REPORT OF THE

50th NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1965

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 272
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards is a principal focal point in the

Federal Government for assuring maximum application of the physical

and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry

and commerce. Its responsibilities include development and mainte- nance of the national standards of measurement, and the provisions of means for making measurements consistent with those standards; de- termination of physical constants and properties of materials ; development of methods for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and

making such tests as may be necessary, particularly for government

agencies; cooperation in the establishment of standard practices for

incorporation in codes and specifications; advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical problems; invention and

development of devices to serve special needs of the Government;

assistance to industry, business, and consumers in the development and

acceptance of commercial standards and simplified trade practice

recommendations; administration of programs in cooperation with

United States business groups and standards organizations for the de- velopment of international standards of practice; and maintenance of a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of scientific,

technical, and engineering information. The scope of the Bureau's

activities is suggested in the following listing of its three Institutes and

their organizational units. Institute for Basic Standards. Applied Mathematics. Electricity.

Metrology. Mechanics. Heat. Atomic Physics. Physical Chemistry.

Laboratory Astrophysics.* Radiation Physics. Radio Standards Laboratory:* Radio Standards Physics; Radio Standards Engineering.

Office of Standard Reference Data.

Institute for Materials Research. Analytical Chemistry. Polymers.

Metallurgy. Inorganic Materials. Reactor Radiations. Cryogenics.*

Materials Evaluation Laboratory. Office of Standard Reference

Materials.

Institute for Applied Technology. Building Research. Information

Technology. Performance Test Development. Electronic Instrumentation. Textile and Apparel Technology Center. Technical Analysis.

Office of Weights and Measures. Office of Engineering Standards.

Office of Invention and Innovation. Office of Technical Resources. Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information.**

*Located at Boulder, Colorado, 80301. **Located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22171.
Report of the

50th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1965

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials From the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives From U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, D.C., June 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 1965.

Report Editor: L. J. Chisholm

United States Department of Commerce

John T. Connor, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

A. V. Astin, Director

National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication No. 272

Issued April 1, 1966

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766
CONTENTS

(Note: Reports of the Standing, Annual, and Executive Committees, and the Treasurer's Report, have been arranged together, be- ginning- on page 175, for easier reference.)

Page

Officers and Committees v Committee Meetings vii Photographs of the National Weights and Measures Exposition viii List of Exhibitors xii

AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1965 Address, by Hon. J. T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce ... 1 Address of Conference President and Appointments to Standing Committees, by A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards 6 Presentation of Honor Awards 11 A New Program for Testing Postal Scales, by A. J. Coffman, Deputy

Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau of Facilities, U.S. Post Office Department .... 12 The National Conference on Weights and Measures—A Program for

the Future, by V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, State of Ohio and Chairman,

National Conference on Weights and Measures 24 MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1965 Activities of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, by M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards, and Executive Secretary, National

Conference on Weights and Measures, and staff 31 The Measurement of Liquids:

Yesterday, by P. Renfrew, Consultant, Liquid Controls Corporation,

Chicago, Illinois __ 39

Today, by R. H. Tolson, Assistant Manager, Construction and

Equipment Division, Texaco, Inc., New York, New York ... 58 Tomorrow, by E. F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, Neptune

Meter Company, Long Island City, New York— 63 The Instrument Society of America—Its Organization, Program, and

Relation to Weights and Measures, by W. A. Crawford, Principal Instrument Engineer, Engineering Department, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware, and President Elect

of the Instrument Society of America 69 Measurement in a Dynamic Society, by D. A. Schon, Director, Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards 73 The Science of Weighing : Yesterday, by W. A. Scheurer, President, Exact Weight Scale Company, Columbus, Ohio 78 Today, by C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager, Hobart Manufacturing

Company, Troy, Ohio 98 Tomorrow, by V. C. Kennedy, Jr., Executive Vice President, Streeter-Amet Company, Grayslake, Illinois ... 112 MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1965 Reminiscing, by J. P. McBride, Past Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and retired Director, Division of Standards, Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries 121 The History of the English System of Weights and Measures, by W. J. Owen, Chief Inspector, Weights and Measures Office, Bradford,

England..... 128 The Art of Merchandising: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, by

M. D. Smith, Executive Vice President, National Canners Association, Washington, D.C. 141

iii
AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1965 The National Scale Men's Association—Dedication to Progress and

Precision, by W. S. Fuller, Vice President, H. J. Fuller and Sons,

Inc., Columbus, Ohio 151 The Measurement of Length: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, by

L. Barnard, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Lufkin Rule Company,

Saginaw, Michigan 154 MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1965 Open Forum—Weights and Measures Technical Problems ; Forum

Leaders: M. W. Jensen, Conference Secretary, G. L. Johnson, Chair- man, Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, L. Barker, Chair- man, Committee on Laws and Regulations, S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Education 174 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS: Report of the Conference Executive Committee, presented by V. D. Campbell, Chairman, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, De- partment of Agriculture, State of Ohio 175 Statement of the Incoming Conference Executive Committee, presented

by J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures,

Board of Agriculture, State of Kansas 177 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Education, presented by J. T. Daniell, Chairman, Deputy Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Detroit, Michigan 178 Report of the Conference Committee on Laws and Regulations, pre- sented by L. Barker, Acting Chairman, Commissioner, Department

of Labor, State of West Virginia 184 Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances,

presented by R. E. Meek, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Board of Health, State of Indiana 197 REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Nominations, presented by

D. M. Turnbull, Chairman, Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Seattle, Washington 202 Report of the Conference Committee on Resolutions , presented by G. L. Johnson, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, State of Kentucky 203 Report of the Conference Auditing Committee, presented by A. L. Little, Chairman, Head, Weights and Measures Division, Plant Board,

State of Arkansas 205

Report of the Conference Treasurer, presented by C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana 206 Conference Registration List - 207 H-UU Promulgation Map 231

iv
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

OFFICERS

(As elected by the Forty-Ninth National Conference to serve during- the

Fiftieth)

President: A. V. Astin, Director, National

Bureau of Standards.

Executive Secretary: M. W. Jensen, Chief j- Ex officio Office of Weights and Measures, National | Bureau of Standards.

Chairman : V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures,

Department of Agriculture, State of Ohio. Vice Chairmen:

L. Barker, Commissioner, Department of Labor, State of West Virginia.

J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton Centre,

Massachusetts.

J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State of Washington.

W. I. Thompson, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures,

Monmouth County, New Jersey. Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, In- diana. Chaplain: R. W. Searles, Deputy County Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Medina County, Ohio. OFFICERS

(As elected by the Fiftieth National Conference to serve during the Fifty-First)

A. V. Astin, President 1 Ex officio M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary J J. F. True of Kansas, Chairman

E. H. Black of California, Vice Chairman

L. L. Elliott of Massachusetts, Vice Chairman

M. Jennings of Tennessee, Vice Chairman

J. L. Littlefield of Michigan, Vice Chairman

C. C. Morgan of Indiana, Treasurer

R. W. Searles of Ohio, Chaplain

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

(As elected by the Fiftieth National Conference)

A. V. Astin

M. W. Jensen

J. F. True

E. H. Black

L. L. Elliott \ Ex officio M. Jennings

J. L. Littlefield

C. C. Morgan

R. W. Searles

A. J. Albanese of Connecticut.

L. A. Gredy of Indiana.

J. G. Gustafson of Minnesota. M. L. Kinlaw of North Carolina.

R. K. Sharp of Oklahoma.

F. F. Thompson of Louisiana.

L. W. Vezina of Virginia.

A. W. Weidner, Jr. of New York.

W. W. Wells of the District of Columbia.

E. C. Westwood of Utah.

v
STANDING COMMITTEES

(As constituted at the conclusion of the Fiftieth National Conference, the personnel of each of the standing committees are as listed. The remaining term of office for each committee member, in years, is shown in parentheses

following each entry.)

EDUCATION*

S. H. Christie, Jr. of New Jersey, Chairman (2).

J. T. Daniell of Michigan (1). L. A. Gredy of Indiana (3). A. D. Rose of California (4).

J. F. Madden of New York (5). LAWS AND REGULATIONS*

L. Barker of West Virginia, Chairman (3).

J. L. Littlefield of Michigan (1). M. Jennings of Tennessee (2). H. L. Goforth of Illinois (4).

J. F. Lyles of Virginia (5). SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES*

G. L. Johnson of Kentucky, Chairman (2). H. J. McDade of California (1).

J. F. McCarthy of Massachusetts (3). H. D. Robinson of Maine (4).

C. H. Stender of South Carolina (5). COMMITTEES ACTING ONLY DURING THE FIFTIETH

ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Nominations: D. M. Turnbull of Washington, Chairman; H. E. Crawford

of Florida; R. E. Meek of Indiana; J. I. Moore of North Carolina; H. D. Robinson of Maine; C. H. Stender of South Carolina; R. Williams of New York.

Resolutions: G. L. Johnson of Kentucky, Chairman; E. W. Ballentine of South Carolina; P. DeVries of New Jersey; H. P. Hutchinson of the

District of Columbia; C. L. Jackson of Wisconsin; H. E. Sandel of California; R. K. Slough of Ohio. Auditing: A. L. Little of Arkansas, Chairman; I. R. Frazer of Indiana;

N. P. Tilleman of Wisconsin.

* M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary of the Conference, is ex officio nonvoting secretary

to each committee.

vi
COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1965

All day Monday was set aside for meetings, both open and

executive, of the Conference committees. Announcements of

these meetings were carried in the National Conference Announcement and in the Conference Program.

The Conference committees that met on Monday morning were

the Executive Committee and the Committee on Laws and Regulations. The Committee on Education and the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances met on Monday afternoon.

All final reports of the Standing and Annual Committees can

be found beginning on page 178.

vii
National Weights and Measures Exposition: NBS Exhibit.
Views of the NBS Exhibit.
Views of the NBS Exhibit.

The OWM program pictured and explained through earphones. x
Views of the NBS Exhibit.

A mural of weights and measures history, from caveman to contemporary

times.
LIST OF EXHIBITORS

Company

Aero Chatillon Corp.

Wm. Ainsworth & Sons, Inc. American Meter Controls, Inc. American Petroleum Institute

Arenco Machine Company, Inc. Cardinal Scale Manufacturing

Co.

Cereal Institute, Inc. Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assn.

The Coca-Cola Co.

Dairy Industry Committee

Detecto Scales, Inc. Encyclopedia Britannica

The Exact Weight Scale Co.

Fairbanks Morse Weighing

Systems Division

H. J. Fuller & Sons, Inc. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co.

Glass Container Manufacturers

Institute, Inc. W. & L. E. Gurley

Halmor Services, Inc. Hi-Speed Checkweigher Co., Inc. The Hobart Mfg. Co.

Howe-Richardson Scale Co.

Kaleel-Martin, Inc. Liqui-Box Corp.

Liquid Controls Corp.

Lockheed Electronics Co.

The Lufkin Rule Co.

Martin-Decker Corp.

The Measuregraph Co.

Mettler Instrument Corp.

Millers' National Federation

Edward G. Moody & Son, Inc. National Confectioners Assn.

Neptune Meter Co.

Ohaus Scale Corp.

Paper Cup and Container Insti- tute Penn Scale Mfg. Co., Inc. Society of the Plastics Industry

Inc. Potter Aeronautical Corp.

The Procter & Gamble Co.

Rockwell Mfg. Co.

Sanitary Scale Co.

Company

Sartorius Balance Division

Brinkmann Instruments, Inc. August Sauter, Inc.

Scientific Glass Apparatus Co.,

Inc. Seraphin Test Measure Co.

A. 0. Smith Corp.

Spinks Scale Co.

Streeter Amet Division

Goodman Mfg. Co.

Sun Oil Co.

Swab Wagon Co., Inc. Thurman Mfg. Co.

Tokheim Corp.

Toledo Scale Division

The Torsion Balance Co.

Henry Troemner, Inc. U.S. Slicing Machine Co., Inc. Veeder-Root, Inc. Voland Corp.

The Wayne Pump Co.

Symington Wayne Corp.

John Wood Co.

Bennett Pump Division

State Governments

Maryland

Southern Weights and Measures Assn.

Wisconsin

Federal Government

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Meat Inspection Service

Milk Marketing Orders

Packers and Stockyards

Poultry Division

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of

Standards

U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare

Food and Drug Administration

U.S. Post Office Department

Canadian Government

Department of Trade and

Commerce

Standards Branch

xii
REPORT OF THE FIFTIETH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1965

(V. D. Campbell, Chairman, Presiding)

The invocation was delivered and the memorial service for departed members was conducted by the Conference Chaplain,

Rev. R. W. Searles of Ohio.

Mr. J. F. True of Kansas led the delegates in the Pledge of

Allegiance.

ADDRESS

by John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce,

U.S. Department of Commerce

Dr. Astin, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am

delighted at my first opportunity to address

this Conference, which coincides with its 50th Anniversary. I welcome you to Washington most cordially. It is my privilege to bring you the following message from the

President of the United States

It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to send my congratulations to the

Golden Anniversary, National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Weights and measures administration

in the United States, as represented by the local, State,

and Federal officials gathered here, is one of the finest

examples of the creative Federal system we are trying

to foster. It is an eloquent proof of the vitality and effec- tiveness we can achieve in any program when we utilize

the full talents and capabilities of all levels of government.

Through this constructive partnership, we maintain a uniformity of weights and measures, the language of trade and

commerce, which has been and will continue to be a bulwark

of our country's economic growth.

For many years the main meeting ground for all those en- gaged in weights and measures administration has been this

National Conference. Your energy and dedication have re- sulted in significant contributions to the welfare of the

American public.

I would like to elaborate on the President's theme, for I consider it one of the most significant concepts of our time.

No one has expressed more forcefully than President Johnson

that building a great American society depends upon the wholehearted cooperation of all its components—the national, State

and local governments, the business community, labor, the aca1
demic world, professional societies, and the other groupings of our people.

While the spirit of cooperation for mutual benefit has been a powerful force for progress since the beginning of our country,

many do not realize its full significance, and too often there has

been bickering among groups over who was contributing most to the advancement of our national welfare. I think today there

is a growing recognition that human society can attain true

maturity and well-being only when we all cooperate in its development, and that this cannot be achieved by any one group

in a spirit of belligerent isolation.

There is no place for segmented thinking in this day of universal problems and universal concern. The success of* our so- ciety depends upon its pluralism, the fact that decisions are made and policies are set as close as possible to the source, and

by a great many people, rather than by monolithic government

from above. The system works as a coordinated whole through

consensus and compromise, and through checks and balances.

It derives its vitality from the encouragement of individual initiative. Moreover, there are things that the National Government can do best, things that State and local governments can

do best, things that private industry can do best, and things

that are done best by a cooperative effort of two or more

segments.

History gives us an appreciation of the extent to which cooperation has propelled the rise of the American system. When the

United States was primarily a maritime nation, the Government

helped the private sector by providing navigational aids, coastal

service, and rescue forces. Government dredged the channels,

deepened ports, and developed port facilities. When the Nation

spread across the continent, the Government helped by supporting the development of transportation systems, canals, pikes,

railroads, shipping, highways, and, more recently, air transport.

The more advanced and costly the systems, the larger the role

the Government had to take. We can see this now in our effort to conquer space.

The Federal contribution to the extraordinary efficiency and

productivity of our farms is well known to all of us. Less than

7 percent of our labor force now produces at low cost and in

great abundance the variety of all the foods and agricultural

products consumed by the rest of us. Today, we live in a very complex society. Its needs are complex, and so are the patterns of interaction and cooperation

among all the groups making up that society. The growing in- terdependency of these groups upon each other is greater than

many realize and more crucial to our progress than many appreciate. Let us take some of the programs and activities of the

U.S. Department of Commerce to illustrate the point.

Weights and measures are a good place to start. As the President indicated, unlike the centralized system in most other

nations, enforcement of weights and measures statutes in our country resides in the several States, with the National Government providing the necessary technical support to assure uniformity and compatibility across the Nation, as well as a high

2
degree ofv accuracy and dependability. This mutually beneficial cooperation, epitomized by this 50th National Conference,

has helped provide the American people with the most

advanced economy in all the world.

Transportation is another good example. The Department's

Bureau of Public Roads works with the States in the development of a national network of roads, in highway research, and

in the promotion of safety.

Significant also is the research and development work going

on in the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. This Office is the focal point for relating transportation to broad economic and social objectives. It advises me in all transportation matters and makes recommendations to other

Government agencies. This office is stepping up its investigation

of ways to improve highspeed rail transportation in heavily con- gested areas, such as, the Northeast Corridor that goes along the

coast from Maine to Virginia.

We hope to conduct demonstration projects which will show

new potentials in mass transit. Again, this will involve cooperation among the Federal and State governments, private industry, and many other groups.

Probably our best known cooperative endeavor in business

matters at the local level is the work of the Department's 42 local

offices, the so-called "Windows on Main Street." Each is a microcosm of the Department of Commerce that actively cooperates with industry and local governments in the solution of

regional and local economic problems. More than six hundred

Chambers of Commerce, Boards of Trade, and similar business

groups join with these field offices in servicing and providing

necessary information to businessmen.

The National Bureau of Standards, of course, has a very special

interest for you. This again is an excellent example of the advantages to be gained through cooperative effort. You are al- ready familiar with the benefits in the weights and measures

field. The Bureau works closely with standards laboratories all over the United States, with industrial and other governmental

laboratories, to make sure that the national measurement system

is always adequate to the Nation's needs and that it is being used

most effectively by science and industry.

There are literally tens of thousands of standards used in our

vast mass production economy, in scientific laboratories, industry, and universities, and in space and defense projects. All

these standards owe their validity to the few dozen ultra precise,

national, agreed-upon standards developed and maintained by the

Bureau of Standards. In turn, our industry, our commerce, our

national programs., all of which are ever increasingly dependent

on science and technology, depend upon an accurate measurement

system.

A very important cooperative program at the National Bureau

of Standards is the new Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and

Technical Information. The Clearinghouse is the central source

for Federally supported and sponsored research and development

reports. In cooperation with other Federal agencies, the Clearinghouse in the fiscal year 1966 will gather, index, and publicize

3
some 70,000 technical reports. In a special effort to insure the

most effective dissemination to industry, the Clearinghouse

material is put into subject-matter packages—on metallurgy, for

example—and distributed through State economic development

agencies in States where the particular field is of economic importance. This program promotes full use in the private sector

of technical work done with public funds. This is particularly

valuable to small business, which is trying to make its way in an economic environment dominated more and more by increasingly

complex and expensive science and technology.

There are two more programs I would like to discuss just

briefly. The first is the proposed State Technical Services Act

of 1965, which is sponsored by the Department of Commerce.

The proposed legislation is being considered by the Congress now. This measure would enable the Federal Government to make grants to States in support of programs to make better

commercial use of the latest findings of science and technology.

These programs, planned and carried out locally, would place the

findings in the hands of local business and industry.

The technical services would include such things as identifying new opportunities to apply technology to the advancement

of regions and industries, and preparing and disseminating scientific or engineering information to facilitate its use. To qualify for Federal matching funds, a State would designate an institution or agency responsible for that State's technical services program. When two or more States join in a cooperative program, they may designate a regional institution.

Free industrial competition is our main resource in this country. Our effort must be to raise the level of industrial technology

overall. We especially need to locate and adapt and use existing

technology, and to facilitate increased application of all technological advances.

The problem is a local one in two senses. First, in order to- make it possible for groups of companies to apply new technology, one must know the special problems and needs of the

particular location. What makes sense in New England may

not necessarily be sensible for the Pacific Northwest, for example.

Second, the best contributions will be made by those closest to the problems the program is designed to solve. The most effec- tive transfer of technology will be made at the local level by

people capable of working continuously on that local problem.

It follows that the program should be mainly a local one, based on local institutions and local initiative.

As one last example of cooperation, I would like to mention

my recent experience with the President's voluntary balance of

payments program. This has been a most gratifying undertaking for me, because I have never seen a better example of busi- ness cooperation with government in a project of national

importance.

As you know, the imbalances in our international payments

have been a matter of serious concern for some years now. Our

Government has taken several important steps to reduce the

deficit—a drive to increase exports, a campaign promoting travel

to the United States from abroad, rigid control of governmental

1
overseas expenditures, etc. Business, of course, makes a major

contribution to a solution of the problem through its vastly increased exports, but we needed additional help and many firms

operating in the international economy, both large and small, are now cooperating in the President's voluntary program by

stepping up exports and in various other ways increasing capital

inflows to this country.

With the help of the business community, we are going to win the battle of the dollar, and it will be a victory for all Americans, because continued domestic economic growth, with

increased job opportunities for our growing work force, depends

on the sound dollar. As an alumnus of the business community, I am mighty proud

of my alma mater's performance in this vital national program.

One final word, and this is on the overriding issue of our

time—a peaceful world in which all nations are free to develop

according to their own desires without interference.

Every nation, large or small, powerful or weak, has a stake in

this vital principle of self-determination. Every violation of this

principle is a threat to the independence of all nations. It is a threat to their security individually and collectively, and it is a

threat to world peace. In Viet-Nam and the Dominican Republic, President Johnson

seeks to preserve the principle of independence and to stay the

threat of any world war. Peace is our aim. A settlement of

differences around the conference table is our hope. Again and

again, President Johnson has said that he will go anywhere, at any time, do anything, see anybody, if it will promote the cause

of peace. He has repeated many times that the United States

will negotiate with any government in order to try to resolve the

issues of Viet-Nam. So far he has met many rebuffs but his

hope has never flagged, because he is committed to peace, unconditionally and without reservation. And, in the meantime,

if we do not uphold our treaty obligations in Southeast Asia,

who will have confidence that we will uphold our treaty commitments in Berlin?

I hope all Americans will support our President as he bears

these heavy burdens, not only for our country but for free nations and for free men everywhere in the world.

5
ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE PRESIDENT AND

APPOINTMENTS TO STANDING COMMITTEES

by A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards

Mr. Secretary, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today and, as President of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

I am most gratified by the compliments and

good wishes we have received here today

from President Johnson and Secretary Connor. As Director of the National Bureau

of Standards, which has been so closely as- sociated with this Conference, I wish to add

my personal congratulations for this milestone in your history, but also, and even more important, for your fine record of

achievement in the service of the public and our Nation's econ- omy.

I have also received some additional congratulations. Two

Governors have seen fit to recognize this event. The Governor

of Florida, Mr. Haydon Burns, writes as follows

:

Since I am unable to attend the National Conference on Weights and Measures, I am taking this means of extending

to you and to your membership generally my most cordial

greetings. I am thoroughly cognizant of the exceptional

service rendered to the people of our various States and

communities by the members of the Conference. Your fifty

years of service merits the approval and appreciation of our

citizens throughout these United States.

It is my hope that this Golden Anniversary Conference

will prove to be the most rewarding and pleasant meeting

ever held.

Sincerely,

Haydon Burns.

Then from the Governor of South Carolina

:

On behalf of the people of South Carolina, we offer our

congratulations to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures on the occasion of your Golden Anniversary Conference. We are aware that South Carolina's long affiliation with the Conference has been reflected in the sound and

progressive program of weights and measures in our State. Fifty years of service and equity to the agriculture, commerce, and industry is an outstanding accomplishment.

Please accept our best wishes for continued progress in promoting the protection of the producer, the distributor, and

the consumer.

Sincerely,

Donald S. Russell.
Then a final greeting comes from the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of South Carolina. He says in part

On behalf of the South Carolina Department of Agriculture, I extend to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures our gratitude for the constructive influence the

continuing conferences have contributed to the uniformity

of this department's administration of weights and measures

laws and regulations. May this 50th Conference induce a

rededication to the motto that equity may prevail. Congratulations and all best wishes to the Conference.

Sincerely,

William L. Harrelson.

As this year 1965 is a milestone in the history of the Conference, so it is also in the history of the National Bureau of

Standards. It has been my custom each year to give you a brief

report of what has been happening at NBS, and I would like for

the remainder of my talk to continue that practice of reporting

briefly of things of importance to NBS.

During the coming year, most of our staff in the Washington

laboratories will move to our new Gaithersburg, Maryland, facilities. Although the schedule has been somewhat delayed, we do

quite confidently expect to be about 90 percent moved a year

from now. Coincident with this move, the NBS history will be

published. In a sense, the history will sum up the first phase

of the Bureau's life, that which ends with our vacating the Connecticut Avenue home we have occupied for more than 60 years.

But, in a far less concrete yet far more crucial sense, NBS

has reached another sort of milestone at the time of this 50th

Conference. It may be a while yet before any of us can appreciate its full importance. I refer to a major increase in central responsibilities assigned to the National Bureau of Standards.

Each year, it seems, I have had occasion to mention to you

the growing responsibilities of NBS. The rapid growth of our

country's scientific and technological activity alone has increased

the Bureau's load manyfold. In addition, the Administration

has assigned us many new responsibilities that are related to our

special competence. Among these are

First, to serve as the focal point within the Federal Government for stimulating the application of science and technology

to the economy. In an age when science and technology have

replaced natural resources as the fountainhead of national

strength and economic growth, this is an important and all- embracing task.

Next, to set up and operate the National Standard Reference

Data System. This is a long-needed attack on a very serious

problem. The proliferation of scientific data in many fields of

science has been a major roadblock to technological and industrial progress. NBS has been assigned the task of directing

this centralized collection, evaluation, organization, and distribution of standard reference data. In addition to being an important task, it is an extremely formidable one. 7
Next, we are asked to establish and expand the Clearinghouse

for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Here, the

product we handle is not data so much as research and development documents, the entire unclassified output of the considerable Federal scientific and technological complex. To do the job

effectively and economically, this mass of information must be

indexed and packaged for ready use by industry. Other related

projects need to be done to keep industry abreast of current technological developments.

Next, we are asked to assume central responsibility for the

Government's interests in engineering and commodity standards.

Here we provide the technical base for performance criteria of

the goods and services produced by industry. This activity is crucial to both domestic and international commerce. We are asked next to set up and operate a central technical

analysis service to conduct cost-benefit studies for our own and

other Federal agencies. In this field we can make a real contribution to efficiency and economy in Government operations.

Another assignment is to establish a central and major Government resource in the automatic data processing field. Under

this heading, we will be providing the technical base for standardization in automatic computers and in developing ways of

using computers for new tasks and for using them more effi- ciently on old tasks. Here again we have an opportunity to return to the taxpayer, in the form of increased Government

efficiency and effectiveness, many times the tax moneys invested.

Our Central Radio Propagation Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, has also been given additional responsibilities. It has been

asked to provide the Nation with space environment information

and prediction services and to extend its support to the Nation's

telecommunications industry to cover the infrared and optical

portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. On the other hand,

this important part of NBS is now scheduled to become a key

component of a new agency, a proposed Environmental Science

Services Administration. The proposed new agency was an- nounced in the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2, consideration of which is now pending before the Congress. If the plan comes into effect, the National Bureau of Standards will once again have made a major contribution in the creation of a new

scientific agency.

We have been asked to shoulder all these jobs in addition to our traditional measurement and measurement standards responsibilities. And all the while, measurement responsibilities

have grown apace. We have demands for increased accuracy of

measurements, increased range of measurements, and attendant

increasing demands on our various measurement services

calibration, testing, and standard materials.

The Nation's scientific and technical capability depends in large part on the capability of the national measurement system.

In a literal sense, measurement is the pacemaker of progress. In this age of science and technology, more and more of our

activities depend upon the work of the scientist and the engineer. This applies to economic activities no less than to the

glamorous advances in space and defense programs.

8
Other nations of the world are harnessing the power of science

and technology, so much so that the lead we once enjoyed is being narrowed, more so in some instances than others. If we

are to maintain our world position, we will have to expand our

science and technology. And if we wish to expand our science

and technology, we must have a national measurement system

that is not just adequate to our needs but that unleashes our full potential for technological growth.

To maintain a proper balance between our resources and our

responsibilities is particularly crucial this year, because of the

coincidence of added responsibilities and added demands on the

national measurement system.

We seek to maintain a proper balance in a number of ways.

One means is to put ourselves out of some types of business,

strange as that sounds. At every opportunity, we turn over to private industry or other laboratories, calibration functions,

production of standard reference materials, any tasks which we

feel others can handle and which, therefore, no longer need the

unique capabilities of NBS.

One of the main purposes of our measurement research is to provide laboratories with the capability for self-calibration so that they are no longer directly dependent on us. We believe

that the new standards which we hope the Congress will permit

us to provide for the States will facilitate such decentralization. In addition, we are working toward a broader based measure- ment capability by seeking to make available independently re- producible standards—like the wavelength standard of length

through standard reference materials and through standard ref- erence data.

