve of the attitude Bryan recently expressed here. It is pragmatic and empirical. See what works best by actually trying things out:

<<I have found that I much prefer to measure my distance travelled, when going by foot and if travelling large distances, in terms of the Roman five foot pace (around 4½-6 feet for me). However, when working to the smaller distance scale or with my hands, a cubit based system (fathom, yard, cubit, span, 8ths of span) seems more fitting to me. This system is not in existence, of course, but I am just communicating that in experimenting with units, their sizes, ratios and so on, I find the above has the most "natural" feel to me personally, and that the above system does not neccesarily integrate the various elements.>>

Have you, Bryan, or has anyone here, done any
practical testing of alternative weight measures comparable to what you describe for length measures?

>We are not impressed by whether the National Physical
>Laboratory or the BIPM defines the pound in terms of
>the kilo. It does not matter.

That's how you would like it to be, but it is not, it *does* matter, and you know it. It's actually quite interesting to see how you behave like a fish caught in a net right now.

Ralf

If there were to be a change in government, and the words in the legislation were reversed so that the metre was defined in terms of the yard, it would still make no difference. It simply does not matter. All units of measurement are arbitrary; the only constants come from nature.

Metric is not made definitive by the fact that legislatures and scientists prefer it for defining purposes. They are not higher life forms. It is only the speed of light that is definitive; the five letter word given to the length between two arbitary points is immaterial.

Ralf,

You say the "metric system" is based on a lie. A
system is something formed of parts placed together or
adjusted into a regular and connected whole. Common
Weights & Measures form a regular and connected whole,
and therefore can be described as the Common Weights &
Measures system. Napoleon Emperor's Republic of Europe
Decadent Weights & Measures are incomplete and
therefore can never be formed into a regular and
connected whole. It can be described as the Napoleon
Emperor's Republic of Europe Decadent Weights &
Measures scheme, or using your form of words, "metric
scheme".

If you look at the N.E.R.E. Weights & Measures scheme
as solely a weights & measures scheme, then you could
call it a deception or a lie. But if you look at the
N.E.R.E. Weights & Measures scheme as a religion, then
it is irrelevant whether or not it is a deception or a
lie.

Because then the purpose of the N.E.R.E. Weights &
Measures scheme is to enforce a ritualistic religion
by making His Imperial Majesty's subject citizens use
the stere, litre, metre, are, and gravre, on a daily
basis. Thus physically demonstrating the power of the
Temple of Theisim state religion and its' state, the
Napoleon Emperor's Republic of Europe. The exception
to this was the Napoleon King's Republic of Italy,
where the Church of Rome was the state religion,
although the stere, litre, metre, are, and gravre were
still the only weights & measures allowed.

If you want further information have a look at site:

www.weights-and-measures.com

And the topics:

Common Weights & Measures Formula
Common Sexagesimal Measure
Napoleon Emperor's Republic Wt. & Measures Formula

xcole,

mark said the metric system is based on a lie, not me.

Nevertheless, I looked at your page and must say that I don't exactly understand what's being said there.
Take for example:

http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xneresuperficial.html

It starts off with saying "1 zeptoare = 1000 yoctoare (Yr.1954)", and then you exercise it through with all other prefixes. But what do the years mean ? Almost every line has a different year attached to it, which certainly can't mean that in that year that "unit" was introduced.
But then it becomes even more mysterious:

"133.33333333 metre = (13.3x10 me. =133.3 me.) (10x13.3 me. =133.3 me.) (8x16.6 me. =133.3 me.)
133.33333333 metre = 10 r/angle 3 x 4 x 5 triangles, 4 unit (13.3333333 metre) sides laid end to end
N.E.R.E. fault = 133.3333333333 metre are not 1 decametre, or 1 hectometre, or 1 kilometre "

Where did you get 133.33m from ?
Why is it a "fault" that 133.3m is *obviously* not a kilometre ?

Ralf

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand it. Now, I would love to nod my head and say 'Splendid' and rest somehow in confidence that the site there has proven my points- as I somewhat believe it was meant to- however, I really didn't quite understand what it was talking about for the most part. Altogether it seemed rather masonic, actually.

Apparently Leonard seems to have understood it, though. He is speaking highly ("magical") of the site in the "Emerson Quote" thread.

Ralf

"apparently L must have understood it"?? is this really
apparent to you Ralf?

Bryan's adj. "masonic" is a hint in a parallel direction.to my adj. "magical"

I don't claim to understand either Freemasonry or magic. Rather the opposite--both being mysteries.

Sorry, must have misunderstood you there.
I thought you meant "magical" as in "enticing", ie so good that one can't resist to read more.

Ralf

I don't have much of a clue what he's on about either. It's probably not the Illuminati, though, or there'd be lots of 11's about the place. I think.

Ralf: Those years I think must be the year of introduction of that unit or prefix. No idea where the 133.3 comes from.

<<
We are not impressed by whether the National Physical Laboratory or the BIPM defines the pound in terms of the kilo. It does not matter. The NPL and BIPM are only organisations run by people, like any other.
>>

If a dispute arises then teh place to resolve that dispute is in the courts. The fact of the matter is that the courts put much more emphasis on the opinions of the NPL and/or BIPM than on your opinion or mine - and the courts have more power than you or me.

"As with the meter, the pound is now defined in terms of the kilogram."

Oh get over it, please. If I hold a pound of cheese in my hand can I feel the weight (as a pound) through my hand or does it "go through the metric system" first?

What's the next excuse for a lack of arguement - predecimal coinage?

Keeping coinage in a compatible tabulation with our weights and measures is impractical in the modern age since we are in a climet where a lot of inflation happens (our currency was decimalised after the global period of major inflation).

You'll notice that currency in the gold standard was generally tabulated with respect to weights and measures (wish I knew much about the Frank, Reichmark etc. - the lower units of the Lira disappeared throuth inflation possibly before they got round to decimalising it - it wouldn't surprise me). Keeping a currency tabulated with respect to our weights and measures in a climet where inflation is endemic would mean frequent retabulation.

Weights and measures, however, is NOT susceptible to inflation and therefore there is NO need for metrication. What the decimalised currency means is that we are almost counting solely in pennies and have a term for 100p. Weights and measures cannot lose their value in the same way as money can, so easiness to cound is consequently the more important priority.

Those who accuse us of advocating a return to LSD currency are only saying so because they're embarrassed about them on the verge of advocating a decimal calendar.

Before the First World War, the Belgian Franc, teh Swiss Franc, the French Franc and the Italian Lira all had the same value. At that time, the lira was divided into 100 centisimo (as were the other three currencies).

QUOTE: "If a dispute arises then the place to resolve that dispute is in the courts...the courts put much more emphasis on the opinions of the NPL and/or BIPM than on your opinion or mine..."

That the NPL/BIPM use the metric system for defining purposes is not a matter of opinion - it is a matter for fact. The element of opinion comes in deciding whether metric is more definitive as a result.

Professor Alder's book is the best book of the year see page 12 Sunday Telegraph.