A Kilogram Shy of Universal Measurements

A new Irish pub opened up in town, and my friend, originally from Ireland, asked if I’d like to meet up and check it out.

I arrived a few minutes before him and ordered a Guinness, excited to see how they poured it and even more excited to give it a taste.

It settled beautifully, had good dommage, and tasted just as it should.

Then my friend arrived, went to the bar, and ordered the same.

When his pint was delivered to the table, something seemed off.

We both had a pint of Guinness, but his glass was, well, bigger.  Not wider, not taller, simply holding more Guinness.

My eyes did not deceive me.

It was the Imperial Pint.

As I soon learned, an American pint is 16 ounces, while the Imperial pint (used in the UK and Ireland) is 20 ounces. 

If you have an Irish brogue and tell the bartender from Kildare that you’re from Boyle, they best avoid any uncomfortable situations and give you a 20oz pour.

My Midwest accent, well that’s worth a sixteener.  Who’s the wiser? (You can image the small-pint-large-pint jokes that continue to this day!)

How is it that something as simple as a pint of beer can get tangled in the mess of measurement systems?

Jefferson Had a Better Idea

We all know Thomas Jefferson.

He was a man of science. An architect. An inventor. A Founding Father who liked things exact.

So, it’s no surprise that he had serious issues with the way Americans measured… well, pretty much everything.

In his day, some regions of the country used Dutch based measurements, others used the English system.  A foot, an inch, a mile, they were all up for interpretation.

In 1790, Jefferson wrote his Plan for Establishing Uniformity in Coinage, Weights, and Measures. While still using bushels and furlongs, his proposal replaced the confusion of the traditional units of measure with a decimal-based system.

He didn’t use terms like milli- or centi-, but his ideas mirrored other ideas at the time, specifically a new concept that was being cooked up in France: the metric system.

Ever the diplomat, Jefferson hit the pause button.

France was making great progress crafting its own universal standard for weights and measures.  So he figured, why not align with our revolutionary allies? 

In 1793, the French government sent a delegation to share their new standards. 

Led by Joseph Dombey, a botanist-turned-ambassador, the French set sail for America carrying two rare and precious prototypes: a copper cylinder representing the official kilogram, and another for the meter.

His mission was to deliver these to Jefferson.  If successful, the U.S. might just become one of the first countries to adopt the new metric system.

Meanwhile, in Safetyland

Fast forward to today, and we’re still fighting measurement chaos, just in new places.

Take cut-resistant gloves, for example.

If you're in the U.S., you’re using the ANSI/ISEA 105 standard.

If you're in Europe, it's EN 388.

Both aim to measure the performance of hand protection, including how well a glove protects against sharp hazards.

But they go about it in fundamentally different ways.

EN 388 originally used what is called the Coup Test.  This is simply a spinning blade that slices the glove repeatedly until it breaks through.

However, once modern materials like Kevlar by DuPont $DD ( ▲ 1.57% )  and Dyneema by DSM hit the market, the blades dulled before the glove gave way.  Results were inconsistent and easy to fabricate.  (I remember a factory asking me which level I’d prefer to see on the report…with no changes to the item!)

To improve results, Europe added the TDM Test.

This is a straight blade that measures the force required to cut through the glove.

More precise. More consistent.

But instead of replacing the old method, they just added the new one. So now a European rated glove can display two cut scores!  There can be a number rating AND a letter rating.

The U.S. based ANSI/ISEA 105 standard, on the other hand, uses only the TDM method. It scores gloves from A1 to A9. The higher the number, the more protection, essentially.

But again, it’s a number and a letter, just for one test, not two.

The US recently added the “A” in front of the number to better differentiate from the European score.

If I haven’t bored you to tears at this point, you might be thinking -

Hey, it’s looks like both entities are using the same testing machine, so why can’t they simply standardize the results. 

You’d be right in this observation of the machine, but the EN standards and ANSI standards call for different test methodology.

Same kitchen, different recipe. 

In fact, the ANSI standard measures force in Grams.  The U.S…using a metric measure!

Since serious things need to be complicated, the European standard measures force in Newtons. 

Newtons!

Because, why not?

So, a glove might be ANSI A4 and EN C, or ANSI A6 and EN F.   They sound similar.

They’re not.

Which means if you’re a safety manager working across borders, you’re left juggling two systems. The language is the same but the dialect is different.

Yes, this isn’t rocket science, but why the unnecessary confusion?

The (Ignored) Solution

There is a harmonized standard: ISO 13997. It calls for the TDM test method used in both EN and ANSI tests. It could serve as a universal benchmark. 

Like a single, globally recognized method for testing cut resistance.

But in the U.S., ISO 13997 is mostly ignored. ANSI doesn’t label for it. EN acknowledges it, but the standard, the rules, calls for both tests and scores.

And so, we continue, in a globalized economy, using two systems to measure one thing.

Sound familiar?

A Kilogram, Matey

Let’s go back to Dombey.

His ship, carrying the kilogram and meter prototype, was blown off course and sailed near the Caribbean. 

If you’re a fan of Disney movies, then you know who was hanging out in the Caribbean in the late 1700’s -

Pirates.

They captured Dombey and his ship.  They took him prisoner.  He died in captivity.

Jefferson waited. But the measurements never arrived.

The kilogram and the meter vanished.

And so, the U.S. doubled down on inches, pounds, cups, and fathoms.  The rest of the world moved on.

Centuries later, one of Dombey’s lost kilogram prototypes resurfaced at an auction. An American quietly acquired it.

It now sits in a vault at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a relic of the system we almost had.

The Takeaway

Today, we live with the consequences.

Once, in Italy, I asked a cafe owner, in the worst Italian he’d ever heard spoken, where was the nearest Gelateria. My kids were hankering for ice cream.

The man pointed at the door and said, in perfect English, “Ten Meters”. Little did I know the gelato shop was next door. But, I had to pause and think for a moment -

“Ten meters...is that far?”

Whether it's a pint of Guinness, the distance to the pin, or a box of gloves, our systems don’t always line up.

Sometimes it’s charming.  Mostly it’s frustrating.

And it can mean worker safety depends on which continent you’re on.

My bet is eventually, over time, the U.S. will gradually embrace the typical universal standards. 

Maybe not in the next 4 years – haha! – but there will come a time where international fluency in measurements will become a benefit for the country.

Until then, I’ll continue to roll my eyes at a recipe which calls for grams instead of teaspoons.

Stay in touch 

If you enjoyed this piece, please reach out, I’d love to hear from you. You can contact me at [email protected] or LinkedIn. 

Stay safe out there!