These efforts to spread the measurement workload around

help but do not solve the problem. Thus, it has become necessary

for NBS management to take harder and harder looks at our programs to make certain that current efforts match current

needs, rearranging both in order of priority, and then choosing

the programs that survive and those that do not. The choice is becoming more and more painful.

Of encouraging interest with respect to the proposed new

standards for the States, the House of Representatives has approved an appropriation of $400,000 to begin constructing the

new sets of State standard weights and measures. I am sure all of you are familiar with this project, since it was urged upon us by this Conference. In any case, you will hear about it further

in detail during the report of the National Bureau of Standards

Office of Weights and Measures tomorrow morning. This appropriation, if sustained by the Senate, will enable us to prepare

the first ten sets of standards, with the rest to be completed as funds permit in succeeding years.

Since I spoke to you last, in October to be more exact, I at- tended the Twelfth General Conference on Weights and Measures

in Paris. Probably the most important action taken at that

meeting was the adoption of a provisional redefinition of the

second, the unit of time, in terms of an invariant transition of

the cesium atom. The definition was made a temporary one, in anticipation of a more exact definition in the future.

9
In addition to revising the second's definition, the Conference

adopted 12 new secondary standards of wavelength. Four wavelengths from each of the spectra of krypton 86, mercury 198,

and cadmium 114 were affirmed.

The Conference also abrogated the old definition of the liter and designated it as being only a special name for the cubic

decimeter. The resolution in which this action was taken, however, pointed out that the word "liter" should not be used to express the results of volume measurements of high precision.

The liter, when defined as the volume occupied by one kilogram

of water, differed from a cubic decimeter by about 28 millionths,

and this discrepancy—slightly out of line with other international measurements—frequently caused difficulty in precision

work.

In another resolution, the Conference gave formal recognition

to the curie, which has been used as the unit of activity of radioactive substances in a great many countries for a long time.

While at the meeting, I participated in the dedication of a new international radiation measurements laboratory on the outskirts of Paris. This new facility is a significant addition to the

International Bureau of Weights and Measures, supported by the

member nations. The laboratory will promote the standardization of measurement techniques for ionizing radiations for medical, industrial, and scientific purposes on a worldwide scale. Now to return home. I would like to mention a few items of

progress at NBS in several fields of measurement during the

past year.

Our Metrology Division has developed a new weighing technique for very large weights which should save government and

industry millions of dollars in the next few years. The new

technique is called elastic weighing and makes use of a load cell as a comparator. It makes possible more rapid weighings of

weights in the range of a few hundred pounds up to 10,000

pounds or greater with lower-cost, commercially available

equipment.

Also, our metrology experts have performed the first practical

length measurements using as a measurement tool the light

emitted by a laser. The laser was incorporated into a device

previously developed for automatically checking gage blocks

against a wavelength of light, and it gave improved performance

over other light sources which have been used.

We have developed a new method for measuring the power

output of pulsed lasers. Development of the laser as a useful

tool, particularly in very delicate applications like microwelding

and surgery, is dependent on precise measurement and control of

the power output.

Beginning on January 1, 1965, our radio station WWVB began

broadcasting the new international standard atomic second.

These WWVB broadcasts will enable us to study the problems of

distributing atomic time and of maintaining the relationships

between atomic time and other time scales. We have initiated some new calibration services, for example,

humidity measuring instruments and germanium resistance

thermometers which measure in the range of 2 to 5 degrees above

10
absolute zero. In addition, we have extended our vacuum cali- brations down to about 1/760,000 of atmospheric pressure.

Pressures in this range must be measured in such industrial

processes as preparation of vacuum-melt steel and the freeze

drying bf food.

Time 'does not permit me to go very far in reviewing such

accomplishments. I have chosen a few typical examples which

I thought would be of specific interest to you.

Before closing my report, I would like to announce appointments to the Standing Committees of the Conference. At the

present time, we have three standing committees, one on Education, one on Laws and Regulations, and one on Specifications and

Tolerances.

To the Committee on Education, I am appointing John F.

Madden, of the State of New York, to succeed Carl H. Stender,

of the State of South Carolina, who has completed his term on

that committee.

To the Committee on Laws and Regulations, I am appointing

J. F. Lyles, of the State of Virginia, to succeed J. H. Lewis, of

the State of Washington.

To the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, I am

taking advantage of Mr. Stender's release from one committee

and appointing him to this committee to succeed R. E. Meek, of

the State of Indiana.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the members who

are leaving these committees for their very valuable contributions to the work of the Conference. In addition, I would like to express my thanks to the members of all of the Conference committees, the annual committees as well as the standing committees, for their efforts to make this Conference a success and, in

addition, to the members of our own staff, particularly to Mac

Jensen, head of our Office of Weights and Measures and Secretary of the Conference, and his immediate associates for their

valiant efforts on this 50th National Conference.

This closes my report to the Conference, and I express my

thanks to you for letting me share in this Golden Anniversary

celebration.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

Dr. Astin presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 49th Conference in 1964, reached

one of the four attendance categories for which recognition is made—attendance at 10, 15, 20, and 25 meetings.

AWARD RECIPIENTS

25 Years R. Williams

20 Years E. R. Fisher

11
15 Years H. L. Badger

G. L. Johnson

B. D. Miller

J. I. Moore

10 Years A. T. Anderson

H. N. Duff

J. W. D. Harvey

K. G. Hayden

J. M. Hudgins

C. L. Jackson

E. P. Nedrow

A NEW PROGRAM FOR TESTING

POSTAL SCALES

by A. J. Coffman, Deputy Assistant Postmaster General,

Bureau of Facilities, U.S. Post Office Department

As a representative of the Postal Service,

I can begin by assuring you that we are very

much interested, concerned, and affected by

the deliberations of these Conferences.

For over 5,000 years, humans have

weighed and measured articles in buying

and selling. As civilization progressed and commerce expanded between people and nations, systems were developed and basic

standards of weights and measures were

determined and promulgated by laws. Governmental and quasi-governmental organizations have been brought into being in or- der to develop standards and to maintain and enforce the codes

relating to these standards.

Conferences such as this have become invaluable in the solving of new problems concerning weights and measures caused

by the advent of new procedures and technology, procedures

that constantly develop as economic intercourse becomes more

specialized and complicated.

The United States Post Office Department is the world's

largest business receiving revenue based on the weight of materials handled. I can assure you that all of our employees are aware of the importance of accuracy and tolerances as related

to weighing devices.

As you know, articles sent through the mail, from a post card

to a seventy-pound package, are handled on the basis of postage

rates established by law as to weight. There are only three rates charged in the postal services which are not based on weight.

These services are: (1) Registered Mail—the rate is based on the

value of the item being mailed; (2) Insurance—again the rate is based on the value of the mailed matter; (3) Postal Money Orders—based on the value of the money order.

M. Rapp

W. A. Scheurer

C. J. Wills, Jr.

L. T. Reagan

W. H. Schneidewind

R. J. Silcock R. N. Smith

N. P. Tilleman

H. F. Wollin

12
Mail volume handled by your Post Office Department during

fiscal year 1964 reached the unprecedented total of 69.7 billion

pieces of mail. This represents 365 pieces of mail during the

year for each man, woman, and child in the United States. One

piece of mail each day of the year for each person in the

country. The gross weight of this mail handled in fiscal year

1964 was 12.2 billion pounds. This volume, both by piece and

by pound, is increasing annually.

Figure 1 portrays, in four-year increments, volume growth

since 1928. Postage rates for mail are based either on weight or weight and distance. 89.96 percent of all postal revenues in fiscal year 1964 were based on weight alone. Another 8.5 percent was

based on the combination of weight and distance. Therefore,

98.6 percent of all postal rates charged were based on the weight

of the individual piece of mail being handled by the Post Office

Department.

The weight of the item mailed is determined by weighing

devices that are numerous and of varied construction. These numerous weighing devices have been developed by industry over

the years to meet varied specialized requirements of the Postal

Service. Scales have been manufactured of many types, styles,

and in many price ranges. The smaller and less complex scales

do not indicate all postage rates and must be used in conjunction

with a postage rate chart to determine charges. The larger, more expensive scales are equipped with charts to automatically

compute mail and parcel post rates. Postal scales now in service used for the weighing of patron

mail include automatic-indicating spring, beam, automatic-indicating fan, cylinder, and pendulum types. They may be computing or noncomputing. Capacities range from nine ounces to four pounds for letters and small parcels, and up to one hundred

pounds for parcels.

13
Chart 1 is a very simplified organization chart depicting major

responsibilities within the Post Office Department regarding

weighing equipment.

The Bureau of Operations is charged with the responsibility

of determining the need for types of equipment required in the

postal services. The selection of a particular type of scale to meet postal requirements is based primarily on: (1) capacity

needed; (2) accuracy required; (3) use; (4) installation;

(5) speed of response; (6) operating environment; and (7) cost. These needs are developed as changes take place within the postal

system. Examples of these changes are : changes in postal rates

;

types of mail being handled ; changes in operating procedures

;

expansion or contraction of facilities ; and obsolescence of equipment. In addition, our postal field employees estimate their re- quirements as to the number and type of operating equipment.

These estimates include scales. The Bureau of Operations, after determining budgetary limits,

requests our Office of Research and Engineering to prepare detailed performance specifications for procurement purposes. The

Office of Research and Engineering either updates or completely

rewrites a specification for the particular type of scale to meet

the requirements of the Bureau of Operations.

A performance specification is utilized in an attempt to take

advantage of any technological changes and innovations made

by the scale manufacturing industry. In addition, the technical

advice of the Office of Weights and Measures, under the capable

supervision of Mr. M. W. Jensen, is sought and used. Many

production line pilot model scales are tested for the Department

by the laboratory facilities of the National Bureau of Standards.

It must be pointed out that the Department has been quite

conservative in making changes in the types of weighing equipment we use. We feel that we are not in a position to be an

experimental leader, because the Post Office Department is a servant of the people who use its facilities and over the years

the patrons have come to accept, without question, the charge

for postage that is requested to mail the item submitted. We

strive to use proven, low maintenance equipment with a long

service life that will give us our required accuracy.

Upon finalizing a particular specification tailored to meet the

requirements of the Bureau of Operations, the paper work flows

to our Procurement Division, where competitive bids are sought

for the manufacture of the required scales. At this point I would like to direct a challenge to the representatives of the scale manufacturing industry. The Post Office

Department cordially solicits your help and technical knowledge

in meeting our needs for durable, low maintenance, and accurate

weighing equipment. Within our Research and Engineering

organization there is a group whose primary function is to coor- dinate the efforts of private industry as to application of their

products in the Postal Service.

We firmly believe that competition is one of the strongest

stimulants for quality and economy in the procurement of all postal equipment, including scales. Therefore, I would like you

to accept my personal invitation for your company to strive to 14
be the successful bidder on the procurement contracts we award

for weighing equipment.

There are various other operations for which scales are used

in the postal system other than the rating of mail. For instance,

we are experimenting with scales in our work measurement

system, and we are utilizing scales as part of our automated

mail-flow system. Large capacity scales are used for the bulk

weighing of third-class mail. Air mail and air lift first-class

mail are weighed by the sack, so, as you can see, in the postal

service we are utilizing scales as small as 9-ounce capacity to

scales having capacities of 20 tons. We now come to the problem of maintaining all scales, so that

they are within specified tolerances, and we can be sure that

neither the patron nor the Post Office is being over- or undercharged. Over the years, our postal employees have made a

conscientious effort to keep our scales within tolerances. However, due to the magnitude of our operations and the constantly

growing volume of mail, scale testing is the kind of a detail that

may be overlooked or postponed. Many times, our employees'

efforts have been diverted to seemingly more urgent matters. In many instances, the necessary tools and manpower were not

available to accomplish the job. As you may know, there is at

least one scale in every postal facility. There are now over

45,000 individual postal facilities handling patron mail transactions, utilizing over a quarter of a million scales. Have you ever been in any community in this great Country

of ours, where you have not found facilities available to post a

letter? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, our equipment

maintenance forces are employed only at 544 of our larger postal

facilities. Our current regulations state that each scale must be tested

every year where testing equipment is available. Unfortunately,

testing equipment has not been available at many facilities. Therefore, I am sorry to report to you that there are many scales

in use today that have not been adequately maintained. However, I am happy to report that a nationwide scale testing program has been inaugurated in the Postal Service. We also have

regulations in the Postal Service that every postal facility be

annually inspected administratively and financially by a representative of our Postal Inspection Service. In line with the economy program of President Johnson, we

have requested and received the wholehearted support of the

Postal Inspection Service so that, while at a facility for an inspection, the Postal Inspector will also test the scales. This

cooperation will save the Post Office Department a very substantial sum of money, because our maintenance employees will

not have to travel for the sole purpose of scale testing.

After learning of the cooperative spirit of the Postal Inspection Service, it was decided that it would be a physical impossibility to request the Postal Inspector to carry test weights

totaling 70 pounds. Therefore, the Maintenance Division of the

Bureau of Facilities devised a maintenance scale testing procedure. The purpose of this procedure is to ascertain whether or

not a scale is in need of maintenance attention. In addition, a 15
test weight kit of 21 pounds and 53 grains was developed and

procured. Both the testing procedures and the development of

the test weights were accomplished through the cooperation of

the staff of the Office of Weights and Measures.

The procedure was field tested in February and March of this

year at 150 of our large metropolitan Post Offices, and was re- vised and republished in April of this year. The procedure,

which is included as Appendix A, deviates from the test procedure recommended by the Office of Weights and Measures in

certain details. Our procedure obviously is designed specifically

for postal scales. Representatives of the Inspection Service and our own maintenance people are now in the process of testing each and every

scale now in service. Some of the folks doing the scale testing

have been given training in maintenance testing of scales. Each

scale tested in accordance with the maintenance scale testing

procedure is labeled as to whether or not it meets the tolerance

requirements. The labels are pictured on Chart 2. The form used to identify those scales not meeting the specified tolerances has a tear-away post card attached. This post

card, after being posted as to the location, type, and probable

malfunction, is forwarded to the appropriate regional office. Our

current instructions are: The scale must be repaired or replaced

within 30 days. In conjunction with this particular program, we are establishing, throughout the country, Area Maintenance Offices. These

offices are geographically located not more than 175 miles from

any office for which they will have a maintenance responsibility

for postal equipment. With the establishment of the Area

Maintenance Offices, we now have the maintenance capability to give every scale the attention it requires. In addition, criteria

is now being developed for the disposal of those scales which are uneconomical to repair.

Weights and measures officials in a number of locations

throughout the United States have voluntarily contributed the

services of their inspectors to check Post Office scales in their

respective jurisdictions and have called attention of the local

Postmasters to defective or inaccurate scales in use. To these

officials and inspectors, the Post Office Department is deeply

grateful.

We would be delighted to receive additional assistance from

weights and measures officials and inspectors throughout the

United States where, in the course of conducting your operations,

you may find the time to test the scales in the Post Offices in

your respective jurisdictions. All local Postmasters have re- ceived instructions regarding your employees conducting tests on Post Office scales. The local Postmaster is our coordinator in

your area. Your testing of Post Office scales is of immeasurable assistance

to us and is a public service rendered.

I was requested to speak before this gathering in order to tell you what is new in the Postal Service regarding our weighing

equipment. We feel that perhaps the postal establishment stood

still for a long period of time regarding the testing and mainte16
nance of our scales. In 1962, the Maintenance Division was

established in the Bureau of Facilities. Under the able and

aggressive direction of Mr. C. A. Dieman, much has been ac- complished in the scheduling of efficient and low cost maintenance. This program is one example of how the Postal Service

is attempting to adequately maintain its equipment at the

lowest possible cost. You may not wholeheartedly agree with our methods, because

we have deviated from the recognized and published procedures

of the organizations which you represent. However, please bear

in mind that the primary purpose of our maintenance scale test- ing program, performed to a large extent by employees who have

had no scale experience and are not scale mechanics, is to as- certain whether or not a particular scale needs maintenance

attention. You can also rest assured that upon completion of

any repair operation to a scale, the procedures you follow, as

specified by Handbook 44, will be followed by our trained postal

mechanics who will perform the necessary corrective mainte- nance and repair.

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

CHART 1. ORGANIZATION CONCERNED

WITH SCALES

Bureau of Operations

Space and Mechanization Requirements

Division (Determines Scale Needs)

Office of Research and

Engineering

Construction Engineering Division

(Develops Scale Specifications)

Industry Coordinator

(Liaison with Scale Manufacturers)

Bureau of Facilities

Procurement Division (Purchase and Contract Administrator)

Maintenance Division

(Installs and Maintains Scales)

CHART 2. REVISED INTERIM TESTING PROCEDURE

9-OUNCE BEAM SCALE

Section I—Zero Balance Test

Step 1: Place beam poise at zero graduation. Scale is in bal- ance if the red indicator at the tip of the beam is in alignment

with the zero balance line in the center of the trig loop.

Step 2: If the scale is out of balance, turn the adjustment screw

at the end of the beam.

(1) Counter-clockwise if the beam is in the downward

position

;

(2) Clockwise if the beam is in the upward position.

Step 3: If the scale cannot be balanced by turning the adjustment screw, the scale must be rejected.

17
Section II—Sensitivity (SR) Test

Step 1: Place a 10-grain test weight on the platform with the

poise set at zero. The beam must rise so that the balance indicator touches the top of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the top of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 2: With the 10-grain weight on the platform rebalance the

scale to zero. Remove the 10-grain weight. The beam must fall so that the balance indicator touches the bottom of the trig loop.

(If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop, the

scale must be rejected.) Replace the 10-grain weight on the scale

platform and recheck zero balance.

Step 3: With the 10-grain weight on the platform, move the

poise to the 9-ounce notch on the beam and balance by placing an 8-ounce and a 1-ounce weight on the platform. Remove the

10-grain weight. The beam must fall so that the indicator

touches the bottom of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Replace the 10-grain weight on the platform.

Step 4-' Place an additional 10-grain weight on the platform.

The beam must rise so that the balance indicator touches the top

of the trig loop. (If the balance indicator fails to touch the top

of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 5: Remove all weights from the platform and set the

poise at zero. Balance the scale at zero. Section III—Accuracy Test

NOTE: During the test, it is advisable to keep the test weight

load centered or evenly distributed on the scale platform so as to avoid introducing errors resulting solely from an off-center position of the load.

Step 1 : Move the poise to the 1-ounce beam notch.

Step 2: Place the 1-ounce test weight on the platform.

Step 3: Observe the balance indication. The balance indicator

must come to rest somewhere between the top and bottom of the

trig loop. (If the indicator rests either at the top or at the

bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 4-' Repeat the same procedure (Steps 1 through 3) with

test loads of 3, 5, 7, and 9 ounces. Step 5: Upon completion of the test, remove all weights, return

the poise to the zero notch on the beam, and recheck zero balance.

16-OUNCE BEAM SCALE

Section I—Zero Balance Test

Step 1 : Place beam poise at zero graduation. Scale is in bal- ance if the red indicator at the tip of the beam is in alignment

with the zero balance line in the center of the trig loop.

Step 2: If the scale is out of balance, turn the adjustment screw

at the end of the beam:

(1) Counter-clockwise if the beam is in the downward

position

;

(2) Clockwise if the beam is in the upward position.

Step 3: If the scale cannot be balanced by turning the adjustment screw, the scale must be rejected.

18
Section II—Sensitivity (SR) Test

Step 1: Place a 10-grain test weight on the platform with the

poise set at zero. The beam must rise so that the balance indi- cator touches the top of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the top of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 2: With the 10-grain weight on the platform rebalance the

scale to zero. Remove the 10-grain weight. The beam must fall so that the balance indicator touches the bottom of the trig loop.

(If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop, the

scale must be rejected.) Replace the 10-grain weight on the scale

platform and recheck zero balance.

Step 3: With the 10-grain weight on the platform, move the

poise to the 16-ounce notch on the beam and balance by placing

a 1-pound weight on the platform. Remove the 10-grain weight.

The beam must fall so that the indicator touches the bottom of

the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the

trig loop, the scale must be rejected.) Replace the 10-grain

weight on the platform.

Step U: Place an additional 10-grain weight on the platform.

The beam must rise so that the balance indicator touches the top

of the trig loop. (If the balance indicator fails to touch the top

of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 5: Remove all weights from the platform and set the poise

at zero. Balance the scale at zero. Section III—Accuracy Test

NOTE: During the test, it is advisable to keep the test weight

load centered or evenly distributed on the scale platform so as to avoid introducing errors resulting solely

from an off-center position of the load.

Step 1: Move the poise to the 1-ounce beam notch.

Step 2: Place the 1-ounce test weight on the platform.

Step 3: Observe the balance indication. The balance indicator

must come to rest somewhere between the top and bottom of the

trig loop. (If the indicator rests either at the top or at the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 4: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 1 through 3) with

test loads of 4, 8., 12, and 16 ounces. Step 5: Upon completion of the test, remove all weights, return

the poise to the zero notch on the beam, and recheck zero balance.

4-POUND BEAM SCALE

Section I—Zero Balance Test

Step 1 : Place beam poise at zero graduation. Scale is in bal- ance if the red indicator at the tip of the beam is in alignment

with the zero balance line in the center of the trig loop.

Step 2: If the scale is out of balance, turn the adjustment

screw at the end of the beam:

(1) Counter-clockwise if the beam is in the downward position ; (2) Clockwise if the beam is in the upward position.

Step 3: If the scale cannot be balanced by turning the adjustment screw, the scale must be rejected.

19
Section II—Sensitivity (SR) Test

Step 1: Place a %-ounce test weight on the platform with the

poise set at zero. The beam must rise so that the balance indica- tor touches the top of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the top of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 2: With the ^-ounce weight on the platform, rebalance

the scale to zero. Remove the ^-ounce weight. The beam must

fall so that the balance indicator touches the bottom of the trig

loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop,

the scale must be rejected.) Replace the Vs-ounce weight on

the platform and recheck zero balance.

Step 3: With the %-ounce weight on the platform, move the

poise to the 4-pound notch on the beam and balance by placing

four 1-pound weights on the platform. Remove the %-ounce

weight. The beam must fall so that the indicator touches the bottom of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the bottom

of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.) Replace the Y8

- ounce weight on the platform.

Step h: Place an additional Vs-ounce weight on the platform.

The beam must rise so that the balance indicator touches the

top of the trig loop. (If the balance indicator fails to touch the

top of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 5: Remove all weights from the platform and set the

poise at zero. Balance the scale at zero.

Section III—Accuracy Test

NOTE

No. 1: During the test, it is advisable to keep the test weight

load centered or evenly distributed on the scale platform

so as to avoid introducing errors resulting solely from

an off-center position of the load.

NOTE

No. 2: There are some 4-pound beam scales in service which do

not have the ounce graduations for the first pound. For

these scales, perform an Accuracy Test at the 1-pound,

2-pound, 3-pound, and 4-pound notches on the beam

scale. Step 1 : Move the poise to the 1-ounce beam notch.

Step 2: Place a 1-ounce test weight on the platform.

Step 3: Observe the balance indication. The balance indicator

must come to rest somewhere between the top and bottom of the

trig loop. (If the indicator rests either at the top or at the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step U: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 1 through 3) with

test loads of 4, 8, 12 ounces, 1 pound, 2 pounds, 3 pounds, and 4

pounds.

Step 5: Upon the completion of the test, remove all weights,

return the poise to the zero notch on the beam, and recheck zero

balance.

20
100-POUND BEAM SCALE

NOTE: Before conducting any maintenance tests on the 100-

pound beam scale it must be ascertained that there are no slot weights on the hook weight assembly.

Section I—Zero Balance Test

Step 1: Place the ounce poise and the main poise at zero graduation. Scale is in balance if indicator at the tip of the beam is in alignment with the zero scribe line in the center of the trig

loop.

Step 2: If the scale is out of balance, turn the adjustment

screw at the end of the beam

(1) Counter-clockwise if the beam is in the downward position ; (2) Clockwise if the beam is in the upward position.

Step 3: If the scale cannot be balanced by turning the adjustment screw, the scale must be rejected.

Section II—Sensitivity (SR) Test

NOTE: During the test, it is advisable to keep the test weight

load centered or evenly distributed on the scale platform so as to avoid introducing errors resulting from

an off-center position of the load.

Part A—Short Beam (0 to 16 Ounces)

NOTE: The main beam poise must be in the zero notch.

Step 1: Place a 1-ounce test weight on the platform with the

poise set at zero. The beam must rise so that the balance indi- cator touches the top of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the top of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 2: With the 1-ounce weight on the platform., rebalance the

scale to zero. Remove the 1-ounce weight. The beam must fall so that the balance indicator touches the bottom of the trig loop.

(If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop, the

scale must be rejected.) Replace the 1-ounce weight on the

scale platform. Recheck zero balance.

Step 3: With the 1-ounce weight on the platform, move the ounce poise to the 16-ounce notch on the short beam and balance

by placing a 1-pound weight on the platform. Remove the 1-ounce

weight. The beam must fall so that the indicator touches the

bottom of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step U: Place a 2-ounce test weight on the platform. The beam

must rise so that the balance indicator touches the top of the

trig loop. (If the balance indicator fails to touch the top of the

trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 5: Remove all weights from the platform and set the poise

at zero. Rebalance the scale at zero. Part B—Main Beam (0 to 100 Pounds)

NOTE: The ounce poise must be in the zero notch at the short

beam.

Step 1: Place a 1 (ounce test weight on the platform with the

21
poise set at zero. The beam must rise so that the balance indicator touches the top of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the top of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 2: With the 1-ounce weight on the platform, rebalance the

scale at zero. Remove the 1-ounce weight. The beam must fall so that the balance indicator touches the bottom of the trig loop.

(If the indicator fails to touch the bottom of the trig loop, the

scale must be rejected.) Replace the ounce weight on the scale

platform.

Step 3: With the I-ounce weight on the platform, move the

poise to the 20-pound notch and balance by placing five 1-pound

and three 5-pound weights on the platform. Remove the 1-ounce

weight. The beam must fall so that the indicator touches the bottom of the trig loop. (If the indicator fails to touch the bottom

of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step W- Place a 2-ounce weight on the platform. The beam

must rise so that the balance indicator touches the top of the

trig loop. (If the balance indicator fails to touch the top of the

trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 5: Remove all weights from the platform, set the poise at

zero, and rebalance the scale at zero. Section III—Accuracy Test

NOTE

No. 1: During the test, it is advisable to keep the test weight

load centered or evenly distributed on the scale platform except while conducting the shift test (Steps 10-

12) so as to avoid introducing errors resulting solely

from an off-center position of the load.

NOTE

Note 2: During the conduct of this test, when testing on the

short beam, the poise on the main beam must be in the

zero notch; when testing on the main beam, the poise on the short beam must be in the zero notch.

Step 1: Move the poise on the short beam to the 1-ounce notch.

Step 2: Place a 1-ounce test weight on the platform.

Step 3: Observe the balance indication. The balance indicator

must come to rest somewhere between the top and bottom of the

trig loop. (If the indicator rests either at the top or at the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step U: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 1 through 3) on the

short beam, with test loads of 4, 8, 12, and 16 ounces. Step 5: Remove all weights from the platform, return the poise

to the zero notch, and recheck zero balance.

Step 6: Move the poise on the main beam to the 1-pound notch.

Step 7: Place a 1-pound test weight on the platform.

Step 8: Observe the balance indication. The balance indicator

must come to rest somewhere between the top and bottom of the

trig loop. (If the indicator rests either at the top or at the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 9: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 6 through 8) with

test loads of 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 pounds.

22
Step 10: With the 20 pounds of weights on the platform, re- move and replace (do not slide) the three 5-pound weights to the

right front corner of the scale platform grouped over the main

load support element.

Step 11: Observe the balance indication. The balance indicator

must come to rest somewhere between the top and bottom of the

trig loop. (If the indicator rests either at the top or at the bottom of the trig loop, the scale must be rejected.)

Step 12: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 10 and 11) at the

remaining three corners of the scale platform.

Step 13: Upon completion of the test, remove all weights, re- turn the poise to the zero notch, and recheck zero balance.

70-POUND PARCEL POST SCALE—AUTOMATIC

AND DRUM

Section I—Zero Adjustment

Step 1 : Check the scale indicator to ascertain that it is in precise alignment with the zero graduation.

Step 2: If an adjustment is necessary to bring the indicator in

precise alignment, turn the adjustment screw either to the left or to the right as appropriate.

