Louis_J_Sheehan

In 1965, the United Kingdom (the primary Commonwealth nation) began a transition to the metric system to more fully mesh its business and trade practices with those of the European Economic Community. The conversion of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth nations, in particular Canada, to SI created a new sense of urgency regarding the use Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire of metric units in the United States.

In 1968, Congress authorized a three-year study of systems of measurement in the U.S., with particular emphasis on the feasibility of adopting SI. The detailed U.S. Metric Study was conducted by the Department of Commerce. A 45-member advisory panel consulted and took testimony from hundreds of consumers, business organizations, labor groups, manufacturers, and state and local officials.
ANMC logo

The final report of the study concluded that the U.S. would eventually join the rest of the world in the use of the metric system of measurement.[3] The study found that measurement in the United States was already based on metric units in many areas, and that it was becoming more so every day. The majority of study participants believed that conversion to the metric system was in the best interests of the nation, particularly in view of the importance of foreign trade and the increasing influence of technology in the U.S.
US metrication logo

The study recommended that the United States implement a carefully planned transition to predominant use of the metric system over a ten-year period. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 “to coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system in the United States”. The Act, however, did not require a ten-year conversion period. A process of voluntary conversion was initiated, and the U.S. Metric Board (USMB) was established for planning, coordination, and public education. The public education component led to much public awareness of the metric system, although the public response included plenty of resistance, apathy, and even ridicule (for example, the Saturday Night Live decabet sketch).[4] In 1981, the Board reported to Congress that it lacked the clear Congressional mandate necessary to bring about national conversion. Given this apparent ineffectiveness, and in a Reagan effort to reduce federal spending, the Metric Board was disbanded in fall 1982.
This measuring cup, manufactured and sold in the U.S. circa 1980 at the height of the metrication effort, features graduations in both metric and U. S. customary units, with the metric graduations in front for right handed users.

The Board’s demise increased doubts that metrication would really be implemented. Public and private sector metric transition slowed at the same time that the very factors it aimed to help with grew: the increasing competitiveness of other nations and the demands of global marketplaces.

The American National Metric Council (ANMC) was a non-profit, tax-exempt planning and coordinating organization for metric activity in all sectors of the U.S. economy. The ANMC was established in 1973 by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and became a separately incorporated organization in 1976. The ANMC was intended to facilitate America’s metric transition by maintaining a voluntary and orderly process that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits, and to provide information, forums, individual assistance, and other services for its subscribers. The ANMC saw the need to coordinate the metric planning activities of many industrial sectors, unlike the USMB, which was established primarily to implement the policy set forth in the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. After the formation of the USMB, committees of the ANMC submitted conversion plans for two sectors: chemical and instruments. Those sector conversion plans were later approved by the USMB. From 1975 through 1987, the ANMC held a series of well-attended annual conferences. Subsequently, a series of National Metric Conferences, jointly sponsored by the ANMC, the U.S. Metric Association (USMA), the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), were held from 1989 through 1993.[5]

Congress included new encouragement for U.S. industrial metrication in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. This legislation amended the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and designated the metric system as “the Preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce”. The legislation states that the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist industry, especially small business, as it voluntarily converts to the metric system of measurement.
1980s Road Map talking about an impending change to the metric system

Federal agencies were required by this legislation, with certain exceptions, to use the metric system in their procurement, grants, and other business-related activities by the end of 1992. While not mandating metric use in the private sector, the Federal Government has sought to serve as a catalyst in the metric conversion of the country’s trade, industry, and commerce. Exceptions were allowed for the highway and construction industries. The Department of Transportation was planning to require metric units by 2000, but this plan was canceled by the 1998 highway bill TEA21.[6] Use in the U.S. military is generally high, owing, in part, to the need to work with other nations’ militaries.[7]

Some members of Congress attempted to ban use of the metric system on federal highways in 1992 and 1993.[8][9] However, these anti-metric bills were not met with much enthusiasm by the House and failed without a vote at the time. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Mars orbiter

The use of two different systems was the root cause in the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1998. NASA specified metric units in the contract. NASA and other organizations worked in metric units, but one subcontractor, Lockheed Martin, provided thruster performance data to the team in pound force seconds instead of newton seconds. The spacecraft was intended to orbit Mars at about 150 kilometers (93 mi) altitude, but the incorrect data meant that it probably descended instead to about 57 kilometers (35 mi), burning up in the Martian atmosphere.[10]

Trackback URI |