Step 3: With the indicator in precise alignment, manually depress the scale platform twice. The indicator must return to the

precise alignment with the zero graduation. If the indicator fails to return to the precise alignment with the zero graduation, the

scale must be rejected.

Section II—Accuracy Test

NOTE: During the test, it is advisable to keep the load well

centered or evenly distributed on the scale platform at

all times except during the shift test (Steps 4 through

6) so as to avoid introducing errors resulting solely from

an off-center position of the load.

Step 1: Place a 4-ounce test weight on the platform.

Step 2: Observe the indicator; it must come to rest within %

of the graduation space above or below the 4-ounce graduation

line. (If the scale indication is in error by more than y4 of the

graduated interval, above or below the test load graduation, the

scale must be rejected.)

Step 3: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 1 and 2) with test loads of 8 ounces, 12 ounces, 1 pound, 2 pounds, 3 pounds, 4

pounds, 5 pounds, 10 pounds, 15 pounds, and 20 pounds.

Step U: With the 20 pounds of weights on the platform, remove

and replace (do not slide) the three 5-pound weights to the right

front corner of the scale platform grouped over the main load

support element.

Step 5: Observe the indicator; it must come to rest within ]4

of the graduation space above or below the 20-pound graduation

line. (If the scale indication is in error by more than y4 of an

interval above or below the 20-pound graduation, the scale must

be rejected.)

23
Step 6: Repeat the same procedure (Steps 4 and 5) at the re- maining three corners of the scale platform.

Step 7: Upon completion of the test, remove all weights from

the platform and recheck zero alignment.

THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES—A PROGRAM FOR

THE FUTURE

by V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures,

Ohio Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg, Ohio, and

Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures.

This Conference marks a milestone in

the weights and measures program for our

country. As you well know, we are cele- brating our Golden Anniversary. The future of our Conference depends to a great

extent upon what has been done in the

past. It seems appropriate then, to examine the heritage we are leaving for the

future—the background upon which future Conferences will build.

Is it a good heritage or a bad one? One of

which we can be proud or be ashamed? Let

us take a quick look for the answer.

In 1905, Director S. W. Stratton, of the

National Bureau of Standards, called a meeting of representatives of the several States. The purpose of the meeting was "to bring about uniformity in the State laws referring to weights

and measures, and also to effect a closer cooperation between the

State inspection services and the National Bureau of Standards."

Eleven persons attended that first Conference. Today, sixty years

later, attendance will probably exceed 650.

Such a Conference, sponsored by the National Bureau of

Standards, has been held regularly—except in time of war or other national emergency—to the present time.

Over the years there has been consistent growth in all aspects

of weights and measures work. There is no denying that mistakes have been made at times but the objective has always been

a constructive one, and that objective has been attained time

and time again. We, in the several States, have looked to the National Conference for guidance and have found it. The third National Conference, upon recommendation of the

Executive Committee, adopted suggestions for State laws. This was the beginning of the Model Law. Since then, this Model Law

has been enlarged and amended, as need arose, but always with

improvement. The weights and measures laws of every State,

since the adoption of the Model Law, have been based, in whole

or in part, upon it. This is a part of the heritage of the last fifty

years.

Participation in the Conference has grown and become more

inclusive and rightly so. At first, only State officials attended.

Soon municipal and county officials became active members.

24
Quite properly, then, representatives of manufacturers and busi- ness groups became participants as associate members. In addition, we have brought to our Conferences representatives of

other Federal agencies that have common problems with

weights and measures officials : These include the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Food and Drug Administration. All these groups provided a broad educational base,

enlarging the services and values of the Conference to State and

local officials, to industry, and to the general public. All this is a part of our heritage.

If each of you were to write down on a piece of paper the number of subjects you thought might have been brought before our Conference and tabulate the items, there would be a wide variety

of answers, and most lists would probably be "underregistrations." To fully appreciate the vast scope of subjects which our Conference has had before it, hear this. The Index to the Reports of National Conferences from the First through the Fortyfifth lists 688 major subjects, which were presented by 496 different individuals. But the 688 major items are only part of the

story. A number of these items are subdivided into separate subjects. For example, the title "Bottles" has under it discussions on the characteristics, the testing, specifications and tolerances

of bottles for alcoholic beverages, oil, milk and cream. Bottles, in one aspect or another, were discussed in 22 different Conferences.

This will give us an idea of the vast range of subject matter that

has been presented.

The value of our heritage depends largely upon what leadership is provided. The leadership of the National Conference on Weights and Measures has been outstanding. The Conference in- dex lists 496 speakers. I attempted to go through the list and select a few of those to whom we owed so much.But this was a

task far beyond my ability. I will name just a few from the National Bureau of Standards who have contributed a great deal. These names, as you will recall them, will give you an idea of

the splendid leadership we have had. S. W. Stratton, the first Director of the Bureau, L. A. Fischer, F. S. Holbrook, L. V. Judson, L. J. Briggs, E. U. Condon, H. W. Bearce, Wilmer Souder,

R. W. Smith, A. V. Astin, H. H. Russell, W. S. Bussey, and

M. W. Jensen.

The leadership from State and local officials and industry has

been consistently excellent through Conference after Conference.

This rich heritage of leadership has constantly led toward the

objective of that first Conference, i.e., nationwide uniformity of

laws, along with uniformity of regulations, interpretations and

enforcement procedures.

NBS, striving to constantly bring about greater uniformity

and precision of measurement, has worked with the various Conference Committees in establishing reference material such as handbooks, technical papers and educational aids. These include

films, audiovisual aides, handbooks on procedures and administration, and specifications and tolerances for weighing and

measuring devices.

All this is a part of the heritage of past National Conferences.

This Conference, as you know, will be considering a complete

25
revision of H-44. This revision marks a decided advance in this

publication—but more about this later. The cooperation between regulatory officials, representatives of

manufacturers, and business groups has been made possible by

the National Conference. Without it there could not help but be

wide gaps of misunderstanding between these groups. This past

year, for example, has witnessed excellent cooperation between

industry, business groups, and members of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances in the proposed revision of H-44.

Out of the National Conferences, where folks with like problems can communicate, have come State and regional conferences,

newsletters, weights and measures schools, a correspondence

course, the observance of National Weights and Measures Week,

and much more. In all of this, the National Bureau of Standards

has played the important role. We owe much to the present staff of the Office of Weights and Measures.

This is a brief look at the heritage left to the future by 50

National Conferences. It is a good heritage, one of which to be

proud.

What does the future hold? Even greater achievements than

in the past. More and more, the results of future Conferences

will tend to influence Federal, State, and local weights and measures programs.

The primary objective of National Conferences will probably

not change a great deal, unless the Federal Government should

enter into the field of enforcement. To my knowledge, there is no thought of this so far as the NBS Office of Weights and Measures is concerned. Yet this possibility must be recognized, which

should keep all States alert to doing a better and better job. Assuming that the objective shall continue to be for greater uniformity of laws and regulations and uniformity in the field of

procedures, we might look for future Conferences to follow the

guidelines provided by our past, but to expand, enlarge, and intensify these items.

This history of measurement has been one of a constant search

for accuracy from the time that the cubit was standardized by

Menes of Egypt to the recently changed definition of the meter.

This search for greater accuracy will be based upon advancement

in scientific and technical knowledge. Needless to say, the whole

world has gone forward in this direction at a most rapid rate. Weights and measures cannot help but be affected. We, in this

profession, will be given a tremendous challenge to keep up with

the world. We cannot do otherwise.

State and local jurisdictions will be demanding more scientifically trained personnel. The National Conference, recognizing

this, can determine what might be desirable qualifications ; committees could well be working on courses of study. A good job

has been done, but there is still a long way to go in this field,

and local officials will continue to look to the National Conference

for guidance.

In the search for greater accuracy, more State laboratories of

weights and measures will be established ; and those in exist- ence today will be improved. How will this affect the National

Conference? In the past, there have been a few dissertations on 26
laboratory procedures, but most have been suggestions on field work. Suggestions on field work will continue, as new devices,

etc., are developed, but look for the National Conference to gradually allocate more time to laboratory needs—which will include

suitable equipment as well as procedures.

Since we live in an ever more rapidly changing world, many

of the subjects presented to National Conferences will have a new look. Instead of debating the tolerances on glass bottles, it may well be that the emphasis will be upon plastic containers,

and this may be not too far in the future either.

While the objective of the National Conference cannot help

but be uniformity for the benefit of the entire Nation, complete

uniformity will never be achieved. You may or may not agree

with me, but I believe that complete uniformity would be a

tragedy. Individual incentive and creative thinking will bring

variations. Some noncompliance will probably always be present.

But progress will be made provided that such nonuniformity is directed toward accuracy. Every National Conference cannot

help but recognize that opportunity must be given for full evaluation of differences. The National Conference of the future will

be the medium of exchange of even more information than in

the past. I mention this for this reason : Regularity of attend- ance to National Conferences, in the future, will be more important and significant than in the past. You cannot afford to miss,

and this applies not only to officials but industry as well.

The ease of communication, travel, and transportation brings

States closer and closer together. The need for understanding,

for cooperation and uniformity, will likewise become greater. I must be familiar not only with Ohio's requirements, but also with

those of my sister States, so that I can better serve my own

State. The officials who are in State work know how this need is developing. In the changing scene, the organization of the National Conference will likely change somewhat, too. There is nothing sacred

in any given setup. It has changed in the past and probably will

in the future. This is good. This is not to criticize the present

organization because as we are all aware, it does serve well ; but

any organization should change to meet changing situations. Not

many years ago there were five standing committees ; now there

are three. And all is well ! But be prepared for changes. However, regardless of organization, it should have its roots in the

National Bureau of Standards—that I do not expect to change.

As in the past, the National Conference programs will bring

challenges to people engaged in weights and measures. For ex- ample, let us look at the Tentative Report of the Committee on

Education as printed on page 20 of the Announcement.

In addition to the above items the Committee would like to explore the possibility of developing outlines and other material which would provide the basis for presentations of weights

and measures information for school classes at the elementary

and secondary levels. This is an item that has been considered

by some weights and measures officials for many years. A few

officials have, in fact, developed and presented educational material to the students in their jurisdictions.

27
This Committee is saying to us that in the field of education

there is much to be done. This Committee, like the others, has

done a fine job. For example, the observation of Weights and

Measures Week, is constantly growing. Yet, the Committee feels

the need of a much more basic and fundamental educational program. And, you know, I think they are correct. Along this same

line, look for the Office of Weights and Measures to develop more

educational material, for both the men in service as well as for

the public.

We are all very happy that the Office of Weights and Measures

has advanced recently in two directions: (1) The securing of a

larger and well-trained staff, and (2) securing excellent laboratory facilities. These two achievements will work hand in hand

to carry on precise scientific investigations into the many problems which are encountered in the field of weights and measures,

as well as providing more help to State and local officials. The

present staff and the new facilities will provide a foundation for

future growth and service. The National Conference of the future will be the beneficiary of much that is accomplished by the

Office of Weights and Measures. That is why, I feel that the National Conference must continue to be rooted in the National Bureau of Standards.

We, as a Nation, have entered the Space Age but, as individual

units, we have not been touched by this era. Oh, yes, we may

have had to check some standards for industry engaged in Space

Age work but that is about all. In the future, we are certainly

going to come in contact with its problems more and more. For

example, in the package labeling field. A statement of weight on

a package in the "weightless" portion of the stratosphere would

be meaningless. Astronauts, we are told, carried food in squeeze

tubes. When space travel becomes a fact on a large scale, future

National Conferences might well consider what is proper label- ing for such. In any case, it will not be too long before these

Conferences will be dealing with problems brought about by

space travel.

The future will provide many problems and challenges which

we cannot now see. But I have great faith that future Conferences will meet the problems efficiently and effectively.

The spirit of the National Conference is so well illustrated in a poem written many years ago by Edgar Guest entitled, "It Couldn't Be Done." I will read it and, in your thinking, substi- tute the words "National Conference" for the word "He."

Somebody said it couldn't be done,

But he with a chuckle replied

That "maybe it couldn't," but he would be one Who wouldn't say so till he'd tried.

So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin

On his face. If he worried, he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing

That couldn't be done, and he did it. Somebody scoffed: "Oh, you'll never do that;

At least no one ever has done it,"

But he took off his coat and he took off his hat

28
And the first thing we knew he'd begun it. With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,

Without any doubting or quiddit,

He started to sing as he tackled the thing

That couldn't be done, and he did it. There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done.

There are thousands to prophesy failure;

There are thousands to point out to you one by one, The dangers that wait to assail you.

But just buckle in with a bit of a grin.

Just take off your coat and go to it, Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing

That "cannot be done," and you'll do it.

I know they will come through!
I
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1965

(L. Barker, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

by M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and

Measures, and Staff

This has been another busy and productive year in the Office of Weights and Measures. It has been a year of sound progress.

We have a new staff member, Tom Stabler, from whom you will hear a little later. Tom came to us from the University of

Maryland and the Maryland Weights and

Measures Department. He is our Laboratory Metrologist, and will have responsibilities in the weights and measures laboratory

field. He will assist in the design, test, installation, training, and facilities selection

of weights and measures laboratories and

laboratory technicians of the States, and similarily for local jurisdictions and industry, as our help is called for. We are quite delighted to have as a Student Trainee for the

summer a young man from the Alfred Tech Measurement Sci- ence Course, Mike Tartaglia.

Don Mackay, who, of course, is an Engineer on the staff of

the Office of Weights and Measures and from whom you have

heard each of the past two years, has largely been on another

assignment during this past year, as Acting Chief of the Office

of Commodity Standards.

We have had many activities since the Conference last met.

Probably the largest single two were planning for this Golden

Anniversary and working with the Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances and with industry in the complete revision of

NBS Handbook 44.

Our family has grown. OWM now includes, in addition to our

traditional weights and measures responsibilities, responsibilities

in the area of Federal-State technical services. Also, the Chief of

the office of Weights and Measures now acts as Manager, Engineering Standards, which includes responsibilities in the areas

of commodity standards, standards fixed by statute, and a new

Standards Communications Center.

Plans for the program of new standards for the States are well

under way, and you will hear more about this later. You heard

Dr. Astin report yesterday that the House has agreed to a $400,-

000 appropriation to start this program.

Now to report on the specific activities, I am quite pleased to present to you some of the members of our senior staff. 31
H. F. Wollin, Engineer

Indeed, it has been a busy year for the Office of Weights and

Measures, and especially so when one considers the large number of conferences and meetings that we have prepared for and

participated in since last year's National Conference.

Most important, of course, was our preparation for this, the

50th National Conference on Weights and Measures. We certainly

hope that by now you have seen and enjoyed some of the things on which we put in extra effort. Naturally, we will be pleased if you find the remaining business sessions and the Exposition and

our social events to your liking, for I might say that we have

tried very hard to make this a really commemorative affair in

celebration of this golden occasion. Certainly we hope you will

long remember it. Members of the OWM staff have covered the country attending conferences and meetings—a total of 18 State and regional

conferences in all. This is a record that we are very proud of. We feel this is a vital part of our responsibility to the States,

and we know also it is equally important to us, for it helps to maintain that network of cooperation and communication which

we feel is so necessary in the field of weights and measures. Our travels do not stop here, however. There were many industry and business conferences and meetings that we participated in during the past year which we consider also of prime

importance.

Last year we accepted invitations to attend 13 major confer- ences that were held by business and industry associations, agencies of the Federal Government, and private organizations, all of which have an interest in weights and measures activities.

Just to name a few, there was the Produce Packaging Association meeting, the American Ladder Institute meeting, the National Scale Men's Association, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, the Post Office Department, and the Milk

Market Administrators of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

meeting.

So far I have accounted for only about one-half of our travel

and activities away from Washington. Over the course of a year,

we make many other visits and hold meetings and training ses- sions—you will hear more about the training sessions from Dick

Smith a little later—meetings with representatives of industry,

business, governments, and private organizations.

Thus, I think you can see that our outside activities, activities

away from Washington, keep us on the move and very busy.

However, as you know, our base of operations is located in our

offices and laboratories near Gaithersburg, Maryland, the site of

the new facilities for the National Bureau of Standards.

Many of you will remember that, in 1962, Mr. Jensen and Mr.

Mackay visited several Latin American nations under the auspices of the Agency for International Development of the U.S.

Department of State. The main purpose of this trip was to sur- vey the several nations as to their interest in, willingness to undertake, and probable abilities to proceed with a program of

weights and measures standardization and control. The success

of this trip in South America was evident from the very be32
ginning, for it created considerable interest among our neighbors in Central and South America for a weights and measures

program.

Since that time, considerable effort has been made by representatives of our country, and of the countries of Latin America,

to complete the necessary arrangements for the establishment of

weights and measures programs.

I am pleased to report now that we in the Office of Weights

and Measures have been privileged to have had the opportunity

to play a major role in this program and in the establishment

of it. Very briefly, developments to date are these

1. The Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of State, provided us with funds for the design and

construction of a set of weights and measures standards

and laboratory instruments and accessories for a developing nation in Latin America. This task was completed some

time ago, the standards being very similar in design to the

new State standards, except that the Latin American standards were, of course, in the metric system.

2. About two months ago, we received authorization from the

State Department to pack and ship the standards to Bogota, Columbia, where a model weights and measures laboratory was to be created at the National University of

Colombia. This phase of the program was completed just

last week.

3. Next Wednesday, June 30, Mr. Thomas Stabler and I will

fly to Bogota, Colombia, for approximately one month, for

the purpose of setting up the model weights and measures

laboratory and conducting laboratory training of officials from Colombia and other nations in South America. The

laboratory will serve as a training base for all Latin American countries that expect to establish weights and measures programs in the near future. While we are in Colombia,

we will also survey weighing and measuring practices in commerce and conduct training of the University personnel on administrative and technical procedures associated in the

administration of a weights and measures program.

T. M. Stabler, Laboratory Metrologist

One of the most important and most significant developments

in weights and measures in the past hundred years has been an- nounced at this Conference a couple of times now, and that is the new State Standards Program. This program will not only

include new standards of mass, length, and volume, but also the

precision instruments of measurement to complement a weights

and measures laboratory.

Included in the standards of mass are two 500-pound nesting mass standards, a set of 32 mass standards in the range of 50

pounds to 1-millionth of a pound. Also, a 2500-pound precision

balance and 3 semiautomatic, single-pan balances. These are of

50-pound, 5-pound, and 1-pound capacities.

The volume standards include a 5-gallon stainless steel capacity standard and a pipette and burette assembly, consisting of 6

33
pipettes— 1 gallon, y2 gallon, 1 quart, 1 pint, y2 pint, 1 gill—and

two burettes, a 1-fluid ounce burette and a 20-minim burette.

The primary length standards are a 25-foot steel tape with

engraved graduations in metric and U.S. customary units ; a 100-

foot steel tape ; and a standard length bench. The length bench

is 17 feet long, mounted on wall brackets, and has a stainless

steel bar graduated in metric and U.S. units.

Many accessories accompany these standards—for example,

microscopes, precision rules, tension weights, illuminators, and

thermometers.

I will be visiting the States, as will other members of the staff, to review existing conditions, in an effort to determine

the States' qualifications as recipients in this program.

An adequate physical plant and full-time personnel are essential for effective conduct of a calibration center. To fill the need

for calibration services until the State laboratories can perform

their own calibrations, the Office of Weights and Measures has

assumed this responsibility at the National Bureau of Standards.

The Metrology Division at the Bureau will no longer calibrate

field standards for the States. These tests are to be conducted

at the Office of Weights and Measures laboratory.

We in the Office of Weights and Measures eagerly anticipate

the establishment of weights and measures laboratories in all States of the United States and the training of qualified personnel to perform a most essential service, necessary not only for

weights and measures activities of the States, but also for educational institutions, industry, business, and for research and development effort. R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator

Technical training is a major activity of the Office of Weights

and Measures, and it is one activity to which we devote a tre- mendous amount of time and effort. I am certainly happy to be

a part of this important activity and am thoroughly enjoying it. As weights and measures work becomes more technical, the

need for careful selection and training of qualified personnel in- creases proportionately. Technical training always plays a vital

role in the promotion of nationwide uniformity in weights and

measures control.

With our limited staff, we cannot begin to handle the total

training effort that -is required, but, by working in many different ways, and by using many different methods, we think we

can assist the jurisdictions in setting up and maintaining adequate training programs.

During the past year, what we term special field training was

conducted in five States. In each case the State had purchased

new and specialized equipment to enable them to add some new

phase of activity to their existing program.

Two examples come to mind. First, in Arkansas, where a new

large-capacity scale testing unit was purchased; second, in Virginia, where the testing of slow-flow meters and automobile

odometers was initiated.

Upon the request of three States that had encountered short

length ladders being offered for sale, a study was made of ladder

34
marking and merchandising practices. This study was made with

the complete cooperation of the ladder industry. We reviewed all the existing American Standards Association codes and Federal

specifications in this area and worked through the American Ladder Institute in the development of what we feel now is a comprehensive guide to ladder measurement, tolerances, and

marking requirements. This recommendation for ladder meas- urement standardization will be distributed to each State office soon. In an effort to promote greater uniformity in laws, regulations, and testing equipment, State office technical visits were

conducted in 12 States. We hope to contact each State office at

least every other year in the future.

The second audio-visual technical training aid was produced.

At the Conference last year it was our privilege to show you

our first training aid—The Examination of a Computing Scale.

We now have completed and have available for loan or purchase

the second training aid, The Examination of a Single Product

Motor Fuel Dispenser.

We presently are working with the Packers and Stockyards

Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the examination of a livestock scale, and we hope to continue the production

of these training aids to cover all basic commercial weighing and

measuring devices.

We have, of course, continued to assist the States in the conduct of classroom type training courses. These normally are of

two- or three-day duration, are directed to all inspectors, and

cover a broad range of weights and measures subjects.

As you have heard, our laboratory training program is being

greatly increased. We have a supervisors school, which will be

the third supervisors school, scheduled for Boulder, Colorado,

August 9 through August 11. We are planning more industry

seminars for the coming year.

S. Hasko, Engineer

Last year, the 49th National Conference on Weights and Measures amended Section 3.1. on Net Quantity of the Model State

Package Regulation to read, in part, as follows:

The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package shall disclose the net

quantity of the commodity (including propellant) that will be expelled when

the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed. In January of last year, an extensive study of methods for

checking aerosol packaged products was initiated. The specific

aim of this study, conducted jointly by the Office of Weights and

Measures and the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Aerosol Division, was to find an acceptable method whereby

the average net delivered weight of a sample of an aerosol package could be accurately and simply determined by weights and

measures inspectors.

At the last Conference, possible procedures for checking nonfood foam-type products were discussed and demonstrated. The

net results of this study have been the development and dissemination of four simple package-checking procedures covering the

major portion of the spectrum of aerosol products.

35
The methods were prepared as supplements to the packagechecking procedures presented in NBS Handbook 67, Checking

Prepackaged Commodities. They were developed in four broad

categories of aerosol products, selected according to product characteristics and applications. The categories are as follows

1. Non-food foam products, such as, shaving creams, shampoos, hand creams, and cosmetic foams

2. Low viscosity products, such as, hair sprays, starches, per- sonal and room deodorants, window cleaners, insecticides,

and furniture polishes

3. High viscosity products, such as, paints, lacquers, varnishes,

plastic finishes, and undercoatings

4. Food products, such as, whipped toppings, frostings, syrups,

frosted whips, and spreads.

In addition, a special report form to be used in conjunction

with these procedures was prepared.

Since the high viscosity and food product procedures were just

recently issued, some of the products on the shelves now may be

short when checked using the new procedure. It is recommended

that sufficient time be allowed for the old stock to be depleted.

Initially, it may be advisable for weights and measures officials to issue warnings to the company when short-weight products in

these categories are found.

What is next in the field of aerosol products? That depends on

you. While we strive to develop sound procedures, we are constantly on the lookout for possible inconsistencies in these methods, and only the use of these procedures by weights and

measures officials will reveal any deficiencies or exceptions.

One exception was recently noted in the checking of aerosol

packaged toothpaste. Work on this type of product will be needed.

In the area of measuring equipment, improvement must be a continuous process. While the present fabric-measuring tapes

have been a marked improvement over the cloth tapes, they still leave much to be desired. Studies are being initiated on methods

of improving the present tapes and on other possible tape material. L. J. Chisholm, Technical Writer

I am going to touch lightly on three subjects—the Weights and

Measures Tech Memo, the OWM Library, and the metric sys- tem. Within the last few weeks, the library and the metric sys- tem have been somewhat synonymous, but more about that in a

minute.

The Tech Memo was originated with the idea in mind that it should be issued as often as was dictated by necessity. As material has been accumulated that was of interest to State and local jurisdictions, the Tech Memo has been distributed. When the

Tech Memo was originated, it was thought that it would have

not one but two purposes. The basic and obvious purpose was to disseminate information of national and professional interest to the various weights and measures jurisdictions throughout thej

United States. The second reason for the Tech Memo has been

perhaps less obvious and less emphasized.

36
There are many weights and measures jurisdictions that either

for budgetary or time considerations have no newsletter and have

no ready communication with sister jurisdictions. It is this deficiency that also gave rise to the Tech Memo.

There are some States that are fortunate enough—and we

welcome them—to have the facilities to issue a newsletter. But

the newsletters, filling an important and often uninterpreted

role, are few enough when one considers the need for communication in this field that is so basic to the everyday lives of the

people in our country.

Throughout the past years, one of the most important parts of

the OWM program has been the State visit, the head-to-head consultation between local officials and the OWM staff. But the workload of State officials, as you know more personally than I, is in- creasing, and the responsibilities of OWM are growing much

faster than its staff. So lines of communication, as time and

work squeeze all of us, inevitably become more crucial. In a State visit the value is inherent—the two-way communication between local and national officials. In the Tech Memo

so far, in its infancy, communication has been from national to

local. But this is not enough. We would like all weights and

measures officials, and especially those without ready organs of

communication, to consider the Tech Memo as their own personal newsletter. When you are out on a job and something oc- curs to you that might be a problem shared by all officials or, better yet, a solution to a problem that might be of benefit to other officials, let us hear about it. The Tech Memo is there for

that purpose.

We would like all officials throughout the United States to feel that they have a voice available, the Tech Memo, to air the problems of the day.

We can issue the Tech Memo as often as is needed. There is no time limit or restriction. So let us hear from you. As we in

OWM conceive it, the Tech Memo should not be talking at you

it should be talking with you.

In recent weeks, the National Archival Weights and Measures

Library, besides fulfilling its normal role as a good source of

weights and measures information for our staff, has received a

great deal of use by outside researchers, mostly reporters. This

has been prompted, of course, by the recent British announce- ment of their intention to switch to the metric system over the

next ten years. The reason for the great interest here is perhaps

obvious. Our American customary inch-pound-gallon system was

inherited from the British inch-pound-gallon system, and the an- nouncement that they are going to do away with that system

must cause us to pause and reexamine our position. We inherited our weights and measures system from them, and they are throwing it out. But such thoughts have more to do with psychology than fact, more to do with romance than economics, and

the basic contentions of whether to switch or not to switch re- main the same for us. When you consider the pros and cons of metric adoption for

any particular country, you have to argue it in relation to the

economy of that country. A country like Albania, for instance,

37
could switch to the metric system in one year, or we might as

well say even one day. All they have had to do is announce it, because they had very little industry to speak of. But the United States today is unique in the history of the

world. There has never been an economy this large or this complex or this rich.

So we are right back to the issue that has been before Congress for the last several years. There have been bills calling for a study to determine the feasibility and practicability of metric

adoption in this country. This question must still be answered.

Just how feasible and practical, how wise is it, for us to consider

changing the base of this uniquely complicated economy. As

the people attending this Conference well know, when you tamper with the weights and measures of an economy, you are

dealing with the very basis of commerce. Without weights and

measures there would be no commerce, and with the unique

economy existing in the United States, any considerations as broad as the changing of the entire system must be carefully

weighed before any action is taken.

In Congress, one of the most persistent and dedicated proponents of a metric study has been Congressman Miller of California. According to his committee, the Committee on Science and

Astronautics, hearings on H.R. 2626, a metric study bill, are to be held in August of this year.

Congressman Miller has been quoted as saying he feels that

the British action will spur activity on this bill. We will be observing these hearings closely and report our observations to you

in coming Tech Memos.

Mr. Jensen : During the past year we have issued a number

of publications. As you know, we feel definitely that the results

of investigations have very little meaning unless they get out to you in a form that is useful to you. Included among these are Handbook 94, The Examination of Weighing Equipment, Handbook 98, Examination of Farm Milk Tanks, and Handbook 99,

Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices.

During the coming year we have definite plans to revise Miscellaneous Publication 233, which contains the basic tables of

equivalents between the metric and customary systems. We hope

to revise Handbook 67, Checking Prepackaged Commodities and,

of course, to prepare others as these are needed and as time

permits.

We have seen a lot of interest in how the new State standards

program might be handled, and let me give you briefly our

thoughts up to this point, with your understanding that these are by no means final or firm.

We hope, as soon as the dollars definitely are available to get

out the bid specificatioT ,. At that time, we will issue general information to the States

as to what we consider to be reasonable readiness to receive and

put into service the new standards. To those States that indi- cate readiness, we will send somebody from the staff to look and

discuss the whole program and to fill out a rather extensive re- port form.

38
I hope also to establish an informal advisory group made up of

State officials, distributed somewhat geographically and with particular knowledge in this field. We will take our reports to this

advisory group, ask them to study the reports, and come back to us with their views as to the order of issuance of the standards

as they become ready. Final decision, of course, rests with the

National Bureau of Standards.

Coincident with the issuance of the standards will be the su- pervision of the installation and the training of the laboratory

metrologists by a member of our staff.

I am particularly proud that, during the past year, seven of our relatively small staff were singled out by the Bureau for special awards.

I think, all in all, we can say it has been a year of solid progress, and perhaps a preface for years of greater progress to come.

I should like to express to you our gratitude for the opportunity to work with you, the weights and measures officials, people in business and industry, toward sound progress in what we

believe to be a very vital field.

THE MEASUREMENT OF LIQUIDS—YESTERDAY

by Paul Renfrew, Consultant, Liquid Controls Corporation,

Chicago, Illinois

Introduction

A study of the measuring practices of a

nation or race must take into account their

geographic location, the ability and integrity of their ruler, their commercial activities, extent of their technological knowledge,

and the character of the people themselves.

Conversely, a system of weights and measures has a very direct effect upon the people

of a country. It is, like their language, often

used without conscious thought.

Most of the information concerning the

measuring standards and practices of the

ancient civilizations has come to light within

the last 200 years. Many contradictory theories have been proposed that make it difficult for a layman to trace any positive course of logical development.

The systems and practices of most interest to Western Europe

and America were developed and used by the empires which

arose in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and other areas surrounding the

Mediterranean beginning from about 7000 or 8000 B. C.

Origins of Weights and Measures

It can safely be assumed that the cave man's principal problems were obtaining food and protecting himself from the ele- ments and his enemies. Therefore, he had no need for any

objective measuring devices or standards. As man evolved away

from cave dwelling and began building his own shelters, he felt 39
the need for something with which to make linear measurements.

Such a demand probably was satisfied by choosing a straight

young sapling and cutting notches along its length.

The development of all weights and measures systems and

standards followed a demand. First, linear measurement was re- quired in the building of houses, temples, pyramids, boats, etc., and for land identification. Weighing methods were developed

after gold and silver became important mediums of exchange.

Olive oil and wine became important items of commerce, and

liquid measuring systems and standards followed. A liquid measure standard was often a container that would hold a specified

weight or count of seeds.

The Babylonian liquid measure Ka was the volume of a cube

of one handbreath (3.9 to 4 in. 8 ). Dimensioning the volume is a

scientific approach, if we ignore the variation in the width of

the human hand. However, the cube had to contain a weight of one Great Mina of water. The weight of one Great Mina agrees

somewhat with that of the modern kilogram.

Available literature does not make clear the subdivisions of

the Ka and, to further complicate matters, two sets of standards were employed using multiples of this unit. Each probably

served its purpose in commerce, religion, or customs of that

day. It is believed that the Babylonian Gin (1.25 to 1.3 U.S.

gallons) formed the basis for the Hebrew liquid measure Hin.

The Ka and its multiples were 300 Ka = 60 Gin = 1 Gur.

The Gur represented a volume approaching 80 U.S. gallons.

Considering the means then available for handling and trans- porting objects, it seems doubtful that there was a standard le- gal measure of such volume. It is easier to believe that the Gur

was a stationary vessel the contents of which were transported

in smaller volumes.

In a French Museum there is a vase believed made about 2400

B. C. It holds a quantity which the Babylonians called a Niggin.

The volume of this vase was checked and found to be 4.71 liters or approximately V/4 U.S. gallons. It is quite highly decorated

and was probably used for ceremonial functions.

Ancient Egypt had a highly developed system of linear meas- urements required for the building of the pyramids (3000 to 2500 B. C). Available evidence indicates that their early com- merce was by barter only. Apparently they did not use the

equal-arm balance in commercial trade until about 1350 B. C,

although there are some records indicating weighing was done

by goldsmiths and jewelers as early as 2500 B. C. Ancient Egyptian liquid measures were arranged on a systematic basis

Ro Hin Kekat Khar Cubit 3 9600 = 300 = 30 = % - 1 The Hin is a measure of about 30 in. 3 and the Khar is a volume

approximating 25 gallons. Three Egyptian vessels used as liquid measure standards, now in a British Museum, have been checked

and show the Hin measures may have varied considerably, from

27 to 35 in. 3

. In a Cairo Museum are two Egyptian conical capacity standards, one silver and one bronze. These cups have calibrated rings

marked Hin, y2 Hin, etc. 40
The University College of London has an early Egyptian

bronze measure. It contains a volume equal to Y1G of a Khar or something over 1% U.S. gallons.

The early Hebrews were not a scientific people. They derived

their systems of weights and measures from their neighbors,

principally Egypt and Babylon. Neither did they have any uniformity among their standards ; they may have had three or more

different standards at one time, although they did attempt to develop some order to their system. It will be noted from the

following that the Hebrews, like the Egyptians, had several different standard volumes of liquid measure with a nondecimal re- lationship.

Log Kab Hin Bath Kor

720 = 180 = 60 = 10 = 1 The volumes of these standards are not definitely known, but

it is believed that the Bath was a volume of 36.92 liters or approximately 9y2 U.S. gallons. On this basis the Log would be

something over a U.S. pint and the Hin about 1% U.S. gallons.

The Hebrews apparently also had a special unit of measure connected with their religion—a sacred Bath which was a smaller

unit equivalent to about 7% U. S. gallons.

Early Hebrews also maintained a close relationship between

dry and liquid measures. For the most part they were the same

volume but with different names. For instance, Kor for liquid

and Homer for dry measure were of the same respective size as were the Bath for liquids and Ephah for dry products.

The Syrians and Phoenicians also legalized standards. The

Phoenicians, being the sailors and traders of the times, exerted

a powerful influence on Eastern Mediterranean weights and

measures and measuring practices. Syrian conquest and control

of Egypt made the Syrian-Phoenician capacity unit the most

common in Egypt from about 1500 to 1400 B. C. In formulating their measuring standards, they adopted those

of their neighbors, making such changes as suited their convenience. Among their standards was a small measure called a Log

with a capacity of 33 in." (somewhat larger than a U.S. pint),

and a large unit, Saton, somewhat larger than the Hebrew Bath.

, However, they made no progress in either uniformity or order in

establishing their system.

i There is reliable evidence that the Persian trade with the

eastern Mediterranean empires was rather extensive. They ap-

! parently developed their own weights and measures from past

custom and practice, because they were radically different. As

evidence of the association of Persia with the Mediterranean empires, Herodotus felt it necessary to develop the relationship between the Syrian-Babylonian Log and the Persian Karpetis as

4:9. The Log contained 33 in. 8 and the Karpetis about 74 in. 3

e which agrees closely with the ratio developed by Herodotus.

Here were five or six Kingdoms that were almost within

(l walking distance of one another and yet each had a different

n liquid-measuring system. But there is a general pattern to their

standards. First, it would appear that they intended to have a

I standard volume for every phase of their commercial and domestic life. Second, they all established a standard volume that

approximates the present U.S. pint, another between five and

41
seven quarts (1% to 1% U.S. gallons), and a large unit which

varied from eight or ten gallons up to about eighty.

Unfortunately, these early civilizations did not leave posterity

the equivalent of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook

44 or 45. Consequently, nothing is known about their procedure

for developing standards smaller or larger than the primary unit.

It is not known if they had even considered using a particular

size of standard measure as a primary unit. It would, however,

be natural to assume that their primary measuring standard was,

knowingly or not, a measure developed originally on the basis of

the weight of a certain quantity of seeds.

There is no evidence that they gave consideration to the many

variables, such as moisture content, size, or density of the seeds

in establishing a unit of weight on the basis of a certain quantity

of seeds. It follows that they would pay little attention, to such

factors as liquid clinging to surfaces, liquid characteristics, or perhaps small amounts of spillage. They had no means for as- certaining specific gravity or temperature.

The discussion up to this point is not intended to represent a

complete, exact, and detailed history of weights and measures as practiced by these ancient people. It does, however, illustrate in a general way the methods and bases used in developing their

standards of liquid measure, and also shows the lack of uniformity and order in these early systems. Systems were constantly

changing due to economic pressure from neighboring states, conquests, daily practices of the merchants of commerce, whims of

rulers, and changes in the people themselves.

The First Water Meter

There was a water meter in existence over 3000 years ago in

North Africa. It was necessary to divide the water from a well or spring so that each land owner received his fair and proportionate share. The procedure was very simple: "A man pulls a

pot of water on a cord from the well which is turned into an ir-' rigation ditch. Each land proprietor gets water until the number

of full pots allotted to him by the water commission is reached.

The man at the spring knows the irrigation program and when

the turn for the next landowner comes, he throws a piece of

straw in the water. When the length of straw arrives at the land

to be irrigated next, the necessary sluice gates are changed."

Another story on the ancients dividing water tells of a bowl

with a hole in its bottom. A local official sits at the public fountain, blows a horn, floats the bowl on the water, waits patiently

for the bowl to sink, and then blows the horn again. At the

sound of the horn an irrigation ditch is turned "on" or "off."; These operations did not attempt measurement in standard

units. The size of a pot was probably determined on the basis

of how much a man could readily lift from the well. Commercial Practices of the Ancient Civilizations Converting volume from one standard to another when exporting or importing no doubt involved much bartering and hag-|

gling. It is obvious that the lack of uniformity and the constant

change would create confusion, disagreement, and fraud. Ir some areas merchants, traveling on business, carried two oi 42
three sets of measures, each meeting the legal standard of a

city to be visited. Some merchants had one measure for purchasing and another for selling—it helped their profits. Others

would change the capacity of their measures to their advantage. There are many Biblical references to the lack of integrity

in measurement.

By the 7th or 8th century B.C., the great eastern civilizations

had declined to a level of practically no influence in the Mediter- ranean and Middle Eastern commerce. The Greeks and Romans

dominated trade in the area until the 6th or 7th century A.D.

Their systems of weights and measures formed the basis of practically all exchange.

Liquid Measuring in Greece and Rome

The rise of Ancient Greek civilization had the advantage of

many previous centuries of metrological history and the Greeks

developed their system from it. They apparently used linear

measurements for establishing their primary liquid measure, the

volume being % 0 of a Babylonian cubic foot. This measure, known

as a Metretes, was equivalent to 39.39 liters or approximately

10.4 U.S. gallons. They subdivided the Metretes on a duodecimal

basis. The Amphora, ]/12 of a Metretes, was a measure approximating 7 U.S. pints and was further subdivided duodecimally.

The Ancient Romans inherited the experience of the Greeks

and their weights and measures standards harmonized to a considerable degree with those of Greece. They even used some of

the same terminology, but had different volumes for their standards. The Romans also developed their primary liquid measure

on the basis of linear measurements. They established the Amphora as their primary unit with a volume of 1 cubic Roman

foot. Neither did they elect to subdivide duodecimally. The Roman

Congius was one-eighth of an Amphora. In the British Museum

is a copy of a bronze Congius made in 75 A.D. This has been

found to contain 198.359 in.* which is slightly less than 7 U.S.

pints.

Several Roman rulers made attempts to obtain honest measure for the people. In Pompeii, for example, the Magistrates es- tablished a set of standard measures adjacent to the market

place. There were large bowls for dry measures. The smaller ones

for wines, oils, and other liquids were emptied by removing a plug in the bottom.

Neither the Greeks or the Romans made any significant progress in either establishing their weights and measures on a more

scientific foundation or in the use and honest application of their

standards in commerce. Their trade in liquids was probably not

any more extensive than that of the Mediterranean empires, so

they were under no great pressure. The standards as developed

met the requirements of the period.

At the height of its power, Rome controlled most of Europe

and Western Asia, and its weights and measures system predominated.

With the decline of the Roman Empire, there was a general

decline and loss of interest in science. Weights and measures sys- tems were not maintained with any uniformity or order.

43
Medieval France Weights and measures in medieval France reflected conditions

following the fall of the Roman Empire. Charlemagne (768-814

A.D.) made quite a determined effort to obtain uniformity and

order. To accomplish it he had reproductions of the royal standards distributed over the entire realm. Charlemagne inherited

and adopted the weight unit of the Arabs which remained standard in France for many years. During this period, France developed a system of liquid measures.

Quart Pot Minot Velte Setier Quartreau Muid 576 = 144 = 48 - 36 = 12 = 4 =1

.125 = .500 1.5 = 2 = 6 = 18 = 72 U.S. gallons

(approx.)

It would appear that they followed the practice of the ancients

in developing their liquid measure system to provide standards

for all of their commercial activities. The small measures, Quart

through Velte, would serve for retailing wine, beer, oils, etc., while the Quartreau and Muid seem practical for the wholesale

trade. Cooperage was an expanding industry, so perhaps the

Muid represented the contents of the standard wine cask of the

times. The wheel had been used for a number of years, so they

could have transported a Muid by horse and cart. Throughout all of Europe there was great diversity in weights

and measures until well into the 19th century. There were doz- ens of cities, principalities, and kingdoms, each with their sep- arate system.

Anglo-Saxons

Around 1266 A.D., King Henry III issued an edict, "By Consent of the Whole Realm, the Kings measure was made so that an English penny, which is called sterling, round without clipping, shall weight 32 grains of wheat dry in the midst of the

ear; twenty pence make an ounce and 12 ounces make a pound

and eight pounds make a gallon of wine and eight gallons make

a bushel of London."

The Anglo-Saxon standards are of historical interest to America, because they originated the U.S. gallon. The original volume of the gallon was 230.4 in. 8 which was later changed to 231

in. 3

. The wine gallon continued to be a standard measure in England for many years. To help his subjects, Henry VII (1485-1509)

legalized a gallon of 272 in. 3 known as the corn gallon. In 1601,

Queen Elizabeth recognized an ale gallon of 282 in. 3

. For a period England had three different standard gallons containing

230.4, 272, and 282 in. 3

. In 1688, someone informed the English King that the true

standard wine gallon contained only 224 in. 3 instead of 230.4

in3

. Such a difference was close to the King's heart as it would

materially affect his income from taxes on wine. The excise tax

commissioners were in an embarrassing position. They first in- spected the standard measures at the exchequer and found the

gallon to be much larger than their own. Next, they checked

with the Guildhall of the City of London and found the measure

there to contain 224 in. 3 as the King had been informed.

44
The Commissioners then referred the matter to the Attorney

General who advised that they "could not resort to the Guildhall

for a standard as there was no law nor could a law be imposed

that would permit legalizing a Guildhall measure. Neither could

they resort to the Exchequer standards as there was no law making them legal and besides the King would be the loser if they

did so." After further consideration the Attorney General ren- dered the opinion "Tho I do not know or see how 231 cu. in. came

to be taken up and settled as the contents of a wine gallon, yet

I do not think it safe to depart from it now that its usage has

settled it." This action apparently settled the matter until 1700 A.D. when

the wine gallon's validity was challenged by an importer who

was using the larger beer and ale gallon. The authorities did not

prosecute, because of their weak legal position—Attorney General's opinion was not law. Parliament then acted quickly to strengthen the law, "be it further enacted that any round vessel

(commonly called a cylinder) having an even bottom and being

seven inches in diameter throughout and six inches deep from

top to bottom or any vessel containing 231 cu. in. and no more

shall be deemed and taken to be a lawful wine gallon." England

now had a legal wine gallon of 231 in. 3 which was founded on an

unchangeable basis. In 1688, the Commissioner of Excise advised the Treasury that

they were gaging ale and beer by a quart of 70.5 in. 3 citing a

law, "be it enacted, that every six and thirty gallons of beer

taken by gauge according to the standard ale quart, four of

which make a gallon, remaining in the custody of the Chamberlain of his Majesty's Exchequer, shall be reckoned, accounted,

and returned by the gauger for a barrell of beer; and every two

and thirty gallons of ale taken by the gauge according to the same standard shall be returned for a barrell of ale; and all other liquors according to the wine gallon." From this it would

appear that the most important duties of the weights and measures inspector was to check containers of ale, beer, wine, etc. Weights and measures enforcement was part of the tax collecting

division of the government.

The wine, corn, and ale gallons existed until 1824 when a change was made on recommendation of a study commission appointed in 1818. This commission developed the 10-pound gallon, as they found it to be in agreement with the Exchequer standard pint which contained exactly 20 avoirdupois ounces of water.

This Exchequer pint was an Elizabethian standard dating back

to 1602. Apparently, the commission attempted to perpetuate

tradition and at the same time develop a scientific and unchanging base. However, it was 1878 before the Imperial gallon was

legally defined as ten pounds of distilled water at 62°F., which

is the standard today. Thus ended the wine, ale, and corn gallons

in England.

United States Legalizes the Wine Gallon

One of George Washington's first official statements, upon

taking the Presidency, was to urge Congress to provide the

people with a uniform weights and measures system. Dry measures varied from State to State. The English wine gallon was

45
the most popular, but the ale and corn gallons were also in use. Complaints from abroad stated that trade with the United

States was a gamble. Collectors of Customs had very personal

ideas about the size of a gallon or a bushel. A shipper might pay

ten percent more duty on the same commodity in New York than

in Philadelphia.

It took a Swiss immigrant by the name of Ferdinand Rudolph

Hassler to get action. Hassler was a mathematics instructor at West Point who was making a survey of the coast. In 1830, Congress asked the Treasury to investigate the standards in use at the Customs House. Hassler was clearly the best qualified for

the job and so was given the assignment.

To Hassler it was a simple problem. If a gallon in New York

was to be the same volume as a gallon in Philadelphia, there had

to be a standard for comparison. After some investigation, he

adopted the wine gallon of 231 in. 3 as the standard. It was the

most widely used in the States. The Imperial gallon was unknown

and there was no public knowledge of the Metric System.

In 1836, Congress instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to supply each State with a set of standards and thus, in effect,

legalized the 231 in. 3 gallon in the United States.

It has required several thousand years for man to create a system of weights and measures, based on a solid technological

foundation, that could be equitably enforced.

Past rulers, upon coming into power, found their countries employing corrupt and debased standards. This reflected upon their

ability, impeded commerce, and influenced their income from

taxes. To each it was a challenge; it seemed so simple and easy

to correct. Each one made laws and passed decrees, but seldom

did more than ultimately increase the confusion.

A Chinese ruler was successful in building the Great Wall of

China, but could not enforce his design for one weight and one measure in place of the discord and confusion. Charlemagne,

William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, and others tried to correct the condition. All failed and, unfortunately, the condition prevailed until rather recent times. In fact, the industrial revolution had already started when the steps were taken. France

enforced the Metric System beginning in 1840, the British Imperial gallon was finally legalized in 1878, and the U.S. gallon of

231 in. 3 was adopted in 1836.

From the standpoint of liquid measuring, the peoples of the

world were now ready for such great events as Drake's oil well

in 1859, the automobile and high speed transportation, beginning

at the turn of the last century, and our present great petroleum,

petro-chemical, and food industries.

The liquid measure requirements of the ancient, medieval, and

even pre-modern peoples were limited to food items, such as wine, beer, ale, cooking oils, etc., which were handled in relatively small volumes.

Measuring Water by Mechanical Means

As population and commerce increased, water became more

and more important. As cities grew larger, water distribution

systems were required. The increasing number of these systems

46
developed the need of a means for measuring consumption. An

individual home or factory should pay for the water transported

through the system. For this purpose, something more elaborate

than a calibrated container was required.

Man had already seen considerable technological progress

when this requirement became evident; considerable research

had already been done. In 1730, Henri Pitot developed a means

for measuring water flow in a pipe. It bears his name and is

still used today in a modified and improved form. In 1790,

Reinhard Woltman invented a current meter. It was originally

designed to measure water in an open ditch, but was later re- vised for measuring liquid flowing in a pipe. The Woltman

meter was a turbine type and, in appearance at least, very similar to present turbine meters. A Mr. Siemens working in

England designed a reaction type turbine meter about 1850.

This was used for several years.

The accurate and practical measurement of water attracted more attention from engineers and scientists during the last half of the 19th century than any other problem. There were more patent applications for water-measuring devices than for

any other single item from 1850 to 1900. Most of these ideas

died a natural death. Two survived and are in use today—the

nutating disc meter and the oscillating piston meter. Many

home owners and industries pay for water used on the basis of

the register of a nutating disc meter, which, of course, has been

improved by better materials, design, and workmanship, but the

basic principle remains unchanged.

During this period, there were other important developments

for measuring flow of water in pipes which included:

1. The venturi tube by Herschel in 1887. This type of meter

is still used and has been made for measuring flow in

pipes of y4 inch to 8 feet or more in diameter.

2. William Sewell developed a piston meter in 1850 which was built by Worthington of New York. It had a high

pressure drop and developed objectionable pulsations, and

so fell by the wayside.

3. A rotary piston meter was designed and patented in the

1880's. It is not used today.

Water was the first liquid handled and consumed in sufficient

quantity to justify a mechanical means for measuring it. Drake's Oil Well In 1859, Col. E. L. Drake completed the first successful oil well

in Titusville, Pennsylvania. This well only went to a depth of

69 or 70 feet, but it is still considered as the beginning of the

American petroleum industry and, in fact, the petroleum industry of the world. Drake's well started a stampede. Within ten

years, more than 2,000 wells had been drilled with production of

crude oil exceeding a rate of 4,000,000 barrels a year.

At the time of Drake's success, the people of North America

and Western Europe were ready for the benefits of oil. In the

heavily populated cities they had passed from candles through

sperm oil lamps and were enjoying the convenience of both coal

oil and gas. The less populated areas were using mostly coal oil. 47
Only the very remote sections used sperm oil or candles. The

era of improved illumination had started.

By 1859, there were many small refineries producing coal oil as a by-product of coal distillation for gas manufacture. They

were producing over 20,000 gallons of coal oil per day and this

continued to increase for some time. The name coal oil carried over into the production and use of kerosene.

Petroleum as a potential source of illumination was very

quickly recognized. It was natural for the crude producers to consider the coal oil refiners as the logical people to process their

production. They were already in the illuminating oil manufacturing and marketing business. Here was the beginning of

petroleum refining.

The crude oil was transported from the producer to the refiner

by horse drawn wagons, river barge, and rail in wooden barrels.

The barrel was the unit of measurement. Records indicate that

the barrel originally used for this purpose usually held a volume

of 40 U.S. gallons. However, the capacity of barrels often varied.

These barrels were very poorly made. The lumber used was

not proper for the purpose, not properly treated, and workmanship was poor. The producers had to have barrels in order to move their crude oil and no doubt had to accept what they could

get. Many barrels could not withstand the rough usage and, as

Figure 1. Oil delivery, ca. 1860. 48
a result, leaked badly. It would seem entirely probable that the

cooper, after completing a barrel, would cut or stamp the capacity in a conspicuous place. However, available literature does

not indicate what procedure was followed in verifying the vol- ume of a barrel.

Considering the commercial practices of the period and the

economic expansion that was occurring, it would seem extremely

doubtful that these barrels were very carefully calibrated for

volume. Perhaps checking for size with a wooden yardstick was

sufficient for both buyer and seller. It is safe to assume that this

condition and the leakage being experienced resulted in negotiation and adjustment of the volume of each shipment before the

transaction was completed. It would be necessary for the refiner

to check the contents of each barrel received.

It is evident that transportation of crude oil in wooden barrels

would be very unsatisfactory and was so considered by both the

producer and refiner. The first attempt at improving it was made about 1865 when two wooden tanks holding 40 or 50 barrels

each were mounted on a railroad flat car. Production in 1865 had reached proportions requiring larger

tanks. Wooden tanks containing from 200 or 300 up to 1,000 or

1,200 barrels were becoming common. Experimental iron tanks

of even larger capacity were built. With the advent of tanks of such capacities, it was, undoubtedly, necessary to attempt a careful calibration. It would

be natural to assume that such calibration would be accomplished

by carefully measuring the size of the tank and computing its volume mathematically. This would then represent the beginning of tank strapping, a practice that has been followed for

years by the oil industry.

Sometime between 1865 and 1870, the recognized and accepted

standard volume for a barrel of crude oil was changed to 42 U.S.

gallons.

Coal Oil and Kerosene The liquids of commerce in Colonial America during the first half of the 19th century were foods, such as vinegar, wine,

liquors, etc., and whale (sperm) oil for lighting. All of these were handled in small volume and sold in small containers. Neither the Federal or State governments had any regulations

covering such containers. They simply were accepted by the

people.

During this same period, there was a public clamor for better

lighting. Sperm oil was very expensive and available only to the wealthy. In the mid 1850's coal oil, a by-product of the then

expanding gas industry, was introduced and quickly accepted.

Its popularity continued for some 10 or 12 years. Kerosene, a product of petroleum, was automatically and enthusiastically

accepted (being used as early as 1860) and marketed through

the same channels that had been handling coal oil. Both coal oil and kerosene were packaged and delivered to the

retailer in wooden barrels. Illuminating oil was retailed by the

general store, the blacksmith shop, hardware merchants, harness

and saddle makers, etc. After forcing a spigot into the bung

hole tightly, the retailer mounted the barrel on a wooden rack.

49
The oil was then drawn from the barrel directly into the cus- tomer's container. It is very doubtful that much attention was

given to exactness of measurement.

For some reason, it became the practice for the refiner to deliver illuminating oil to the retailer on the basis of weight.

Perhaps the leaky barrels promoted it. But the retailer sold the

oil by the gallon. Therefore, either the refiner or retailer had to convert weight, to gallons. Instruments for measuring specific

gravity were not yet available; so it probably was the retailer

who determined the number of gallons in a barrel. He purchased his oil on a weight basis and had to sell enough gallons

to make a profit. In view of the leaky barrel problem, it was up

to the merchant to check very carefully the contents of each new

barrel received.

Kerosene delivery to the retailer in barrels started to diminish

in about 1875 when the first tank wagon was put into service in

the St. Louis area. Among the advantages claimed for this new

development was that of being able to deliver to the retailer any

volume, 10, 20, 25 gallons, etc., in units of gallons. Transferring

the oil from the tank wagon to the retailer's barrels or drums was a manual operation. The driver would hang a bucket on the

spigot of the wagon tank, draw it full, and then by the aid of a

funnel, pour it into the retailer's container. The bucket was the measure. Consumption of kerosene was to increase from less than 90,000

in 1865 to over 500,000 gallons per day in 1885. Better means

of measurement were required and improved methods of handling needed. The leaky barrels were not only messy and costly,

but dangerous. Improvements came often in all phases of the

rapidly developing petroleum industry except for the retailer, and

nothing was accomplished for him until the mid 1880's.

Liquid-Measuring Devices

In 1885, S. F. Bowser of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, designed, built,

and sold to a grocer the first self-measuring pump for dispensing

coal oil or kerosene to the domestic trade.

The first unit comprised a 40- to 50-gallon metal tank on which was mounted a hand-operated piston-type pump. As compared

to present-day standards, it was very crude, having a wooden

piston and marbles for valves, and having to be installed inside,

because it was not weatherproof. The tank had to be filled using

a bucket, but the kerosene could be delivered and measured di- rectly into the customer's container. It was, at least, a great

improvement over the barrel and spigot; and was instantly

accepted.

By 1900, there were about 8,000 motor driven vehicles in the

United States that burned gasoline. In 1898, the Bowser Company designed a new type of gasoline-dispensing unit for outdoor

installation. It consisted of a tank and pump mounted in a wooden cabinet, but the tank still had to be filled by bucket.

Locating this new dispensing unit outdoors and at the curb permitted the merchant to serve both the domestic user and the

automobile owner with greater convenience and less fire hazard.

The pump in this new cabinet was much improved over the

50
original model. Providing intermediate stops made it possible

for the retailer to deliver quantities smaller than the full stroke

of the piston. A rack and pinion with a crank had been added

which greatly increased the ease of filling a container. The

designer also added a hose so that gasoline could be measured

and delivered directly to the auto tank, thus eliminating the

spillage involved in transferring by use of a measure and funnel. In 1905, the manufacturer started labeling the cabinets "Filling

Station" and the name has stayed with us. The measuring pump of these two dispensers consisted of a

cylinder with a piston. As the name implies, the pump served

to not only measure the liquid, but also to lift it from the tank

into the container or through the hose. For this type of device

to measure accurately, it was necessary to maintain a column of

liquid above the level in the tank. The bottom head of the cylinder had valves for this purpose. They had to seat firmly, because, of course, any leakage resulted in measurement error. Shortly after the turn of the century, someone developed the

idea of burying the storage tank and mounting the self- measuring pump directly above it. Such an installation provided more storage and required less above-ground space. However,

lowering the storage tank increased the height of liquid column

to be maintained. This aggravated the problem of manufacturing the tight-fitting valves required for maintaining the neces- sary column level. This problem resulted in the development of

the foot valve located on the bottom end of the suction pipe. The

manufacture of tight-seating foot valves became a real art. Later, weights and measures developed tests for checking the

holding efficiency of these valves.

The curb-pump idea received instant approval and rapidly

gained in popularity. Reasonably satisfactory hose was soon

developed, so that gasoline could conveniently be accurately delivered directly to automobile tanks without excessive danger of

spillage.

Early piston pumps delivered one gallon per stroke, but this soon increased to two gallons and then five gallons per stroke. In using these original pumps, the operator had to count the

number of strokes in order to determine the volume delivered

5 strokes of a 1 gallon unit for 5 gallons. Later, a dial was added

which totalized the gallons.

The piston pump became known as a "blind" pump, because

the customer could not see the gasoline as it was delivered to his

car. After considerable public pressure, a sight glass was added

where the hose connected to the pump. This sight glass served

two purposes: First, it, of course, showed the buyer that gasoline was being delivered and second, it indicated whether the

pump was properly primed. An empty glass indicated the valves were leaking. The hose of a piston pump had to be drained at the end of each delivery and it was to the customer's benefit to make sure this had been done thoroughly.

This type of measuring pump was the standard retail unit

until well into the 1920's. It was also adapted to delivery of

lube oil, paint thinners, solvents, and many other liquids. Its principle remained the same; changes were only a matter of re- finements in materials, design, and workmanship.

51
By 1920, there were over 9,000,000 automobiles on the highways and gasoline consumption had reached 300,000 barrels per

day. The first filling station, as we know them today, was

opened on the West Coast in 1907.

By 1920, the gasoline pump industry had become highly

competitive. Many engineers and manufacturers had been at- tracted to it. New personnel brought new ideas and innovations,

the visible pump being the first radical departure from the piston

pump.

In a visible pump, measurement was accomplished in a glass

cylinder. Original pumps permitted a 5-gallon delivery; this

later increased to 10 gallons. Inside the glass cylinder were 2 or more sets of markers indicating the level for each gallon. One

gallon was the smallest quantity that could be delivered accurately. Location and design of the indicators was very

important.

The glass bowl was mounted on a pedestal originally containing

a hand-operated pump which was later changed to automatic

operation. Liquid flowed from the bowl into the auto tank by

gravity. On some models, the valve for controlling the flow was

located at the base of the glass cylinder, requiring the hose to be

drained at the end of each delivery. On others, the delivery end

of the hose was equipped with a nozzle for control of flow and

volume. These latter were known as wet hose pumps, the hose

remaining full of liquid.

Some of the early models made it possible for the operator to divert and return part of the glass bowl contents back to storage

while making a delivery to an automobile tank. Weights and

measures officials soon outlawed pumps with this feature and the

pump manufacturers conformed quickly.

The visible pump had advantages as well as some shortcomings.

The public liked it because they could see what they were getting.

The customer could check the level in the glass cylinder before

and after delivery. To him it was a distinct improvement over

the "blind" pump. However, if a customer wanted more than

the contents of the glass cylinder (5 or 10 gallons), he had to wait until the operator filled it a second time. Measurement

always had to start from the top and progress downward.

The Meter Pump

The engineers, even during the popularity of the visible pump,

were continuing in their efforts to produce better means of

measuring and handling gasoline. The ideal appeared to be a continuous flow device which would not only provide better ac- curacy of measurement, but also speed up delivery.

As a result of this effort, the meter pump was introduced in

the late 1920's and early 1930's. One of the first employed the

conventional nutating-disc water meter. It did not survive long,

because of inaccuracies at slow-flow rates. It was not a proper

measuring device for a high priced commodity like gasoline.

With one exception (the oscillating piston meter used for a number of years), the meters that did meet the accuracy re- quirements for the service were specially designed positive-displacement meters. Most of these designs are still in use. These

52
meters were of the reciprocating piston type, with a single valve

for directing liquid flow through the cylinders.

The meter was mounted in a housing with two dial indicators, one on each side of the pump. The dial had a short pointer, or hour hand, for indicating the full gallons and a long, or minute

hand, for fractions of gallons.

These meter pumps were continuous flow devices and required

a power source. Electricity was not then available in all parts

of the country and small electric motors were not yet completely

reliable, so the manufacturers turned to other sources. City

water pressure was tried for awhile. It worked, but was not

well accepted by owners, operators, or the public. All were

afraid of the possibility of water in the fuel. Air pressure directly on the liquid in the storage tank was

next employed in some of the early installations and, like water,

moved the gasoline satisfactorily. Unfortunately, gasoline

under continuous pressure absorbs air, resulting in very inaccurate measurement. The idea was quickly abandoned.

Manufacturers next buried a small, forty- or fifty-gallon pres- sure tank close to, and just below, the storage tank. Gasoline was siphoned from the storage tank to the small pressure tank.

The gasoline within the small tank was under air pressure only

during the period of delivery. Absorption of air was insignificant and the idea worked, but the siphons proved unreliable,

causing the pump to lose its prime ; therefore, this principle was

dropped.

Next, the small pressure tank was mounted inside the storage

tank, so that it could fill by gravity. This eliminated the trouble- some siphon. The system worked well, but was very difficult to maintain. Besides, a reliable small motor had become available,

so all manufacturers turned to the electric motor for the power

source. When the manufacturers turned to the continuous flow,

power-operated pump, they immediately recognized the necessity

for an air eliminator. A positive displacement meter will not

only measure the liquid, but also any air contained in the liquid.

The automobile owner had to be protected against the possibility

of paying for air. An efficient air eliminator is still a necessary

part of the filling station pump.

The sight glass continued to be a necessity. It was an indication to both the operator and the public that a pump was properly primed and ready to make an accurate delivery. Later, the

sight glass, or visi-gage, included a spinner to further insure the

purchaser that gasoline was flowing.

Within a few years after the introduction of the meter pump,

the clock-like dials with moving hands were changed to rotating

counter wheels which were much easier for the public to read.

Then, the computing counter was introduced. The motorist

knew how many gallons he received, the price per gallon, and

the dollar value of the quantity delivered.

The basic elements of the filling station pump of the late

1950's was the same as those of the early 1930's. There were

changes in styling and design, with improvements in workmanship and materials, but the basic elements were the same. 53

Meters Applied to Bulk Handling of Petroleum Products

The consumption of domestic and industrial fuel oils paralleled

the growing demand for gasoline. Fuel oils and gasoline were

transported to the market in rail cars, truck tanks, and by pipeline. Faster and more accurate means of measurement were

needed. The five-gallon bucket, the gage stick, and the strapped

(calibrated) tank were no longer practical.

The first truck tanks built had only a single compartment tank

and carried only one commodity. Later trucks frequently had

several compartments and could handle several different products. These compartments were calibrated for volume by

weights and measures officials. It was the usual practice to develop the volume for each inch of liquid height, and frequently

for fractions of an inch. If a driver wanted to deliver less than

a full compartment, he had to either carry the product in buckets

or use the gage stick.

In loading trucks and rail cars, it was the practice to fill them

either to a marker or shellfull. If overfilled, it was necessary to dip out the overage, which was messy and time-consuming, or ignore it; the latter was usually done.

The pipelines were checking oil volume by hand gaging storage

tanks. Large volumes of both crude and finished products were

sold and purchased on the basis of tank gaging.

These conditions were a challenge to the engineer. Water had

been successfully measured by a meter for a number of years.

The filling station pump meter was now a reality. There appeared to be no reason why a meter could not be developed for

installation in a piping system which would measure liquids,

gasoline, or fuel oil flowing in a pipe, and do it more accurately

as well as more conveniently.

These applications presented the designer with some problems

that were common and some that were not. Truck delivery to the underground filling station tanks was by gravity and has so remained. The first delivery vehicles for domestic fuel oil measured the oil into hand-carried buckets.

Some of the early bulk terminal storage tanks were elevated,

so that trucks were loaded by gravity flow. Later fuel oil trucks were equipped with power-driven pumps and long lengths of hose

which eliminated the necessity of hand carrying the oil to the

users tank. Motor-driven pumps providing faster flow rates were soon common to the bulk terminal.

It is obvious that to be of value on any or all of these applications, a meter had to provide better accuracy than that obtained

by the then-prevailing measurement methods. To be practical

for truck-tank gravity operation, a meter had to offer very little resistance to flow. Its construction had to be sufficiently rigid

to withstand the stresses incident to such operation.

To meet this demand, industry developed and manufactured

the liquid-sealed positive-displacement meter. By the late 1920's

and early 1930's, these meters were being used on tank trucks

for measuring fuel oils to the consumer and gasoline to the filling

station. Very shortly thereafter, they were applied to loading

racks for filling the delivery trucks more accurately and faster.

55
After the performance and reliability of meters for these applications had been established, industry began developing accessories to increase their convenience to both the user and the consumer. The pre-set or quantity control counter was one of the first important additions. A fuel oil delivery truck meter equipped

with this accessory permitted the driver to pre-set the desired

quantity in the counter and then drag the hose nozzle up a flight

of stairs or to the rear of a home and deliver the desired amount

without being within sight of his truck. Flow stopped automatically when the pre-set quantity was reached.

Then, someone developed the idea that a meter should provide a printed record of a gasoline or fuel-oil delivery. Besides the

convenience, a printed ticket would better protect both the buyer

and seller. It would be unnecessary for the buyer to witness

the delivery to be certain that he was getting what he was paying for, and the seller would be better guaranteed that his cus- tomer had been delivered the correct volume. So the printing

counter was developed and introduced. It served its purpose well

and became very popular in a short time. It is still used ex- tensively in an improved and more foolproof form.

More Automobiles

By the mid-1940's, the number of cars on the American highways was approaching 40,000,000. Gasoline consumption was

increasing proportionately. Fuel oil consumption was averaging

about 2,000,000 barrels per day. Operations had to be speeded

up in order to meet these increased demands. The small meters

and low flow rates of the original installations could not handle

the increased volumes. Larger pumps, pipelines, and meters were introduced, and capacities up to 1,000 or more gallons per

minute soon became quite common.

In order to keep pace with the rapidly expanding petroleum

industry, weights and measures regulations required frequent

revision or addition. State and county meter-proving stations

increased in number. Larger size meter provers began to be

used. Enforcement personnel had to be increased and better

trained for the operating conditions of the day.

New Requirements for Meters During the 1930's and 1940's, other divisions of the petroleum

industry were attracted by the advantages of meters in their

operations. Producers started to use them for crude oil production. By the late 1950's oil royalties and taxes were being paid on the basis of meter readings. Refineries began to consider the use of meters for process control. The expanding pipeline in- dustry needed better measuring methods and began using meters

as early as 1935.

The physical and operating conditions of the production di- visions of the petroleum industry were, and continue to be,

different from those of marketing, which wholesales and retails

finished products. Due to the large volumes involved (frequently, 100,000 or more barrels) large liquid transfers require

special techniques and, where meters are involved, special

56
proving facilities. Operations involving the wholesaling or re- tailing of finished products continue to be accomplished under

weights and measures regulation. In addition to the petroleum industry, meters gained accept- ance in the expanding food, paint, chemical, and petro-chemical

industries in the early 1940's. By 1950, they were in very general use. Other Types of Liquid-Measuring Devices

Over the years, several other types of liquid-measuring devices

have been developed and put into operation. Included in this

list are venturi, orifice, variable-area, velocity, and electromagnetic meters. These are special liquid-measuring devices,

used for special purposes.

During World War II, turbine meters were used for testing

efficiency of reciprocating airplane engines. After the war, considerable research was directed to applying this type meter to industry. By 1960, a number of turbine meters had been put

into operation in refineries and on pipelines.

Summary

Looking back, it is clearly evident that all measuring standards were developed on the basis of the requirements of commerce and the scientific ability of the people. The integrity of

> government and its subjects determined the manner in which the

standards were applied and enforced. However, it was not until

; the late 19th century that liquid-measuring standards having a

8 scientific and unchanging base were legally adopted.

Not until the approach of the 20th century did liquids in trade

s reach a volume and value justifying radically new methods of

1 measurement. In fact, practically all of the progress in the art

of liquid measurement, and in the development of liquid-measurn ing devices, has occurred within the last one hundred years.

S BIBLIOGRAPHY

* Historical Metrology, A. E. Berriman.

>' Evolution of Weights and Measures and the Metric System,

William Hallock and Herbert T. Wade.

Ancient Times, James Henry Breasted.

Vestiges of Pre-Metric Weights and Measures, Arthur E.

in Kennelly.

if The Story of Standards, John Perry,

c- History of Technology, Oxford Press.

id The American Petroleum Industry 1859 to 1899, Harold E.

ie Williamson and Arnold R. Daum.

n- Encyclopedia Americana

is Encyclopedia Brittanica

Antique Automobile, Vol. 28, No. 1 of 1964.

li- AWWA Meter Manual, 1962.

je, Selected Writings and Addresses, G. Denny Moore.

ils Gideon Where the Sun Stood Still, James S. Pritchard.

•e- The Origins of Greek Civilization, Chester G. Starr.

ire

ial 57
THE MEASUREMENT OF LIQUIDS—TODAY

by R. H. TOLSON, Assistant Manager, Construction and

Equipment Division, Texaco, Inc., New York, New York

In today's life of mechanization and

technocracy, the measurement of liquids is central to technical progress.

There are many methods of liquid meas- urement suited to the needs of man. The

use of a stick to measure depth and the

resolution into volumetric quantity from

previously established values is probably the

oldest and most widely used method of liquid

measurement. Even today, modern jet aircraft are equipped with dipsticks for secondary determination of fuel quantity.

Liquid measurement by weight is alsc commonly employed. The volume of a liquid can be calculated

from its weight if specific gravity and temperature are known.

Many liquids are handled and sold by weight without determining volume at all. Another common method of measurement is the filling of aj

container to a previously calibrated level. These and many similar methods of measurement may be satisfactory for limited purposes, but they have one drawback in common : They neither record individual operations nor totalize

successive ones. The volumetric measurement of liquids today is largely done

with a meter. A meter is an instrument which can automatically measure and record the quantity of material that passes through

it. In this age of automation and instrumentation, the capacity

of a device to measure and count at the same time is of obvious

advantage. The practice of cutting notches in a stick, placing

pebbles in a pan, or making marks on a piece of paper as a means

of maintaining a record is replaced by a mechanical device as a

part of a meter. The purpose of this paper is to consider the

application of meters to measure some of the liquids used andi

consumed by man. The basic capacity of a meter to count measurement units isf not the only reason for using the device. The cost of the system

in comparison with other systems of measurement, and the ease

of installation and maintenance, are prime considerations in the

selection of meters as a means of measurement.

Meters are used for measurement of widely divergent kinds of

liquids, from aromatic elements of exotic perfumes to asphaltic

cement, from appetizing liquors to the ingredients of ice cream. Many of the liquids essential to man's existence and pleasure are! meter measured, such as water, milk, beer, whiskey, and petroleum products, naming only a few from an almost unlimited list. Of all the liquids essential to man's progress, petroleum products are probably the most metered of all the materials handled.

In today's production of petroleum, many uses of meters are made in the process that starts with crude oil and ends with

many different finished products. Water is metered into the; 58
ground to force and float crude oil into recovery pockets. The

crude is metered into collection systems and into and out of pipelines to refinery centers. Many meters are utilized in refining

processes for inventory and control purposes.

Liquid meters are essential parts of oil transportation systems

for purposes of stock accountability, for safety, and for control

of operations. Meters are used for receipts into storage of liquid

petroleum products at bulk plants and terminals and for the

delivery of product into pipelines and transport vehicles to con- sumer and user accounts.

Meter readings are generally acceptable for custody transfer

or accountability at all levels of ownership. The widest application of the use of meters for petroleum products is in the sale of

automotive gasolines. The use of a meter coupled with a monetary computing device has attained almost universal acceptance

as a means of dispensing motor fuels to the public. The 70 bil- lion gallons of automotive gasolines consumed in the United

States annually are sold almost exclusively by meter.

It is a sobering thought to realize that, in 1963, collection of

most of the 6% billion dollars of Federal and State taxes on the

sale of automotive gasolines depended on meter measurement.

Thus, the meter has become a major factor in the collection of

taxes. Gasoline tax amounted to approximately 17.3 percent of

all State revenues collected in 1963.

In order to evaluate the use of meters for measurement, it is essential to consider some of the basic types.

Weirs or open channels in flumes are probably two of the

earliest types of meters and are still used for the measurement

of industrial waste and for the sale of water for agricultural

irrigation purposes. Orifice meters of many types are used for

gaseous materials and for slurries and high-solids-bearing

streams. Turbine meters are coming into wide general use and

have a large range of application.

Positive displacement meters are probably one of the most

widely used of all metering devices. They are, basically, a "running total" meter indicating flow volume.

Mass flow meters have limited application at the present time,

but can be used for both liquid and gas streams. Variations of

density, temperature, and pressure have only a slight effect in mass meter reading; consequently, manipulation of correction

factors is largely eliminated.

Laser meters may appear on the scene shortly. They are al- ready being used as anemometers in the space industry. They

may eventually be used to measure gases, fluids, and semisolids,

and much more accurately than present devices.

Meter measurement devices and appurtenances should be considered as a total system. Individual components of a system

may have discrete characteristics that affect performance of the

whole under varying conditions of pressure, flow, temperature,

and peculiar properties of the material itself. Piping, elbows,

valves, strainers, air releases, flow control valves, and meters

themselves all may contribute to volumetric variations in the

measurement of evasive and hard-to-control liquids. In addition

to the usual hardware which has been vexatious in the past, we

are confronted today with remote meter counter drives, data

59
transmission and translation, computers, memory devices, data

retrieval, as well as machine invoicing, none of which existed a few years ago. As if that is not enough, data transmission sys- tems may cross city, township, and even State lines in translating measurement by meter into customer accounts and

invoicing. Under the systems concept, the question of jurisdiction can become quite perplexing.

Limitations of meter measurement systems are difficult to establish due to the many varying conditions of application.

Certain types of metering systems may be sufficiently accurate

for some substances and entirely unsatisfactory for other types

of materials. An orifice plate meter may be satisfactory for the

measurement of a gaseous material and completely unsatisfactory

for the pulsating flow of a particular liquid. The choice of the

proper metering system is dependent on many things, such as the physical characteristics of a liquid or the ultimate purpose of

the metering system, but the choice mainly depends on the

knowledge and experience of the individual making the selection.

The behavior of a liquid due to its viscosity, vapor pressure,

and other properties, under varying conditions of temperature,

pressure, and flow, must be taken under consideration in the selec- tion of a meter and its accessories.

Many times, a meter manufacturer cannot know the final installation of a metering system, nor the ultimate material to be

handled, and cannot label his device as to the limits of performance. Accordingly, each individual installation must be

evaluated and performance criteria established for the specific

application.

Vapor pressure (or volatility, as it is sometimes called) alone can seriously affect a meter's performance. In the use of positive

displacement meters, the line pressure should exceed the vapor

pressure of the most-volatile stream component. This condition

will account for some of the apparent inaccuracies of measuring some liquids, such as automotive gasolines, from low-head supply

systems.

Other limitations which affect meter choice and performance

are corrosive or erosive materials, slurries, solids in suspension,

or gases which perform erratically under extremes of temperature and pressure variation. Also, meter selection and application depend on the rangeability as well as the capacity

requirements. Obviously, the type of meter to be used for the

stop-and-go service of a slow-flow meter of 5 gallons per day for|

home-heating oil consumption would be entirely different from a meter handling 15,000 barrels per hour of bunker C fuel into a tank ship.

Stop-and-go operation, or pulsation, is detrimental to the ac- curacy of almost all flow meters. Consequently, there has been some reluctance to use certain types of meters for handling

gasolines over tank truck loading racks in the petroleum industry, as well as for other applications where high levels of performance are required.

Stop-and-go operations are an inherent part of the process in

the petroleum industry, due to the necessity of using safety controls to prevent the spillage of a flammable liquid. The use of

the automatic nozzle on the dispensing hose at a retail gasoline

60
service station pump is a good example. Shut-down of delivery occurs before a full tank level is reached. The operator "milks"

in the remainder when having been asked to "fill it up."

Accuracy requirements of measurement systems have a great

deal to do with the selection of types of metering devices and

auxiliary equipment. Inferential meters, such as orifice meters,

thermal meters, venturi meters, etc., which measure some property of the flowing stream that varies with flow rate and infer

rate of flow from the measured property, are used where only

reasonable accuracy is satisfactory.

Positive displacement meters that continuously separate the

flowing stream into parts of equal volume, and count the parts, are satisfactory where a high degree of accuracy over a wide

range of flow is desired and where a measurement of total

quantity passing the meter is of primary interest.

Accuracy capabilities vary with service requirements. Water

meters used by utilities are permitted accuracy tolerances, in sale

to customers, of up to 3 percent. Similar tolerances are permitted by utilities for the sale of energy commodities such as

electric power and gas, while competitive sources of energy, such

as coal and oil, are restricted to more severe tolerances in meas- urement by weight or volume.

Meter proving systems are inherently a part of the use of

meters, since evidence must be made available that the device is able to deliver the quantity represented.

The ability of a meter to repeat itself, commonly called "repeatability," is of concern primarily to the manufacturer. The

repeatability of some inferential meters may fall within 1 percent, while the accuracy of repeatability of a positive displacement device may range from 0.02 percent to 0.1 percent,

depending on the particular liquid with which it is tested in the

laboratory.

(Repeatability capacity of a meter should not be confused

with the accuracy of a measurement system, which includes not

only a meter, but may include an air eliminator, strainer, flowrate valve, and a preset-stop device. Temperature and gravity

adjustment mechanisms, as well as remote data transmission and

handling facilities, are sometimes essential parts of the measure- ment systems.)

While water is the usual liquid with which volumetric measures are calibrated, water's characteristics are not always

identical to those of the liquid being dispensed by the system

under test. Water as a proving liquid is virtually incompressible.

However, this is not the case with a liquefied petroleum gas or

a volatile gasoline, and a fundamental requirement of proving a meter measurement system is that the proving conditions be as

close as practicable to those of operation. Accordingly, in the

development of tolerances for metering systems, due consideration must be given to the following factors: (1) Testing is usually done on a "spot" basis (that is, on a predetermined

volume such as 50 or 100 gallons, depending upon prover size),

and (2) the normal test is not a continuous operation which is adjusted to accommodate for each change in condition of flow,

pressure, temperature, and the varying characteristics of the

flowing liquid.

61
One of the most important single ingredients to the meter

proving system is man-—the man installing the system, the man

maintaining the system, and the man testing the system. It is unthinkable that such high levels of performance would be dej manded to make the complete process an impossible task. Ac- j cordingly, tolerances for meter measurement systems must first take into account that man, too, is subject to error. It would be

unfair to restrict tolerances to such an extent that all the de- | viations from accuracy are used up by mechanisms and the

behavior of the liquid being measured, with nothing left for

the operator.

The benefits of meter measurement systems for the handling

of liquids are prodigious. The reduction of the labor involved

in maintaining and proving container-type delivery systems are

substantial. The advantage of proving and holding a single

meter system within tolerance—a system used to fill millions of j containers with legal amounts of liquid—is very obvious. Consider the convenience of proving those metering systems used for

the dispensing of millions of gallons of automotive gasoline today

as compared to the use of visible glass bowls on service station

pumps thirty years ago.

The preservation of commodity, quality, and purity is one of

the principal benefits of liquid metering systems today. The

advent of conservation loading systems, such as the bottom loading of petroleum products in tank trucks, and the use of closed

overhead vapor recovery systems for the same purpose, reduces

the loss of valuable volatile components of the liquid and precludes contamination by moisture and atmospheric dust.

The accuracy of liquid metering systems reduces human

operational error. In the loading of a properly calibrated 5,000-

gallon single-compartment tank truck to a marker, variation of |i as much as 10 gallons can result from individual interpretation as to what "to the marker" means. The ease of verification of "correct" measurement is enhanced

by the use of liquid meters. Master meters can be used in series

with questionable equipment over long periods of time without

constant attendance by personnel. The same can be done with

"pipe prover" systems where their application is feasible.

The use of liquid meters for manufacturing purposes at point

of sale is becoming increasingly important. The gasoline-blending dispenser at service stations is a good example of the

capabilities of such mechanisms. Blends of asphalts, heating

fuels, liquefied petroleum gases, and mixtures including lubricating oils and additives, are a few of the many materials being

delivered to customers through the use of meters.

Inventory ownership by the supplier at point of sale is another

advantage to the use of liquid metering systems. In the oil industry, supplier ownership of the petroleum product in the stor- age tanks is made possible by relying on meters for custody

transfer. The advantage of such a system is manifold, but the

principal point is that the operator does not have his capital

tied up in liquid product. Accountability for the product sold is determined by the dispensing meters, and Federal and State tax \ responsibility may also be determined in this way.

Improved safety is usually a side benefit from the use of meters

62
for the measurement of liquid. This is especially the case in the

petroleum industry, where flammable or combustible products

may be spilled and possibly ignited. The use of preset or control

mechanisms, to arrest starts and slow down delivery rates before

final shutdown and to complete delivery of a predetermined

quantity, is of major benefit to the petroleum industry.

The high rates of flow necessary to modern-day liquid transportation systems require controls against sudden shutdown,

shutdown that may result in ruptured components due to pres- sure and surge conditions. Liquid meters serve as useful control

mechanisms for such purposes.

Economic justification is one of the principal concerns of in- dustry in the use of liquid metering systems. Many advantages

and side benefits may accrue from the use of meters, but the

acid test comes from their capacity to pay their way. All the

reductions in costs of operation and all the advantages in application toward automation, together with the benefits for safety, can be lost in the costs of installation and maintenance of liquid

metering systems. Restrictive controls and unreasonable demands for unattainable performance may negate all the advantages promised by the use of liquid metering systems, and

industry may be forced to use other means of liquid

measurement.

Accordingly, it behooves governing authority to be moderate

in its requirements for metering systems, to permit manufacturers of equipment to be competitive, so that buyers and sellers of liquids alike will benefit and neither party to a transaction

will suffer injury.

It has been said that diamonds are a girl's best friend. Liquid

meters are certainly a weights and measures man's.

THE MEASUREMENT OF LIQUIDS—TOMORROW

By E. F. Wehmann, Assistant Chief Engineer, Neptune

Meter Company, Long Island City, New York

In looking to the future in the area of

product planning, one realizes these plans

must tie in with the basic interests and

needs of industry wherever and whenever

liquid products are shipped, refined, stored,

processed or sold. To cover the field broadly

would include petroleum, chemical, and food

products. This phase of liquid metering

alone would account for the measurement of

billions of barrels per year without in1 eluding drinking water measured by the

privately and municipally owned water

works industry in the United States. In

liquid measurement, the products are often measured several

times in the course of processing, distributing, and marketing before reaching their end use. Aside from the water works

field, the large volumes metered are represented by motor fuels

and heating oils. Apart from the meter itself, it is necessary to 63
bear in mind the related metering accessory equipment used on

transport vehicles, loading terminals, unloading terminals, and

in process plant facilities.

It is also necessary to consider the special problems in

handling liquefied petroleum gases, petro-chemicals, corn and

sugar syrups, industrial chemicals, solvents, and milk products.

Earlier, the needs of industry in terms of liquid metering were

mentioned. Meter applications in industry satisfy the need for

inventory, accounting, and process control. The future depends on a greater application of liquid measurement to process the

product, know how much is being processed, know where it is located at any given time, and know when it is sold, and how

much is invoiced and paid for. The ultimate in our free enter- prise business cycle is to produce an item for sale at a profit.

The metering system is truly the cash register in this cycle.

Meter Requirements

It was true in the past, is true at present, and will continue to be true in the future : For any liquid measurement system there are fundamental requirements.

1. Accurate flow measurement.

2. Faithful recording.

3. Economy.

4. Safety.

Each of us has our own concept of what "accurate" means. The word by itself is not really a definitive expression of meas- urement characteristics. Measurement is an approximation of an exact amount. To arrive at a more complete interpretation,

the engineer breaks this down into terms such as linearity,

hysteresis, range, environmental effect, signal flow ratio, and

percentage registered.

In metering industrial products, we simply want to know how

much of each product is transferred in any particular container,

batch, or shipment. We want this information regardless of

what the product is, what the environmental conditions are, whatever the total volume happens to be, and at whatever flow

rate is practical.

The requirement for reliable recording or registration is straight-forward. The ramification of what is to be recorded

and how and where it is to be recorded are not so obvious. Product identification, system identification, date, time, temperature,

customer, pricing, discounts, and tax all come under consideration. The recording may be visual and/or recorded on tickets,

IBM card, and plastic or paper tape, be printed with carbon or inked ribbon perforated or magnetized.

Economy is a word for which each of us has his own understanding. It may be simply defined when applied to equipment

as "that which performs the desired function at the lowest

overall cost." Many of us can still remember dip stick measure- ments of fuels. From a first cost standpoint there was nothing

better. Certainly, maintenance of this device represented the

ultimate in economy, and record keeping was simple. Even with

cheap labor in days gone by, costs per delivery were double the

amount considered tolerable today and minimum wages are now

64
far higher. Therefore, the overall economy of the system function must be kept in mind even though we know compromises

in favor of lower first cost are made.

Considerations of component and system safety have also been

kept uppermost in equipment design and application. Safety will

continue to be a controlling factor in a future that will see increased flow rates, more volatile fuel, more aggressive chemicals,

and more automatic systems. There is no substitute for good,

human judgment, but the elimination of the human element in

routine operational cycles leads to a safer operation when the

"good judgment" feature is built into the system. The safety of our space astronauts depends on answers derived from complex

problems placed into and solved by computers.

These are the factors fundamental to metering. We realize

very often that compromise of one factor against another must

be made and will, of necessity, continue to be made. Progress

will be made on the basis of keener and fewer trade-offs with

these fundamental factors.

Current Trends

In order to determine future product needs it is essential to evaluate significant trends and developments in all the industries

that store, process, market, and transport liquids, regardless of

present methods of liquid measurement.

Using, again, one portion of the petroleum industry (that of

transportation), we can assay significant trends in product loading, transports, and unloading.

1. Increasing terminal size.

2. Increasing payload capacity.

3. Faster "turn around" time.

4. Increasing automation of operation and recording.

5. More tailored and special products.

6. Multi-use transports. In recent years, the number of new, moderate sized bulk plants

have leveled off, but there has been an increase in the number of

larger terminals. Maximum flow rates at plants have increased

from the 350 to 650 gallons per minute range to the 650 to over

1000 gallons per minute range.

Greater use of replacement transports and semi-trailers is reaching the stage of maximum permitted size and axle load

limitations. Where axle load limits have already been reached,

attention has been given to the reduction of tare weight in order

to increase payload.

Decreasing transport delivery time is not easy to achieve when

one considers that the time to unload is only a portion of the

total "turn around" time of the vehicle. Unloading rates are

also controlled to a large extent by the capacity (sizes of fill connection and vent) of the receiving installation. Alterations here

are numerous and expensive.

Increasing the efficiency of the bulk terminal is further

brought about by greater use of supplementary accounting controls which permit 24-hour operation of the metering system.

Large haulers, through the use of special control means, are authorized to load on a self-service basis.

65
The advantages of tailor-made and special equipment versus

the flexibility of multi-use transports used by the "common carrier" does not detract from the virtues of each approach.

LP Gas transports can only be efficiently designed for use with

high vapor pressure liquids. Likewise special materials and

design requirements must be maintained for milk transports.

The high speed gravity discharge system developed by SoconyMobil for motor fuel service is an example of tailor-made

equipment.

Where transports are not fully utilized due to seasonal demand,

economic need for the more flexible multi-use transport arises.

Petro-chemicals, solvents, liquid fertilizers, and liquefied gases

other than LP Gas, all may fit into these extraneous seasonal

categories.

Without limiting our scope to the transportation areas of

petroleum products, we can easily expand our thinking into other

industrial fields and other levels of measurement. In petroleum,

there are the large areas of measurement in refining and pipeline

operations; in marketing (at the retail level), of gasoline, fuel

oil and LP Gases. In the food and chemical products industries,

rising costs have brought about a greater awareness of the advantages of metering equipment in plant processing control and

measurement.

All of these trends are generated by:

1. The growth of the industries (in both the number of new

applications and volume).

2. A continuing effort to reduce unit costs in light of rising

labor rates.

3. The availability of new products through technology.

4. The desire for more accurate and convenient measurement.

Metering Equipment—Plans and Progress

Metering, as discussed here, is generally accomplished with

the positive displacement measuring principle of which there are

several designs in use today. Regardless of the field in which

meters are employed, the fundamental needs for accurate measurement, faithful recording, economy, and safety are the same.

Suppliers of metering equipment and related system components

have for years concentrated on product economy, long, reliable

life, and ease of maintenance and adjustment.

In the petroleum field, flow rates moved up from the 2-inch

and 3-inch meters to the 4-inch and then to the 6-inch meters to meet the need for rates in the 1,000 gallons per minute area on

loading racks. In some instances, a bank of two or more meters

in parallel has been used to achieve higher rates. As rates in- crease, it has been essential to pay closer attention to low flow

performance and extending the meters linear range.

We are now reaching the stage where we feel it is necessary

to supplement—not replace—the tried and proven positive displacement meters with other principles more amenable to higher

flow rates. A prime candidate is the in-line turbine.

Turbine meter designs developed and produced by water meter

manufacturers have been successfully used for 50 years or more

in the water works industry to measure drinking water moving

at high flow rates through supply mains.

66
The in-line turbine saw use in more recent years for a specialized application : Fuel measurement in the "buddy refueling"

system during the closing days of World War II and the Korean

crisis. In the last 12 years, after extensive field evaluation, the

turbine for pipeline measurement has come into use and has

been applied more extensively, along with the positive displacement meters.

In general, positive displacement meters have been applied to widely varying operating flow rates and have handled products

with very different physical characteristics (for example, from

the high viscosities of heavy oils to the low viscosities and

lubricating qualities of propane). Turbine meters have been

preferred for high flow rates in pipelines where rates of flow are

relatively constant.

First attempts to use turbine meters on loading racks were

not highly successful. Recent developments in design have re- sulted in performance characteristics such that this type of meter

may be seriously considered for high rate bulk terminal use in

the near future. Prototypes have been operating continuously

on varnolene for 18 months with no appreciable signs of wear.

In one pipeline field trial over 150 million gallons of gasoline,

kerosene, and fuel oil have been measured by a 4-inch size tur- bine meter with no maintenance and no change in calibration.

Positive displacement meter designs are not being neglected,

however. In our case, applied research on the internal hydraulics

of the oscillating piston meter have given us leads on improved

performance and wear. Studies of meter materials to handle

nonlubricating liquids have led to plans for further improvement

of low flow accuracy (increased range) in a design already

recognized for its excellent performance in this regard.

In the metering of chemicals, solvents, fertilizers and food

products, meters of special materials, design and sizes are con- tinuing to be developed and tested. In this area, new materials

(including alloys, treatments, finishes, and coatings) are actively

being sought and tried. New varieties of plastic compounds,

new formulations, new methods of molding, forming, and fabricating are also being considered in new products. In many

instances, a combination of new materials and fabrication either

permit or dictate design modification.

Sacrifices in designs often must be met and made in order to handle industrial liquids. A process liquid may carry a precipitate or a low percentage of solids. Each year, however, more

types of industrial liquids are being metered.

In processing plants, more attention is being given to the

overall system function and its application to measurement and

control. In the future, we can expect to see more completely

engineered systems for "in-plant" processing where liquid and

dry ingredients are measured and fed automatically, in prescribed proportion, for batching. The sequence of operations

may be push button controlled, automatic, or completely automated. It follows that, in addition to the meter itself, attention

is being given overall—to the measurement system. Much of

this is in cooperation with the efforts in the various industries

to improve their metering operation and their efficiency.

Time will not permit discussion of various systems, what they

67
are designed to accomplish and how they operate. It is not

the intent of this presentation to dwell on these details, but

rather to establish the direction in which we are headed.

There are certain relationships, however, between needed sys- tem components and meters. The first of these is control and

recording. The increased use of centralized systems has led to electronic signal generation, transmission, recording, and control, that has in turn led to the system flexibility obtainable by

direct mechanical means (stepping motor drive). Where the size

of an operation so justifies, this centralization becomes a tradeoff between first cost to obtain better performance and lower

overall costs. A by-product of auxiliary components such as, the meter operated pulser, is the feasibility of much wider use

of in-line blending and automatic additive and odorant injection

systems.

The second relationship is the need for more uniquely controlled electrical functions such as, remote operation of valves

for slow starts, stops, throttling, and blocking. Safety is often

the welcome by-product of system features resulting from good

valve control.

The third relationship is the need for more rapid and efficient calibration systems. With the high vapor pressure liquids and

increased flow rates, it becomes increasingly apparent that

prover tanks are cumbersome and the techniques time con- suming. Only part of the answer will come from meters with

longer life, requiring less frequent checking. There is promise

of improved techniques in meter proving and equipment in sight.

Great strides have been made in satisfactory use of single and

bidirectional piston provers in pipeline meter calibration and

the use of loop provers for portable operation. In the production

testing of meters, the feasibility of automatic proving has al- ready been accomplished. How much of this will be used in

the weights and measures area is difficult to predict.

The fourth relationship is the growing awareness in the marketing area of metering systems engineering for the design and

fabrication of systems that perform properly. With larger ca- pacity vehicle tank trucks and the drive for higher delivery

rates, more ingenuity will be applied to the design of pressure

(pump) operated systems. This type of design has been recently

accomplished on gravity units. Air entrainment in metering

systems has plagued certain system designs. Advances are being

made in air elimination and modern tank sump and piping

design and will continue to do much to alleviate or eliminate this

problem. Present air release units, at times, coupled with automatic flow regulators, do a commendable job. Improvement can I and will be made.

In years to come, more compact, higher speed registering units

will be available. Part of this development is related to automated record keeping and billing.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it should be understood that every meter supplier is still searching for the ideal meter; the liquid meter that

will have a high degree of accuracy, require little or no maintenance, will cause no perceptible restriction to flow, will measure 68
any material (whether it is gasoline, propane, glue, syrup, or a

gas) under all or any environmental conditions and at virtually

any flow rate. This meter would have no moving parts, nothing

to wear out and above all else, would be inexpensive to manufacture.

Needless to say, we, at Neptune, have not yet found this

meter, but I would like to offer a little evidence to indicate that we are trying.

There is a new flow measurement concept that is currently

under development. It is referred to as Neptune's "The Flow

Measurement Concept." This is a thermal device which measures any fluid passing over a solid surface.

Some of the characteristics of the device are as follows

1. Flow range in excess of present day meters.

2. Substantially zero pressure drop (equal to a spool piece of

the same length).

3. No moving parts, components permanently potted and

sealed.

4. May be constructed of materials best suited to the fluid to be metered.

5. Operates with low wattage on any regulated A.C. or D.C.

power sorce.

6. Supplies an electrical signal in the usable 10 millivolt range,

proportional to the flow of any particular fluid. People in research are giving careful consideration to new

concepts to develop the theories necessary before considering

possible application to the fluid measurements field.

THE INSTRUMENT SOCIETY OF AMERICAITS ORGANIZATION, PROGRAM, AND RELATION TO

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

by W. A. Crawford, Principal Instrument Engineer,

Engineering Department, E. I. DuPont de Nemours

and Company, Wilmington, Delaivare, and President

Elect of the Instrument Society of America

The Instrument Society of America is a nonprofit professional society, international

in scope, dedicated to advancing the arts and

sciences of instrumentation and control. It

is concerned with the theory, design, manufacture, and application of instruments and

controls in all the sciences and technologies.

Our membership includes more than 15,-

000 scientists, engineers, and technologists.

They represent both users and manufacturers

of instrumentation, a combination that has

produced a healthy interchange necessary to the progress of both groups. The Society

has 117 Sections in the United States and Canada, the latest of

which was chartered on February 10 at Cape Kennedy, Florida.

69
Our Headquarters, located in Pittsburgh, is manned by 43

employees who carry on the normal functions of a headquarters

staff such as keeping membership records, developing yearly

conference programs, printing and disseminating our many publications, and managing our annual exhibit.

Our monthly magazine is called the ISA Journal. We publish

also a quarterly periodical called the ISA Transactions, and

disseminate to all our members printed copies of our Standards

and Practices work. In addition, we print proceedings of major

technical functions.

The Instrument Society of America also has a birthday this

year—this being our 20th year as a Society. We were formed

in 1945 by the merging of several local instrument groups, from

the major cities in this country, into our present national society.

Although the early technical interests of our members were in

the chemical and petroleum fields of instrumentation, the growth

of instrument use in the country has been very rapid in other

fields since our formation. We now devote much of our technical

effort to the newer sciences such as aerospace, biomedical, marine, and nuclear sciences.

ISA HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION CHART

ISA PRESIDENT

j^W. A. CRAWFORD J r:

EXHIBIT DIRECTOR

ISAJ PUBLISHER

W. H. Kushnick

EXHIBIT FLOOR MANAGER

F. J. Tabery

(on contract)

DIRECTOR of SOCIETY OPERATIONS

H. S. Kindler

C. P. Pannier

Adm. Asst.

ADVERTISING & EXHIBIT SALES REPRESENTATIVES

TECHNICAL

OPERATIONS MANAGER

E. J. Minnar

(on commission) Becker P. Meade J.E. French, Staff Eng. „ qh

^,, B.S. Hines, Mtgs. Asst

H.' Sweeney G " W - . _ Prom. Ass't.

B. Edstrom T. ChiamardaB

C. Clark

Cook Sissom

PUBLIC RELATIONS

MANAGER, EXHIBITS

S= ISA JOURNAL

D. R. Stearn

W. H. Baker

EDUCATION & RESEARCH MANAGER

K.B. Schnelle, Jr.

ISA JOURNAL EDITOR

W. C. Shall

CD. Martens, Asst. Ed. M.C. Jaffurs, Depts. Ed.

G. Aubenque, Art/Prod.

MEMBERSHIP &

ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES MANAGER

R. L. Simmons

E.A. Bibey, Records Sup.

CONTROLLER

E. A. Gromek

A. Ciocca, Bookkeeper

70
In addition to our own internal technical work, we cosponsor,

with several other societies, conferences on engineering in Medicine and Biology (with IEEE), the National Telemetering Conference (with IEEE and AIAA) and the Automatic Control

Conference (with IEEE, ASME, AIChE)

At our Annual Meeting, we frequently entertain several co- operating societies such as the American Meteorological Society,

the Precision Measurements Association, the National Council of

Standards Laboratories, the Institute of Environmental Sciences,

and the Society for Photographic Instrument Engineers.

The technical value and significance of our Society's efforts are

that we stress the application of industrial, laboratory and scientific instrumentation and control. We discuss the successes and

failures of applications of instrumentation to particular services

. . . the problems involved with the maintenance and calibration of plant instrumentation to maintain a high state of productivity . . . the theory of automatic control concepts . . . the

practicality of digital versus analog control, etc. In addition to

this, we feel it absolutely necessary to provide some media for our members to keep current with the fast changing new product

and instrumentation lines being developed each year, and we

provide an exhibit at our annual meeting for this purpose.

In the Technical Department, the first Division which touches on instrumentation of the weight and measure type is that of

the Instrument Operating and Maintenance group who devote

their interest to the plant problems of maintaining equipment.

The next Division in our Technical Department which may be of

interest is that of the Measurement and Control Instrumentation

Division, who have a subcommittee on weighing and control

systems. This subcommittee devotes its efforts to intransit

weighing and feeding systems required for solids handling.

Such devices as belt conveyor scales and unitized belt scale

meters are the primary sensing devices. Included in their scope

are the controllers and operating devices such as vertical gates,

vibrating feeders, rotary vane feeders, etc., to adjust solids flow

and maintain continuity.

The next Division in the Technical Department of interest is the Measurement Standards Instrumentation Division. In this

Division are the Physical Measurements Committee under James

L. Cross of the National Bureau of Standards here in Washington, and the Recommended Environments for Standards Committee under A. D. Isaacs, Instrom Instruments Company. The

next Division in our Technical Department, Physical and Mechanical Measurement Instrumentation, includes the Committee

on Physical Testing and Inspection Instrumentation under

Marvin B. Levine, General American Transportation Corporation ; a Committee on Shock and Vibration Measurement under

Ralph M. Morrison, Sandia Corporation ; and a Committee on

Strain Measurement Instrumentation under Darrell B. Harking,

of the Boeing Company.

In our Industries and Sciences Department, the various forms

of weighing and measurement are discussed as they apply to the

industry or science that is involved. Weighing and measuring

systems are found in many forms in each of these fields. From

71
my own experience in the chemical industry, I might point out

that weighing has in the past been a primary means of confirming the amount of raw materials shipped into our plants or in- ventoried and shipped out of our plants. For many years

weighing has been used in fluids handling. In recent years, more accurate flowmetering devices are available and fewer of

the awkward remote reading process scales are now found. Our

principal flowmetering devices, however, still read in pounds-perhour of the fluid being handled.

To go on to the last Department, the Standards and Practices

Department, in our Aerospace Committee there is some work

going on in Strain Gage Force Transducer Standards under Joe

Arbogast of the Hercules Powder Company.

Weights and measures is, of course, associated with our work

whenever calibration of measuring instruments is carried out. Each instrument engineer specifying equipment must understand the accuracy of the device he is buying. He will specify

and select an instrument to satisfy the application on the basis

of the accuracy required. For industrial processing type in- strumentation, an absolute accuracy of about 1 to 2 percent of

the full scale of the instrument is probably all that will be re- quired, provided the instrument is reliable and unaffected by

ambient outdoor conditions. Here, because our industrial plants

operate 24 hours a day, precision or high accuracies are sacrificed to achieve reliability.

Each one of our industrial plants, however, maintains the

standard weights and measures necessary to verify the accuracy

of the instrumentation. The instrument shop will be equipped

with the degree of instrumentation necessary to calibrate every

type of industrial instrument in the plant. For example, many

of the shops include precision manometers, deadweight gage

testers for pressure calibration, stirred temperature baths with

National Bureau of Standards quality glass-stem thermometers

for calibrating thermal instruments, precision potentiometers

and Wheatstone bridges for checking electrical measurements,

precision oscilloscopes for necessary electronic instrument cali- bration, and many, many other devices.

Many industrial plants such as aircraft factories have found

it necessary to incorporate on their sites standards laboratories

capable of measuring and calibrating extremely precise quantities. For example, Grumman Aircraft on Long Island has a very complete laboratory designed to facilitate the calibration of

many types of precision instruments provided on the aircraft

and in flight-testing as well.

Our Society is working with many other societies to try to promote better criteria for accuracy. For example, this year we

are entertaining at our Annual Meeting in Los Angeles a semi- nar on this subject with American Standards Association,

National Council of Standards Laboratories, National Bureau of

Standards, Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Society for

Quality Control, American Ordnance Association, and Precision

Measurements Association in an effort to determine how we can

speed up the development of standard terms involving accuracy.

We also will discuss how we can broadcast and use these standard

72
terms as well as how we can establish standard methods of cali- bration and checking to provide specified accuracies.

At our annual Exhibit, every leading manufacturer of instrumentation demonstrates his new lines of equipment. It provides an opportunity for all of those interested in instrumentation of

any type at all to see the new developments during the past year.

Precision equipment by suppliers such as Beckman, HewlettPackard, Leeds & Northrup, etc., is exhibited as well as industrial equipment by suppliers such as Taylor, Foxboro, Honeywell,

etc.Each one of these suppliers works with us on our standards

and practices activity to try to make our standards meaningful

to all levels of instrument use and widely accepted throughout

our industry. Our standards and practices have been able to establish a strong tie between users and manufacturers that has

been instrumental in developing good working practices between

both groups to advance the technology of the industry.

Measurement and control progress has been massive and

dynamic these past 20 years. Progress made during the war

that seemed so technically exciting in the earlier days of our

Society's history has long since been dimmed by the achievements that have occurred since then. New processes and whole

new industries have needed, and in some cases have been founded

on, new measurement and control techniques. I dare say that

there is scarcely a research effort or industrial process in any of our country's enterprises that does not depend in a major way

on some facet of instrumentation for its success and effectiveness.

The ISA has played a vital role in all of this progress and its own growth has matched, and frequently has stimulated, the

growth of instrumentation technology.

It seems entirely appropriate that the Instrument Society of

America and the National Conference on Weights and Measures

should explore together means and methods for a cooperative

effort directed to improved precision, greater accuracy, and

better understanding in the technology of measurement.

MEASUREMENT IN A DYNAMIC SOCIETY

by D. A. Schon, Director, Institute for Applied Technology,

National Bureau, of Standards

My children have a tendency to embarrass

me when they come home from school and

ask questions. My daughter came home the

other day and said, "Why do they call a

ruler a ruler?" and I didn't know. She said,

"Well, it's very simple. It is because there was a Babylonian king when they first started the business of measurement and it was his foot or his arm or his hand that

served as the measure for length, and so it was the ruler's measure that was the ruler."

I have no way of checking on her accuracy

except by going to see the teacher, and so I believe her.

73
I think there is an interesting connection here that is still pertinent. As standards of measurement became objective, after

having been arbitrary and dependent on a ruler, so did we move

from an arbitrary government to a government by law; and

physical measurement, physical standards, legal measurement,

legal standards, governmental standards, have developed together.

I am interested to see, by the way, that history in many re- spects remains the same. When Mr. Renfrew in his most

interesting talk pointed out the fact that it used to be true that

merchants had one set of standards for buying and another set for selling, I heard a loud voice next to me say, "So what's

different?"

What I would like to talk to you about this morning, and

briefly, is this : Our national measurement system is as important to our national goals as our systems of transportation,

housing, or waste disposal; the measurement system is being

forced to change as society changes its demands on technology,

and therefore you and we in the National Bureau of Standards

are in the business of attempting to adapt that system to the

changing demands of society.

That system always consists of at least four parts. It consists

of the language of measurement, the methods of measurement,

the instruments of measurement, for measuring all the things

that society wants to have measured ; and then it consists of the

data of measurement which result from the use of those methods.

My colleague, Bob Huntoon, at the National Bureau of Standards, whom some of you know, has said this better than I can

say it, and I want to read very briefly how he describes it. He

says

Measurements fall into two main categories—(1) immediate-use measure- ments which are essentially consumed on the spot; for example, the weighing

of potatoes or the measurement of piston diameter; and (2) deferred-use

or reference measurements which, once made correctly, can be used repeatedly by many people. The user with a measurement problem can be given

a solution in either of these two forms, as the capability to make the measurements with calibrated instruments, or as the record of some previous

measurement data. If the answer can be given as data, making one operation serve a multitude of users, there is an enormous reduction in cost, both

in time and facilities. Thus, two basic aspects of the National Measurement

System have developed. One is aimed at giving the customer the ability to measure, the other at reducing his need for the first by providing him

measurements ready made where possible. The first aspect is developed

around the concept of a central national laboratory, providing the national standards and the national calibration network. Initially this function could be handled by one central laboratory doing most of the calibration in house. Now national needs have grown so diverse and so complex and of such a magnitude that the central laboratory serves to lead and steer our complex

national system.

The second—data aspect—started on a scattered basis with many laboratories making and publishing measurements of properties and constants. It grew out of the general recognition of the need for such reference measurements. This system has grown so that many centers developed such meas- urements and their conflicting results often confuse the user. This data as- pect needs central leadership, a basis for resolving conflicts, and a central place where customers can turn to the reference measurements. Thank you Bob Huntoon.

Measurement of what? It seems to me there are five sorts of

things that we are interested in measuring. One is physical

74
quantities—length, mass, velocity, temperature, the stock in

trade of the National Bureau of Standards. The second is properties of materials—for example, hardness, PH, thermal conductivity, porosity, and the like. The third is quantities used in

commerce, measures used in metering gasoline or milk, packages

in which goods are sold. The fourth is the performance characteristics of products, and this in two parts : Performance of components, like the structural strength of a beam, and performance

of systems, like the performance of an environmental control

system, including hopefully, the ability to ventilate without

deafening.

The fifth kind of measurement is the measurement of programs, the measurement of human activities, as a company at- tempts to measure the performance of its marketing effort or its advertising, or as a nation attempts to measure its defense program, the benefits and the costs of those programs.

All of these are measurement problems, and all of them in

various ways are being pressed to their limit by the things that

are now going on in our society.

Let me at breakneck speed now romp through the five cate- gories and tell you how I think it is that this seems to be happening.

In the area of physical measurement, the measurement of

physical quantities, the pressure is coming both from the move- ment of scientific theory, with its new experimental requirements, and also from the engineering requirements, and primarily the engineering requirements of the Defense Department

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Examples. In vacuum : The needs of the space program have

strongly pointed out the deficiencies of our current ability to measure vacuum.

In voltage, electrical power transmission over the country is moving to ever higher voltages for increased efficiency.

Our calibration services and measurements capability must be

pushed to the one megawatt level. Length. Lasers have opened up new possibilities for greater

precision in length measurements.

Time. In spite of rapid recent advances, the space and defense programs still seek improvement in frequency measure- ments by a factor of 100.

Temperature. The demands for higher temperature measurements continue to increase. We must extend the range to 5,000

degrees and improve the thermodynamic scale accuracy up to 1,000 degrees.

Let's look at the properties of materials and think about elec- tronics and electronic components. As we have moved from vac- uum tubes to transistors to micro-electronic devices—and by the

way the National Bureau of Standards shows that you can see

this movement in terms of the people who are around, because

the fellows who developed measurement methods for vacuum

tubes are there, and the fellows who developed measurement

methods for transistors are there, and the fellows who are developing measurement methods for micro-electronics are there

as we have moved from one type of component to another, we

have become concerned with the purity of materials and are now

75
having to measure it not in terms of parts per thousand, as initially, or parts per million, but in terms of parts per billion in

the new micro-electronic materials. This puts a strain on the

theory of measurement itself, on the instruments (the resistivity

probes which we have traditionally used and which no longer

work), and on our ability to produce standard reference materials. And these requirements are of central economic importance

to the industry. They can mean, for example, the difference between a 20 percent and a 90 percent rejection rate in the production of electronic components.

Let's turn to the area of greatest concern to you: The meas- urement of quantities used in commerce. I was struck again by

Mr. Renfrew's talk with a thought that hadn't occurred to me

before today: today's packages are tomorrow's units of measure.

This was true of the Egyptian vase and it was true of the tank

car, and I think therefore, it is no accident that you and we

are concerned with our ability to measure the contents of packages.

This has two aspects to it. One of them is the proliferation of consumer goods, with the proliferation of packaging, and the

other is the development of new technologies of packaging, such

as aerosols.

The fact of the matter is, I think we will all agree, that our

ability to measure the contents of packages in normal commerce,

and to make those measurements known to the people who use them, is inadequate. This is, moreover, a gap we don't yet appear ready to fill. When Esther Peterson was here last year, as

I remember, she indicated something of the same sort. I sus- pect we are moving now toward a period in which we will be

ready to attack this problem on a broader public scale than in

the past.

Let me move next to the issue of performance characteristics

of products and systems.

The rate of technological change, as you have been hearing

over and over again, is increasing. In order to cope with it and

to increase it further, we need to develop standards of compatibility and criteria of performance.

We have created Federal responsibility at the National Bureau of Standards for computers and automatic data processing

technology. The Nation uses $15 billion worth of computers and

software each year. The Government uses $3 billion worth of

computers and software each year. The number of programming languages, the languages the machine speaks and understands, is currently 102. The cost of programming in Government is about $640 million a year. The amount of duplication

among programs is enormous. That duplication hinges on the

lack of compatibility of programming languages, which are tied to computer hardware, and the lack of standards for the languages, for the data format, for the tapes, and the like. On the other hand, people in the automatic data processing

business are concerned about the development of standards

which might have the effect of freezing the technology. And yet

if we don't in some way freeze the technology, we have this

large programming bill, with which we don't wish to be stuck.

Answers appear to be in the direction of developing performance

76
characteristics for languages rather than specifications for languages.

With respect to the performance-based standards as an incentive to new technology, think about building, an item with which

I guess all of you have some concern. Within the last three

years, to my knowledge, Monsanto, Union Carbide, Koppers,

Johns-Manville, and at least one other major chemical company

have dropped between one and eight million dollars in the at- tempt to introduce new building systems, systems which would

promise major cost reductions, for example in low-cost housing.

Each one of these companies, without exception, has had to get out of the business and to accept its investment as a loss. Why? Because there are between two and five thousand local building codes in this country, all of them different, none of

them based on the same standards, and while Koppers can sell

its new foam-core system in Duluth by going to the local building code officials and pointing out how this system will work,

when they finish doing that they have to do the same thing

again in Keokuk and the same thing again in Baltimore and the same thing again in Buffalo. By the time they have done all that, the cost of selling these products is so great that it over- balances any conceivable benefit. The lack of performance

standards in this field and the lack of codes based on those

standards is a major obstacle to the introduction of technical

change.

As a counter-example, in the State of California a bright

young fellow associated with Stanford University got fifteen

school districts to combine their purchases of schools and said,

"Gentlemen, let's buy on the basis of performance criteria for

school systems, not specifications but performance criteria." He

put together such an attractive market that he was able to at- tract as bidders companies like Inland Steel and Hauserman

Partitions. When they bid, the cost per square foot of school was a third less than it previously had been, and even some of

those companies which didn't win are now marketing the new

systems they developed.

Performance criteria for measuring, not products and not components, but systems, like schools, or even subsystems, like walls, are a major incentive to the introduction of new technology.

Last example. We are concerned with the measurement of

programs. You have all heard of a fellow named McNamara

in the Federal Government. The Federal Government in my

view is now being McNamarized. What that means is that we

are beginning to be concerned with not just what are you doing

this year and how many items did you process or how many

units did you distribute, but what are you doing this year, next

year, and the year after, and how do you measure the benefits

and costs of what you do.

Now, that problem doesn't arise so much for you gentlemen

because you are in face-to-face contact with your benefits all the

time, but for us in the Federal Government it arises in a very

major way, and we are now in the process of attempting to develop methods of measuring benefits of Federal programs and

methods of measuring costs of Federal programs and in some way combining the two, and in my view this is every bit as chal77
lenging a measurement problem as determining the purity of the

parts per billion in a new micro-electronic component.

On all five measurement fronts—physical properties of materials, physical quantities, performance characteristics of products

and systems, quantities used in weights and measures, and programs—our society's demand for new technology is forcing the

measurement system to its limits. In contributing to the development of the measurement system, we make a major contribution to the sound use of technology in our society.

THE SCIENCE OF WEIGHING—YESTERDAY

by W. A. Scheurer, President, Exact Weight Scale Company,

Columbus, Ohio

In the Beginning

When did the science of weighing begin?

When did man invent the scale, and a standard system of weights? There are no historical records to show when this

momentous event occurred. It is lost in the

mists of prehistory, along with those other

fundamental devices without which there

could have been no civilization: the wheel

and axle, the lever, the screw, and the inclined

plane.

The oldest known scale is a tiny equalarm balance found in a prehistoric grave in

Egypt—dated roughly at 5000 B.C. This

first balance, in use some 7,000 years ago, and less than three

and one-half inches long, was carved from red limestone.

And the oldest standard weight? According to the metrologist, Berriman, it is the Mina D. Found in the city of Lagash,

in ancient Babylonia, it can be dated at about 2400 B.C. This

pear-shaped stone is four inches high and weighs one and onehalf pounds. On the other hand, Flinders Petrie claims that some stones found in 1st Dynasty Egyptian graves were used

as weights. If this is true, they were in use around 2900 B.C.

It is of course obvious that the first Egyptian balance would

have been useless without weights to measure the loads—and

that the Babylonian Mina was used with some kind of scale, even though it is lost to us. Two Histories: Balances and Weights

These earliest historical remains show that we are confronted

by two separate histories: 1. The evolution of the scale, or weighing machine; and 2. The evolution of a standard system

of weights.

The history of weights is much less dramatic than that of

scales since its whole concern is with the establishment of stan- dard units of comparison. From this standard, larger and

smaller units could be derived as specific fractions or multiples

of the basic unit. Even the most refined modern weights are 78
quite similar to those ancient ones of thousands of years ago.

They differ only in the extreme accuracy with which the units can be defined and the very exact ratios between them. That

grandfather of all weights, the Mina, could just as well be used

today in the pan balance of our most sophisticated laboratory

scales. The history of the weighing machine itself, however, has been

marked by dramatic changes. A modern scale system, with its banks of control panels and hundreds of electronic and mechanical components, has no resemblance to its ancient ancestor of

the Nile.

Even so, it is one of the astonishing facts of history that

from that first Egyptian balance down to Roman times—about

5,000 years—the equal-arm balance was the only scale in exist- ence. The Roman steelyard, which appeared at about the time

of the birth of Christ, was the first new principle in the history

of the scale since the beginning of time.

When we consider the phenomenal technical achievements of

Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece : their monumental religious architecture of pyramids, zigurrats, and marble temples; their great

cities with canals and plumbing; their fleets of ships and armies

of soldiers ; their complex and effective forms of government and

legal codes; and above all their ingenious advances in mathematics and astronomy, we may wonder that they did not dis- cover a new principle in so important an art as weighing.

But the reason is clear. For the equal-arm balance is still today the most accurate means of comparing a load against a standard unit of weight as witness its extensive use in our most

modern scientific laboratories.

Curiosity and Commerce: Double Root of the History of Weighing

With no historical records to the contrary, we may assume

that early man first developed a means for weighing objects as a

result of his own curiosity about the world around him. He

must have looked at the mountain, or the bird, or the tree and

said, "How high?" At the running animal, and said "How fast?"

At the lake, and said, "How deep?" At the distant forest, and

said, "How far?" And he must have picked up many a stone and

said, "How heavy?" He could find the answers only by devising

standard units of weight and measure. The satisfaction of intellectual curiosity has been perhaps the

chief motivation for all of our great scientific discoveries. But

the coming of civilized life demanded standard units of weight

and measure. There can be no extensive commerce between

peoples without some form of reference and comparison which

will visibly demonstrate the equity of the transaction. That first Egyptian balance is testimony to the need for some more objective standard than the human senses. Man the Measure

At the beginning of the first civilizations, man himself became

the original measuring device. He found that his own limbs

could provide a crude but satisfactory linear measure. From his

body he developed such units of measurement as the digit,

79
Nl«an tlit>. Measure

k — Fathom

i _ i i

i „ i i" Pace. n

Figure 1.

thumb, palm, hand, span, cubit, yard, fathom, foot, and pace.

These proved so convenient that, in spite of their obvious variability, some of them are still used today.

But it was a different matter with weights. There was nothing about the human body which offered a visible means for

judging differences in weight. To compare weights, early man

could rely only on his sense of "heft"—a method so arbitrary as

to be almost useless in commerce or construction.

From Tote Pole to Balance

With no history to guide us, we can only assume that the first great step towards a system of weights and measures was derived from the "tote pole," or coolie yoke. Undoubtedly some

primitive, but clever, fellow first learned that a heavy load could

be carried more easily if it were divided, and each part hung

from the ends of a pole slung across the shoulder. The more

balanced the loads, the easier it was to carry them.

From the tote pole it seems to us now but a step to the equalarm balance. By suspending the pole at its center, the load

hanging from one end could be balanced against some standard

hung from the other. And with this first great step we have come to the beginning of the history of weighing.

80
The Three Basic Scale Components

Every weighing system, from the most primitive to the most

modern, consists of three basic elements: 1. the load receiver;

2. the load sensor ; and, 3. the readout. Looking once again at the primitive Egyptian balance, the cord suspended from one end

of the beam is the load receiver—that part of the scale which

holds the load to be weighed. From the opposite end of the beam

is suspended the load sensor—in this case a weight against which

the load is compared. And in this primitive balance the only

readout is the eye which must judge when the load is exactly

balanced by the sensor. No matter how complex or ingenious

our modern scale systems, they all incorporate these three basic

elements of weighing. And the history of the science of weighing is the story of man's progressive ingenuity in discovering

methods for conveniently holding all types of loads; more exact

load sensing devices ; and more accurate, faster systems of

readout.

After 7,000 Years The whole science of weighing depends upon one simple function: accurate comparison with a standard unit. The increased

accuracy of comparison, the increased standardization of the

units—this will be the measure of our progress. And how far

have we come after 7,000 years? There are in use in the world

today some 5,000 basic and derived units of weight, measure,

and capacity. Many backward countries still use quite primitive

systems of weights, having an accuracy perhaps no greater than

one part in a hundred. But the instrumentation in the more

technologically advanced countries provides an accuracy to one

part in many millions. The number of different units is not so important—-it is accuracy of comparison which counts. When

we can say that one meter equals 1.093613 yards, or that one pound equals 0.45359237 kilograms, this is science. When we

can say that the U.S. bushel equals 0.9689 British bushels, and

that this in turn is equivalent to 35.2381 liters, our technology

has realized the goal of accuracy in scientific measurement

accuracy of comparison with standard units.

Today we measure accurately the length of a lightwave, or of

a gamma ray, in terms of the Angstrom unit, one ten billionth

of a meter in length. Or we can measure that much of our uni- verse which is known to us through our radio and light telescopes —and here the standard unit is the light year, a linear unit five

trillion, 878 billion miles long. We can weigh the tiniest known

physical particle, the electron—and find that it is 1/910, 700,-

000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 of a gram (one 910,700

billion billion billionths of a gram). Or we can measure the

weight of our own earth, and find that it is six billion billion

grams. This is the measure of how far we have come since that

first Egyptian balance.

I. THE EVOLUTION OF WEIGHTS

The Westward Course of the Evolution of Weight Systems

An investigation of the history of weights shows several significant trends. In the first place, while almost all primitive

81
societies have, and have had, some system of weights, it is only

highly-developed civilizations which can lay claim to the development of exact standards. Each of these civilizations arose from

small beginnings to astonishing heights of cultural and technical

achievement, creating powerful empires and great world cities

and then declined to comparative insignificance, overcome and

superseded by other rising civilizations. The earliest of these

great cultural units appears to have been the Babylonian civili- zation, or, more properly, the Sumerian-Akkadian. This first civilization began its organized evolution in the Tigris-Euphrates

valley around 3000 B.C.

About a century later, the second great civilization—the

Egyptian—began its recorded evolution in the Nile valley. For more than a thousand years, as far as we know, these were the

only civilizations on our planet.

Then, about 1500 B.C., the Indian civilization was shaping

itself in the Indus valley, and several centuries later the great

Chinese culture appeared in the East.

From that time onward the rise of new civilizations followed a generally westward course. Around 1200 B.C., the HittiteAssyrian civilization grew to power north and west of the old ;j Babylonian. About the same time the Hebrew civilization spread

over Palestine.

In the years around 1100 B.C. the Graeco-Roman, or Classical,

civilization grew up on the Greek mainland and the islands of

the Ionian and Aegean Seas. This powerful civilization, which

died with the fall of the Roman empire, was succeeded by the

Byzantine-Arabic civilization. Arising much farther east, around

200 B.C., this culture spread westward and dominated the whole

of the Near East and a considerable portion of Europe until the

15th century A.D.

Still moving westward, the Western civilization began to grow

from the remains of Charlemagne's loosely constructed empire,

about 900 A.D.

But even before Western civilization began, far to the west

across the Atlantic Ocean, there appeared the Maya civilization

in Mexico, and the Inca civilization in Peru—both around

500 A.D.

At the same time that the great American civilization was

beginning on the North American continent, the ancient oriental

civilizations of India and China were being superseded by another, half-oriental, half-European : the Russian, which was beginning to take on a semblance of unity after the territorial

acquisitions of Ivan the Terrible in the 15th century and Peter

the Great in the late 17th.

What is significant for us here is that each of these great

civilizations developed its own system of weights, and each, in > general, retained their system in spite of the gradual spread of

universal commerce.

The Rise of Standard Weight Systems

Throughout this long and shifting pattern of historical evolution, with its continual rise, expansion, and fall of great civilizations, there appears another central tendency: the gradual

unification of hundreds of local systems of weights within a 82
civilization into a general system of standards established by a

central government. For example, the 17 known standards of

early Egypt were reduced to eight over the course of the

centuries.

While stone weights apparently were the first standard units,

the cereal grain became the smallest unit of weight in many of

these civilizations—a unit still used today. It was generally

stipulated that the standard grain should be chosen from the

center of the ear, and dried. While grains of uniform size made

a fairly reliable, and universal, unit of weight, they varied ac- cording to the amount of moisture they absorbed. Today, there

are 7,000 grains in the pound avoirdupois and 5,760 grains in

the troy pound.

Babylonian Weights

Looking briefly at the various systems devised by the great

civilizations, we find the Mina and the Shekel to be the basic

units of the Babylonian system. The previously mentioned Mina

D weighed 1.5 pounds. The Mina N weighed 2.16 pounds.

Archaeologists have also found weights of five Minas, in the

shape of a duck, and a 30-Mina weight in the form of a swan.

Earlie.o+ Knowm Weight

Baby Ionian

Mina

( c. Z400 B.C.)

Weight: 1.5 \t>-3

Figure 2. 83
The Shekel, familiar from the Bible as a standard Hebrew coin

and weight, was one of the most ancient Babylonian weights,

and was equal to 0.036 pounds, or a little more than half an

ounce. In Babylonian terms, the Mina N was equal to 60

Shekels.

Egyptian Weights

Historical evidence of Egyptian weight systems is much more ; extensive than the Babylonian. The basic Egyptian system appears to have been founded on the Sep, the Deben, and the Kedet

(or Kite). The ratio was 1 Sep = 10 Debens = 100 Kedets.

However, there were many different Kedets, ranging in weight

from about 70 to 292 grains. This system of standard ratios

only appeared after Egyptian civilization was well advanced. In 1 an earlier age, the gold Deben itself was the basic unit. Much

later the Kedet became the standard reference.

About 3,400 different weights have been recovered from ancient Egypt, some in simple geometric shapes, others in a wide

variety of human and animal forms.

Indian and Chinese Weights

Very little has been discovered about any extensive Indian

weight system and still less about the ancient Chinese. Some

288 specimens of stone weights have been found in the Indus

valley excavations. Although they are without rating marks,

they range in mass from 1.5 to 135 grams. Since these series of

cubic stones decrease in size in an orderly pattern, it is clear

that the early Indians had a standard system of weight units.

Centuries later there are many references to the Retti seed as a fundamental unit of weight.

The early development of a coinage system by the ancient

Chinese is a clear indication that they also possessed standard

weights. One such unit, the Kin, has persisted through history

a gold unit equal to one cubic inch of this metal.

Hittite-Assyrian, Hebrew and Phoenician Weights

The Hittites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Hebrews derived;

their weight systems generally from the old Babylonian measures, and occasionally from the Egyptian.

Hebrew standards were based on the relationship between the

Mina, the Talent, and the Shekel. The Sacred Mina was equal

to 60 Shekels, and the Sacred Talent to 3,000 Shekels, or 50 Sacred

Minas. The Talmudist Mina equalled 25 Shekels; the Talmudist;

Talent equalled 1500 Shekels, or 60 Talmudist Minas. Since the

Shekel was equivalent to one-half ounce, the Sacred Mina

weighed 30 ounces, and the Sacred Talent about 94 pounds.,

The historian Josephus mentions a Jewish tradition that Cain,

after his wanderings, built the city of Nod and became the inventor of the system of weights and measures. There is some

merit to this view in light of the fact that Cain's original diffi- culty came about through his inability to convince God of the

equivalence in value between fruit and sheep.

84
The First Decimal System

During this same period, about 1,000 B.C., the Babylonians

began to use the first decimal system of weights and measures.

It had its origin in the Egyptian lineal measure, the Mahi, or

length of the forearm. The Babylonians took the Half-Mahi as

a measure of sizes and weights for containers. The Half-Mahi was divided into ten parts, each equal to one Thumbreadth. One

cubic Half-Mahi thus contained 1,000 cubic Thumbreadths, and

the weight of water filling a container of this size was reckoned

at 1,000 Bekas. Two smaller units were then derived from this

basic unit the Scruple, equal to one-tenth Beka, and the Grain,

equal to l/200th Beka. Referring to a previous system, 100

Shekels = 64 Bekas.

The Greek Weight System

By this time in the evolution of civilizations, there was ex- tensive land and maritime commerce between all the peoples of

the Near East and southern Europe. As the Greeks began to build a civilization on the shores of the Aegean and in Asia

Minor, they adopted and modified the Babylonian decimal plan.

The Greek cubic foot, or Pous, became the base of the system.

Since the Greek foot was equal to 12 Thumbreadths, the cubic

Pous equalled 1,728 cubic Thumbreadths, or a similar number of

Bekas. Or, since one Beka = 12 Scruples, one cubic Pous = 17,-

280 Scruples. The Greeks then divided this into smaller units

17,280 Scruples = 60 Litra Weights; one Litra weight = 12

Twelfth Weights ; one Twelfth Weight = 8 Dram Weights ; one Dram Weight = 3 Scruples ; one Scruple = 20 Grains.

Roman Weights

As the Greek culture was merged with, and superseded by, the

rising Roman empire, the Romans altered the Greek weight sys- tem by calling the Twelfth Weight an Uncia—from which is derived our word "ounce." Moreover, they set 16 Uncia equal to one Pondus, later to become our avoirdupois pound. Sixty

Pondus weights were then reckoned to be the weight of one cubic

foot of cool water.

Modifying another weight system, the Romans set 12 Uncias

equal to one Libra, and 80 Libra equal to the weight of one cubic

foot of cool water. This 12-ounce pound became the basis of the

Troy system.

Arabic Weights

As the great Roman Empire fell into decay, first the Byzantine, then the Arabic and Turkish civilization took its place as

the leading culture. Now still another system of weights came

into use but we know very little about the ancient Arabic standards. The barleycorn became the basic small unit of weight,

and the Yusdruman pound used by the Arabs was derived from

the Babylonian Mina. It was adopted by Charlemagne and re-

'' mained for years the standard pound of medieval France. The

Arabic, or Mohammedan, Michtal equalled 1/72 Egypto-Roman

Pound, and 100 Michtals equalled one Rotl, equivalent to 7,283

grains. This Rotl became the basis of the old Germanic weight

system.

85
The Avery Museum Collection in London contains a set of

glass coin weights with rating marks of great accuracy, indicating the high standards reached in the Arabic weight systems.

The Evolution of European Weight Systems

Although the Roman empire established its system of weights

and measures over great parts of the world, the rising European

states in the Middle Ages never fully adopted it, and some countries retained their own local standards. Italy and France used

the basic Roman weights and ratios, while England, Germany,

Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway used native measures. Around 850 A.D. Alfred the Great brought considerable uniformity to the standard weight units of England. The prevailing English measure of capacity was a container one handbreadth long in each dimension. The weight of water filling this

container became the basic weight unit: the Measure Weight.

The set of derived units then was : one Tun Weight = 1000

Measure Weights ; one Measure Weights = 1000 Skeats ; OneHalf Measure Weight = one Scale Weight ; one Hundred

Weight = 100 Scale Weights ; the Half-Hundred Weight = 50

Scale Weights ; and the Stone Weight = %th Hundred Weight.

A Revolution: The Prototype Standard

At this moment in world history a great step was taken in the

progress towards more accurate weight standards. Rather than

each English community constructing its own basic weight unit

by rough guess, it borrowed the national standard from the royal

government and made an exact duplicate of it in iron. As far

as we know, this is the first instance of what might be called

the Prototype Standard. The standards were carefully kept, by

order of the Saxon kings, at Winchester. After the Norman

conquest in 1066, William the Conqueror determined to preserve

the Anglo-Saxon system of standard weights and had the prototypes moved to Westminister Abbey.

The recognition of the need for standard units of weights and

measures was so great that the famous Magna Carta of 1215

stressed the principle of uniformity. Somewhat later, Henry III redefined the traditional Saxon monetary unit of the pound,

known as the "pound sterling" because the English penny was

called a "pence sterling." The ratios were : one pound = 20 shil- lings ; one shilling = 12 pence—the system still used today. Also,

20 pence = one ounce, and 12 ounces = one pound. The English

pound sterling had the same divisions as the livre esterlin of

Charlemagne, unifier of Europe in the 9th century.

In 1303, when London had become one of the great trading

cities of Europe, the London merchants were empowered to install a new pound weight system, consisting of 16 ounces to the

pound, and called aver-de-peis, meaning "weight of goods" (later

corrupted to its present form of avoirdupois) . It was not from

intent but from coincidence that the new English pound nearly

equalled the weight of the Italian pound, called the Libra; and

the English Ounce was almost identical in weight to the Italian

Onzia—the Italian system having been derived from the Roman.

This is why today our abbreviation for the pound is lb and oz for the ounce. 86
Even before the introduction of the avoirdupois system, manyEnglish port cities were using another set of units for weighing

precious metals, jewelry, and drugs. This was the Troy system

used by the great Hanseatic League of north German and Baltic

cities which was rising to a dominant position in maritime commerce. Exact weight was so important to Hanseatic trade that

scales were specially made in Nurnberg, and sets of weights were

based on the German Onze, or Troy Ounce. The Troy system

itself may have taken its name from the town of Troyes in

France, center of the great Champagne Fairs, most famous of

all medieval European trading regions.

The Hanse maintained outlying settlements in four big cities one of which was London. This part of the city was called the

"Steelyard," and it is not known whether it took this name be- cause of the metal-loading docks or because of the huge steelyard

used to weigh heavy goods.

The Londoners referred to these German traders as "Easterners" or "Easterlings"—later shortened to "Sterlings." Consequently, the Luebeck coins were called sterling silver; the ounce was the sterling ounce; and the pound was the pound sterling.

In the 19th century, the Troy system was abolished in England, with the exception of the Troy Ounce of 480 Grains, used

to weigh precious metals and stones. The Great Metric Revolution

Following the westward course of the history of weighing, we

observe a continuation of the same two trends which have

threaded the whole development of weight standards: (1) The

constant rise of different sets of standard units, often resembling

each other, and (2) the tendency to simplify the number of

units by the direction and control of a central government. Yet

the only significant advance towards the goal of increasing ac- curacy was the English establishment of a prototype standard,

and its duplication by the various communities throughout the

country.

While this was an epoch-making improvement, it did nothing

to establish a universal system to be used throughout the world

by all peoples. Moreover, like almost all other systems of the

past, its units involved fractions. What was needed was a system in which weights, measures, and volumes were immediately

related by units which were always the same fraction or multiple

of a single base unit.

Of all of the upheavals occasioned by the French Revolution

of 1789, the most important for our history was the birth of

the metric system. This system, adopted by France in 1790 was

the first plan ever to relate measure, weight, and volume by the same units, each of which was the same multiple or fraction of

a base unit. This basic standard was named the meter (from

the French "to measure") and the derived units were decimal

multiples or fractions of this standard unit of length. The meter was defined as one ten millionth of a quadrant of the earth's

circumference.

To carry out this plan, the exact length of the meter was to be determined by measuring the difference in latitude between

Dunkirk, France and Barcelona, Spain. After this was done,

87
a standard meter bar was constructed. However, due to a slight error, it was found that the distance on the earth's surface from

the Equator to the North Pole was not exactly ten million units

of the new meter, but slightly more. But it was now too late to change the system. In 1875, the International Bureau of

Weights and Measures was established, and prepared a platinumiridium alloy bar on which two fine marks were made, the distance between them defining the standard length of the meter.

This International Prototype Meter is kept at Sevres, a Paris

suburb, and exact copies of it, called National Prototype Meters,

are in the possession of governments of various counties.

To a great extent, the Metric System marks the fulfillment of

man's long search for a universal standard of weights and measures. It is an invention almost as significant as the weight itself.

Weights in the United States The systems of weights and measures in the United States are similar to those of Great Britain, with some variations. A

resolution of Congress in 1836 approved the units adopted by

the Treasury Department in 1832, which endorsed the avoirdupois pound of 7,000 grains. While Congress has never actually

adopted these standards, they are in general practical use throughout the country. Congress further stipulated that each

of the States was to be supplied with a complete set of weights

and measures. This was accomplished by 1850. This set also

included the troy pound of 5,760 grains.

In 1866, Congress approved the use of the metric system in

the United States without, however, making it the standard.

Thus both systems are in wide use throughout the country. The

ounce-pound system is in general use in commerce and industry

while the gram-kilogram system is increasingly used in science

and technology. It is a curious fact that even today in the vaults

of the National Bureau of Standards there is no national prototype avoirdupois pound. But there is a national prototype stan- dard kilogram.

The National Bureau of Standards

Symbolic of the westward course of scale and weights evolution is the rise of the United States National Bureau of Standards. Once merely the custodian of standard prototypes, it has

grown to become perhaps the world's largest scientific research

center and testing laboratory. Its huge complex of buildings at

Washington, D. C, houses a whole population of scientists, en-l gineers, technicians, and administrators who are living witness

to the fact that ours is an age of technology—and that technology is founded on accurate standards.

II. THE EVOLUTION OF SCALES

We return now to pick up the thread of that other great history, the evolution of the scale, or weighing machine. We shall attempt to trace here those revolutionary turning points which

have dramatized this history and brought forth an evolving series

of ingenious developments. We must distinguish between refinements and the discovery of new principles.

88
We have already pointed out that the equal-arm beam balance

continued to be the only known weighing device for at least

5,000 years—until Roman times. This does not mean, however,

that it retained its original form. Throughout these five millenia a host of refinements greatly increased the accuracy and

convenience of the beam balance.

Refinements in the Equal-Arm Beam Balance

The first balance was hand held and pivoted on a knotted

cord in a hole at the center of the beam. Or, it may have been

suspended from an upright pole. It is also probable that baskets were used to hold the loads.

These early balances could perform the two basic scale functions : (1) adjusting the unknown load to match a predetermined

weight, or (2) determining the weight of any load by adding

weights of successively smaller or larger units.

Two significant refinements increased the accuracy of the early

balance. One was the method of running the cord out of the

ends of the beam so that they always lay flat against them. The

use of the "lotus-ended beam" appeared in Egypt about 1500

B. C. A second refinement was replacing the cord pivot at the

fulcrum by a dowel through the center of the beam, and at

Egyptian Beam Balance.

C C. 5000 B.CO

Figure 3. 89
right angles to its plane of rotation, preventing wandering. In some cases, the dowel became a rod supported by two upright

posts to give greater stability and accommodate much heavier

loads.

The accuracy of the equal-arm balance depends upon the central pivot being exactly half-way between the beam-end suspensions, and also on there being the smallest possible area of contact

between the fulcrum and the beam in its plane of rotation. Furthermore, for a state of equilibrium, the fulcrum must be above

the center of gravity of the beam, thus ensuring maximum sensitivity.

The First Indicating Scale The next advance in scale history was the improvement of

readout by an indicator. Egyptian wall paintings and bas relief

show a small tongue hanging down from the center of the beam

and perpendicular to its longitudinal axis. A short plumb line

and plumb shows that the scale is in exact balance when the

indicator tongue is coincident with the plumbline. Another device was a plumb suspended by three cords. When the beam

was balanced, all three cords were taut; when it was out of

balance, either of the outer cords would become slack.

The Coming of the Unequal-Arm Beam Balance

For thousands of years the equal-arm balance was the only

scale in use throughout the world. The increased use of metal

provided sturdier and more accurate beams, but the principle

remained the same. Sometime around the birthyear of Christ, there appeared the

first new scale principle: the steelyard. The steelyard has its equivalent in the ancient Danish bismar, and there are no rec- ords to show which came first, or indeed whether the Greeks or Romans invented the steelyard.

The steelyard is based on the principle of equal moments. A

scale beam is, after all, a lever, and the principle of the lever is that of a force acting through a distance. This product of force

times distance is called a "moment," and if the sum of two

moments is equal, the system is in equilibrium. For example,

a two-pound weight five feet from the fulcrum will exactly bal- ance a ten-pound weight one foot from the fulcrum (2x5 =

1 x 10).

The steelyard also used for the first time the principle of the

sliding counterpoise. This eliminated the need for pans.

The great advantage of the steelyard was its ability to weigh

very heavy loads by much smaller weights. The beam of the

equal-arm balance is a simple lever, with a ratio of 1:1. The

steelyard beam, however, is a multiplying lever and, in the case given above, the ratio is 5:1.

The Danish bismar uses the basic steelyard principle except

that here the weight, or load sensor, is fixed while the fulcrum

is moved until the beam is balanced.

The Danish skale, which came into use somewhat later, is a

type of steelyard in which the beam was notched on its underside

and could be moved into different positions over a knife-edged

pivot, thus changing the ratio, or multiplication factor.

90
The steelyard marks another significant advance towards more

accurate readout. It became customary to cut notches along the

top of the weight side of the beam to set the weights for predetermining the required load. This was the first calibrated

readout even though it was probably not originally marked with

numbers.

The Great Revolution: Self-Balancing and Self -Indicating Scales The evolution of scales throughout history parallels those great

advances in technology and the expansion of commerce. The

first refinements of the equal-arm balance were made by the

Egyptians at a time when they were rapidly growing to become

the first great world empire and their commerce had spread over

the whole of the Near East and as far as Crete in the Mediterranean.

Similarly, the steelyard appeared at a time when the GraecoRoman civilization was rising to dominate the whole of the

known world, and Greek and Roman commerce had expanded

to include a great part of Europe as well as the Mediterranean

and the Near East.

The Danish bismar was in use at a time when Denmark was

a dominant force in the north, and had conquered Ireland and

ruled a large part of England for two hundred years in the 9th

and 10th centuries.

And now again a great new principle of the scale was discovered, and by an Italian at a time when Italian commerce

dominated all European markets and the Renaissance was in full flower. It was perhaps about 1490 that Leonardo da Vinci, probably the most universal talent in the whole of history, designed

the self-balancing, self-indicating scale. In the self-balancing scale, the load sensor automatically bal- ances the load without the necessity of moving or adding weights

by hand. Leonardo's scale took two forms, but both operating

on the same principle. In one, a semicircular disk was sus- pended from an upright post by means of a pivot at the center

of its diameter. A weight suspended from one corner of the

disk causes it to rotate, thus gradually increasing the mass opposing the load. Rotation stops when both masses are balanced.

Another design uses a triangle suspended from its apex, and

the load suspended from one corner of the triangle base. In

this case the load causes the triangle to rotate about the pivot

in the same manner as the semicircular disk.

Leonardo had here discovered the principle of the pendulumresistant scale which was to become so widely used in the centuries to come. For both the semicircular disk and the triangle

behaved as pendulums.

Just as significant as the self-balancing principle was its corollary, the self-indicating readout. Leonardo marked the arc of

the disk and the base of the triangle with a calibrated scale to show the amount of rotation caused by the load and give an

immediate indication of its weight.

Leonardo's great contribution to the science of weighing was

not put to practical use for nearly 400 years, and he never built a model of it. It was just another sketch among hundreds in

91
his famous Notebooks. Quite recently working models were made

from the sketches, and they operated perfectly. And so this

revolution in the art of the scale was just a paper revolution.

But the self-indicating scale is today probably the most widelyused of all scale types—with the possible exception of the equalarm balance found in laboratories.

The Knife Edge—Key to Accurate Balance

The next significant advance in weighing devices probably

occurred near the time of Leonardo's invention. This was the use of the knife edge in both the central pivot and the beam

ends of the equal-arm balance. The wooden wedge supporting

the beam of the ancient Danish skale was an early use of the

knife-edge principle. But a steel balance employing knife edges

is first seen in a painting by Hans Holbein in his portrait of

George Gisze, a Hanseatic merchant. Holbein's painting was

so detailed and accurate that a working model was constructed

from it and is now in the famous Avery Museum in London.

The metal equal-arm balance with knife-edge pivots is still the

most accurate of all weighing devices. It is limited primarily

by the exactness of the readout (which can be resolved by optical or electronic instrumentation) and the fact that so much time is required for the beam to come into balance after its oscillations.

The Next Step: Roberval's Mechanical Linkage

Five thousand years elapsed between the first known equalarm balance and the appearance of the steelyard. And another

1,500 years passed before the invention of the self-indicating

scale. But the time between new inventions was becoming

shorter, and 200 years after Leonardo's invention, the Frenchman, Gilles de Roberval brought forth another new scale principle: a mechanical linkage equal-arm balance, known in his time

as the "static enigma." Here two parallel equal arms, each pivoted at their centers to an upright post, are joined at their beam

ends by vertical rods to form a parallelogram. Fixed to each

vertical rod is a horizontal bar, one of which carries the load

and the other the weight. This development had two great advantages : 1. the load and the weight could be suspended at any

point along the rigid horizontal bars without changing the equilibrium of the scale, and 2. the load and weight bars always

remained in a horizontal position, no matter how far they were

raised or lowered.

Roberval's balance immediately opened the way for the familiar

counter scale in which the pans are above the fulcrum, eliminating

the need for chains and swinging pans.

Roberval's ingenious invention suffered the same fate as Leonardo's self-indicating scale, for it was not put to practical use

for more than 150 years. After the beginning of the 19th century, however, it was adopted as the basis for all counter scales. In the middle of the 19th century, a French scalemaker, Joseph

Beranger, devised a scale consisting of a complex system of levers

which provided each pan with four points of support, increasing

the stability and accuracy of the system.

92
The Spring Balance

About 100 years after Roberval invented the mechanical linkage there appeared one of the simplest of all self-indicating

scales: the spring-scale. Just as the pendulum offers increased

resistance against the load as it is displaced, so the spring in- creasingly opposes the load until both come into balance. When

the spring is extended, a pointer fastened to the load end automatically indicates the weight on calibrations on the chart.

There are many varieties of the spring scales besides the one

developed by Salter in 1770 : Sector, Mancur, Siebe, elliptical,

and a spring scale with a circular readout. The circular reading

face permits several sets of weight calibrations to be arranged

in a concentric fashion so that as the spring is extended the dial

pointer makes one revolution for lighter loads and more revolutions for heavier loads. The spring is also widely used in con- junction with lever systems-—an example being certain types of

personal-weighing scales.

Revolution in the Heavy Load Receiver

Almost the whole of our outline of the long history of scales

and weights has been concerned with two of the basic scale ele- ments, sensors and readout. But the increasing need for accurately weighing heavy loads as well as light ones required a new

principle.

Up until recent times, and even today, huge steelyards were

used to weigh very heavy loads. However, it was time con- suming and inconvenient to unload a cartload of material onto

the load receiver and then reload the cart. It was simpler to weigh the cart empty and loaded—then calculate the difference.

Even so, this meant the tedious chore of unhitching the horses.

With the English Turnpike Act of 1741, which provided for

the collection of tolls on the basis of vehicle weight, it became

imperative to find a quick, easy method for weighing heavy

loads. The solution came with John Wyatt's invention of the

first true compound lever platform scale. This first platform

scale called a "weighbridge," was built at Birmingham, England

in the 1740's. The platform was flush with the road and the

cart was simply halted on it and weighed immediately.

The weighbridge consisted of a large load-receiving platform

and two large V-shaped levers which were pinioned through their

apexes to one end of a third lever. The opposite end of this

lever held a small circular table upon which were placed the

various weights. Each V-shaped lever was supported with its ends resting on pivots. The platform supports rested on the

V-shaped levers some distance from the ends. The principle of

the platform weighbridge is that a load at any point on the platform is transmitted equally to the load end of the third lever

and can be balanced by the weights at the opposite end. The

V-shaped beams are levers of the second class in which the load

is applied between the fulcrum and the power point. The power

point of this system then becomes the load point of the lever of

the first class, since the fulcrum here is between the load point

and the power point.

93
Wyatt's compound-lever platform scale principle is used in

most modern vehicle weighing machines, for it has the advantage

both of equal transmission of the load at any point on the platform, and of the fact that the platform is always in a horizontal

position.

The Ratio Beam Scale In the 1820's, the American, Thaddeus Fairbanks, made the

next important advance in scale history by combining the compound-lever platform with the steelyard to produce the ratiobeam scale for convenient weighing of heavy loads.

Fairbank's method of using fixed and sliding counterpoises

replaced Wyatt's circular table with its loose weights. Soon the

weight end of the steelyard beam was formed into two parallel

beams so that heavy counterpoises could be positioned along the

lower beam while lighter weights were moved along the upper

beam for a fine reading.

Combination Scales No less revolutionary than the discovery of the basic weighing

principles is the combination of various principles to form families of scales for particular uses. For example, the compoundlever platform was combined with the self-indicating pendulum

and circular reading face to produce the modern scale for

weighing people.

Semi-self-indicating platform scales combine pendulum resist- ance with sliding counterpoises. Typical retail counter scales

may use two pendulums rotated by a rack and pinion system,

or a cam fastened to the lever system by a steel ribbon. A

pointer attached to the cam swings through an arc to give the

readout on a fan-shaped chart.

The Self-Computing Scale The purpose of most retail scales is to show price as a function

of weight. In the past it was left to the clerk to multiply the

indicated weight by the price per unit weight. Early in this

century the self-computing scale was designed to automatically

indicate price as well as weight.

Price computation is purely a matter of readout, and two new

types of readout were devised. Both consisted of a chart, or matrix, in which weight was indicated by horizontal rows and

price by vertical columns. In the fan-type readout, the total

weight of the item was shown at the top of the pointer while

the total price was read off at some point down its length. The

drum-type readout was a rotating horizontal cylinder which came

to rest when the weight balanced the load. Price and weight were indicated through a window stretching along the length of

the drum.

Both readout systems are widely used in counter scales. They

mark a significant advance in the science of readout because they

quickly show the price for any one of a wide variety of items.

The Great Turning Point in the History of Weighing

Looking back over our outline history of the significant revolutions in scale development, we can summarize these momentous

94
advances in terms of the three basic scale elements: (1) the

progress in the evolution of the load receiver from the primitive

cord-suspended basket to the delicate knife-edge suspension of

the modern pan balance; the Roberval linkage which permitted

the pans to be fastened directly to the beam ends above the ful- crum while always remaining in a horizontal position; and the

development of the compound-lever platform for the quick, con- venient weighing of heavy loads; (2) the long series of improvements in load sensing, culminating in the self-indicating scale;

and, (3) the evolution in readout systems from the arbitrary

judgment of the human eye to the self-computing scale. Two significant facts emerge from these observations. The

first is that all of these advances have been mechanical. They

depended upon the use of simple levers, compound levers, pendulums, springs, and pointers. The second is that, up to this

point, the function of the scale was simply to weigh and indicate

weight, or weight and price. The scale was a system in itself. From World War I on, and particularly during World War II and the years immediately preceding it, the science of weighing was completely revolutionized. This revolution was to affect all three scale elements : Load receivers, load sensors, and readout. And it changed the scale from a system in itself to the

scale as a component in much larger systems which carried out

many other functions besides weighing. Yet the scale would

remain as the brain and nerve center of these complex new

systems.

Printed Readout

Symbolic of the new age was the combination of the scale

with some form of typewriter to give a printed record of the

readout—an achievement of the 1930's. Today the meats and

cheeses in almost every supermarket are automatically weighed,

packaged, and marked with a printed ticket showing weight,

price per unit weight, and total price.

The Automatic Scale The automatic scale is another example of the scale as the

control component in a system. Generally called "batch weighing," the scale not only weighs material in a continuous flow,

but controls the amount of material in each batch so that it will meet a predetermined weight. Here the load sensor is also

the load controller.

While the first automatic scales were in use at the end of the

19th century, they more properly belong to the new era of mass

production and automation.

From Mechanical to Electronic Systems

The transformation of the scale from a system to a component

in a system has paralleled the transformation from mechanical

to electronic technology. Electronics has completely altered the

structure and operation of the basic scale elements. It permits

us to weigh much heavier and lighter loads accurately and

quickly. Electronic load sensors are so refined that readout is only possible through electronic instrumentation.

95
The Scale and History

Figure 4.

The Load Cell The load receiver in the past has almost always consisted of a platform or pan joined to a lever system. It transmitted energy

from one point to another. The load cell transforms energy from

one form to another. It is therefore often called a transducer.

The thermostat which controls the temperature in your home is a transducer, transforming heat energy into control energy. The

cell in your photographic light meter transforms light energy

into the electrical energy which actuates a mechanical pointer.

Modern electronic load cells usually employ a strain gage. This

sensor makes use of the principle that the resistance of an elec- trical conductor increases with tension and decreases with compression. Such a cell consists of perhaps five inches of fine wire,

one-thousandth of an inch in diameter, arranged as a grid no

larger than a postage stamp. When the grid is compressed by

the pressure of a load, the electrical resistance of the wire is decreased, and the current flows more freely. The difference in

resistance is measured in terms of the weight of the applied

load.

The strain gage load cell can be used to weigh very heavy

loads by making use of another principle. This is the fact that a

steel column is deformed in direct proportion to the amount of

stress, or pressure, applied to it. That is, the steel column can 96
be compressed like a spring, but the contraction of the column

is so slight that it can only be determined by very sensitive means. For example, a load of 50 pounds on the column may

compress it only twenty-five millionths of an inch.

A strain gage bonded to a steel column provides a compact,

fast-response system for weighing loads, such as heavy vehicles,

railroad cars, or even whole lengths of track. The strain gage

combines load receiver and load sensor into one unit. This is a

revolutionary advance.

The Differential Transformer

Another new type of load sensor makes use of the principle of

electromagnetic induction—discovered by Faraday a century and

a half ago. A bar magnet moved through a coil of wire sets up

an electric current in the wire. The differential transformer

consists of a tiny iron bar fastened to the load receiver. The

load moves the bar through a coil of wire, changing the inductive

coupling between the primary and secondary windings of the

coil. The change in electric signal, both in amplitude and phase,

is proportional to the distance the bar is moved by the load, and

can be read out on a meter.

From the Past to the Present Having come in our historical journey from those prehistoric

mists of the past, through those scattered records of thousands

of years ago and the confusing abundance of information on the

recent past, we stand now at the doorway to the present.

Our feeling must be one of wonder at man's ingenuity and

perseverance as he has transformed the Egyptian balance into our modern systems of incredible complexity, accuracy, and flexibility. Yet we can also observe that each new device did not

supersede the others, for the equal-arm beam balance is with us today as it was thousands of years ago. And throughout the

world many a market woman weighs fish on a steelyard almost

identical to that used in ancient Rome. The simplest types of

Roberval and Beranger scales are still found on retail counters

everywhere. So we may say of scales, as we cannot say of

humans, that most of the past generations are still with us in the

present.

Throughout our story we have shown time and again that the

greatest developments in weighing machines occurred in those

nations which were rising to a dominant position in commerce

and technology. Thus it is no chance coincidence that the great

revolution in scale elements and automated systems is taking

place chiefly in the United States. For this revolution was born

of the invention of interchangeable parts by Eli Whitney, of the

production line by Henry Ford, and of the electronic computer

by the scientists of IBM and Harvard.

Ours is not only the history of the science of weighing—it is also the history of the increasing importance of that science.

For the need and the desire to weigh almost everything has be- come so much a part of our civilization that we are scarcely aware of it. Yet if we begin with our own persons and extend

our thinking to our environment, we find that everything we eat,

everything we wear, every material in our houses, in the cars we

97
drive, and the roads they travel, has been weighed at some point

in its processing. More than this, our whole society, with its systems of government, codes of law, its huge cities, and its astonishing technology which is now reaching through space

towards other planets than ours—all of these are unthinkable

and impossible without an accurate standard of weights.

Nothing, perhaps, is more symbolic of the meaning of weights

to civilization than the age-old figure of Justice holding in her

hand an equal-arm pan balance, with her eyes blindfolded so that she will not let her emotional judgment interfere with the

impartial verdict of the scales. The Bible makes it clear that a solemn and heavy responsibility has been placed on those of us in the scale profession. But

it implies that, if we live up to this responsibility, we will also

live longer than others. For it says, "But thou shalt have a

perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou

have; that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the

Lord thy God giveth thee."

THE SCIENCE OF WEIGHING—TODAY

by C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager,

Hobart Manufacturing Company

Modern-day weighing has departed from

the old concept of adapting an existing

piece of equipment to do any job required.

True, over the years various types of weighing equipment were developed to handle particular classes of weighing. The portable

scale, the dormant or built-in scale, the hopper scale, the motor-truck scale, and the rail- way track scale are illustrations of this kind

of development. In the past, when a particular weighing job was required, one of these

classes of scales was used even though it did

not particularly fit the job to which it was

applied. Weighing today has progressed to the point where,

when necessary, the final instrument is a marriage of a wide

variety of load receivers, sensors, and readouts, assembled to properly perform a function that satisfies a particular job.

While a scale no longer need be a packaged unit, but frequently

is an assembly of various components, this does not mean there are no uses for standard scales. Many applications can still be

handled best by an "off the shelf" unit.

The Scale To better understand the application and use of scales today,

let us examine the main component parts which make up all weighing instruments and see how these are used in various

combinations to meet a variety of jobs. As we look to the history of weighing, we see that scales are made up of three main

components : Load receivers, load sensors, and readouts. Each

of these components can be of various construction, some better

98
fitted for one application than another. To obtain the picture

of scales as used today, we will discuss designs generally known

and used, including a few designs that are strictly experimental.

Load Receivers

The first component to consider is the load receiver, of which

there are two kinds—levers and load cells. Levers.—The designs available in levers, ignoring materials,

utilize the commonly known laws of statics. To provide the

necessary fulcrum, load, and power points that a lever requires,

knife edges, flexures, or ball bearings are most generally employed.

Knife Edges.—As a purely mechanical bearing, the hardened

knife edge supported by a hardened flat steel bearing probably

provides the most frictionless bearing obtainable. Knife edges

range in design from a 90-degree angle to as low as a 15-degree

angle edge. The actual finishing of the edge varies from a

straight side to a hollow-ground edge. Occasionally, a definite

radius in place of a sharp knife edge is used on very heavycapacity load receivers. For very sensitive scales, very sharp, even hollow-ground, pivots are employed to obtain great sensitivity. The degrees of angular movement through which the

pivot must move frequently dictates the type of edge employed.

The greater the angle of the knife edge, the smaller the angle

between the side of the knife edge and the supporting bearing.

Pivots are made of materials to meet the conditions under

which they must operate. A very high-carbon tool steel is usually

employed where conditions are dry or the pivots can easily be

protected from moisture, corroding fumes, etc. Where there is a

great deal of moisture, or where corrosive or erosive agents come

in contact with the knife edges, stainless steel is generally employed.

A very hard knife edge on the pivot to prevent rapid wear is desirable. High-carbon tool steel will produce an edge in excess

of 60 Brinell hardness, while certain types of stainless steel can

be utilized to produce a hardness of between 55-59 Brinell.

The pivots in modern scales are machined to definite size and

are held in their levers by machined ways of various types.

The opposing bearings to the pivots are generally made of the same material as the pivot, but in some instances, where shock

loading is not a factor, hard smoothly finished agate is used.

Like pivots, steel bearings are made of various types of metal

with a hardness equal to the pivot. Also like the pivot, the

back of the bearing usually is soft metal, while the bearing

surface itself is hardened. This prevents cracking under shock

load. Flexures.—In some scales, in place of a knife edge with its opposing bearing, machined plates, fastened rigidly to the lever

and the fulcrum stand, load point, and power point, are used.

These plates work best when the scale operates on a null balance

principle. As a lever is displaced due to the load being applied

or removed, it tends to rotate and causes a flexing of the plates.

The load and power plates are usually restrained so they maintain a vertical force on the lever. Steel used in flexures varies,

but it must have the characteristic to withstand this flexing.

99
As a plate flexes, it sets up a resistance. When the lever is re- turned to its null or horizontal position, this resistance disappears, so there is no effect on the weight transmission from the

resistance caused by bending of the plates. This does not mean

a lever fitted with flexures cannot be used to weigh with the lever

displaced from its normal horizontal position. In utilizing the

lever in this manner, the resistance of the plates must be taken

into consideration. This resistance in properly manufactured

flexures is linear and can be included in the sealing of the lever. As the plates are rigidly fastened between the lever and its fulcrum or between the lever and the load or the lever and the

power, precautions must be taken to prevent horizontal displacement of the lever, load or power. This normally is accomplished

by having rigid checks on all elements, which hold them in their

place. Any serious displacement in a horizontal line can result in

cracked plates, which, of course, destroys the plate as far as

flexing is concerned. Flexures are not subject to the usual wear

found in other types of mechanical bearings, and, when properly

protected from corrosive and erosive elements, will maintain the same sensitivity throughout the life of the flexures.

Another type of flexure commonly used in even-balance type

load receivers is the torsion tape. In this construction, a relatively thin steel flexure is fastened horizontally in tension between two stands. The lever is supported by this steel flexure

and fastened to it. As a load is placed on one side, the flexure

is twisted, and when the load is counterbalanced the flexure re- sumes its normal position. This results in a highly sensitive

unit.

Ball Bearings.—There are times when ball bearings are used

to provide fulcrum to levers. Frequently, when a ball bearing is used to support a lever and provide a fulcrum, the load and

power are applied to knife edges, but there are also times when

both a load and power are applied through ball bearings. The

use of ball bearings as fulcrums generally is the result of a

high thrust on the lever. Often, such as in certain types of

levers where a heavy weight is attached to the side of the

lever, the moment arm of the weight is such that the lever

would be unstable with a knife-edge fulcrum. In such cases a

ball bearing provides a means of holding the lever in place. At

other times, horizontal forces that might be applied to the lever

which could displace it are overcome by the use of ball bearings.

The ball-bearing fulcrum has a higher degree of friction than

either the knife edge or the flexure plate.

Load Cells The next type of load receiver commonly used is the load cell. Load cells offer certain advantages over levers. They are compact and consequently require considerably less space, especially

in the very heavy capacities where exceedingly heavy levers are required to sustain the load. They are easily portable, whereas the lever scale is rather cumbersome. They provide an entirely different type of result than the levers. Whereas levers

give a reduction of actual load, the load cell transmits the pull of

gravity into a pressure or electrical signal.

100
There are three basic types of load cells employed in weighing

today. These are electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic. Each one

has its own characteristics.

Electric Cells.—The electric load cell in general use consists

of a metal base that will flex under load. This metal base may

be one or more steel columns, a proving ring, or of a cantilever

construction.

Column.—The principle behind the steel-column cell is the

change in the length of column when it is placed in compression

or under tension. Actually, a column acts as a spring and is subject to hysteresis, zero drift, temperature and humidity

changes, the same as any spring. To measure this change of

length, thin-wire resistance strain gages are bonded to the sides

of the column. These strain gages are insulated from the column

itself, but elongate or compress in direct proportion to the col- umn. A low-voltage electric current is passed through the strain

gage. As the strain gage is compressed or elongated, it changes

diameter and offers less or more resistance to the flow of the

current. The change in resistance in the strain gage is proportional to the change in the diameter, which, in turn, is proportional to the amount of compression or tension that is placed on the cell. This, then, is the basic signal that is transferred

into a weight unit. Depending on the amount of current passed

through the strain gage, the change in resistance varies from

approximately 6 millivolts to 24 millivolts from zero to full capacity.

Proving Ring.—On some capacities, the column actually is of

the proving-ring design rather than being a solid rectangular

column. Strain gages bonded to the proving ring change their

diameter as the ring is compressed or elongated, and the results are the same as with a column.

Cantilever.—In using a cantilever-type construction, which

normally is a steel bar bent into the shape of a C, with the top

and bottom flat, the bottom arm of the C becomes the base, and

weight placed along the top arm causes the steel cantilever to

flex. This movement is quite great in comparison to the amount

of elongation or compression of a straight steel column. The

greater movement makes it possible to utilize a linear differential

transformer at the open end of the C. As the slug of a differential transformer moves up or down in the coil, a varying

signal is produced. This varying signal is then transmitted and

converted into a weight indication proportionate to the amount

of deflection caused in the cantilever arm.

In both the strain-gage and the linear-differential-transformer load cell, the signal is relatively small; and in order to

utilize it and break it down to the minimum divisions required

for the capacity of the scale, the change in current output is amplified to usable magnitudes.

Electric load cells are normally enclosed in a sealed case to prevent the entrance of moisture, which might cause errors in

conductivity in the electric elements.

Hydraulic Cells.—Hydraulic load cells consist primarily of a standard hydraulic cylinder. As a load is applied to the hydraulic cell, a corresponding pressure is exerted by the fluid

101
through lines leading to a load sensor. The manufacture of these

cells for weighing requires great precision and excellent sealing

to eliminate outside friction and to insure against loss of fluid

and make certain the transmission of full pressure applied by

the load placed on the cell. In practically all instances, these are compression units.

Pneumatic Cells.—Pneumatic load cells are utilized in numerous instances as load receivers and operate similar to hydraulic

cells, with the exception that they use air or gas in place of fluid. Both hydraulic and pneumatic load cells are capable of withstanding great overloads without injury.

Load Sensors The signals from the load receivers must be received, transmitted, and processed into a usable output that can be interpreted by a readout. Various load sensors are available to handle the different types of output produced by load receivers.

These load sensors can be broken down into three main categories, which are manual, semiautomatic, and automatic. Let us

consider each one in turn. Manual—Weighbeam.—The most commonly used manual sen- sor is the hand-operated weighbeam. A weighbeam is a lever

equipped with a movable weight which is used to apply power

to the lever along the power arm, thereby providing an adjustable power point. Attached to the lever is a bar graduated

in weight increments. As the weight, called a poise, is moved

along the power arm of the lever, it will, when it brings the

lever to a null-balance point, indicate the value of the weight on the load receiver. This whole assembly is known as a weighbeam.

Weighbeams come in various types of construction utilizing one or more graduated bars attached to the weigh lever. In

order to get a minimum graduation small enough to accom- modate light loads, yet provide a sufficient amount of capacity

to weigh larger loads, and at the same time restrict the length

of the weighbeam to practical limits, weigh levers are at times

equipped with an additional stationary power point. This sta- tionary power point is normally located beyond the travel of

the poise. It is known as a counterpoise and is designed so that

known weights, with the value of the load they will offset marked

on them, can be placed at this point to compensate for most of

the load placed on the load receiver. The value of the weight in

between the increments established by these counterpoise weights

is then determined with the sliding poise.

Other weighbeams are so designed that the full capacity of

the load receiver is graduated on the weighbeam itself, and there

is no need for counterpoise weights.

The hand-operated weighbeams generally are designated as

single where there is one graduated bar and counterpoise weights

are used, and double where two graduated bars are furnished

and counterpoise weights are used. On the double beam, the one bar is normally used to offset the weight of a container or load

carrier which may be on the load receiver, so the net weight of

the load can be obtained by the use of the second bar and

counterpoise weights. A full-capacity weighbeam is one which

102
uses no counterpoise weights and can be equipped with one, two,

or more graduated beams. When equipped with more than one graduated beam, one beam is used for net weighing, while the

balance of the beams are used for tare purposes. A multiple

beam is used when it is desired to weigh more than one weight,

applied successively to the load receiver without removal of previous loads. With the multiple beam, the weight of the first load can be balanced and the value obtained on one beam.

When the second load is put on the receiver, this can be balanced

with the second beam and the load noted.

Electric.—Another type of manual load sensor is the handoperated electrical balance. In this type of sensor, a signal is received from an electric load cell or other electrical transducer.

The hand-operated electrical balance provides a null-balance sys- tem in which the signal received from the transducer must be

offset by an equal signal being manually introduced into the

system. This is normally accomplished by the operator operating

a graduated knob attached to a potentiometer. As the potentiometer is adjusted to provide an equal opposing current to that

being received from the transducer, the operator reads the

figures graduated on the adjusting knob to obtain the weight.

Semiautomatic—Manual Ranges.—The next type of load sensor to consider is the semiautomatic. The semiautomatic load sensor is usually a combination of fully automatic and manual

units. A good example is an automatic sensor of relatively low

capacity that utilizes manually applied ranges, drop-weights, or counterpoise weights to expand the capacity of the system. As

we will see in readouts, this will encompass certain dials and

fan-type units.

Automatic.—The automatic load sensors cover a wide variety

of units, among which are mechanical, mechanical-electrical,

electrical, hydraulic, hydraulic-electrical, pneumatic, and pneumatic-electrical. Considering these in turn, let us take a brief

look at the most popular automatic mechanical sensors. Mechanical.—Practically all mechanical sensors are of the

null-balance type. The signal from the load receiver is offset by

an equivalent signal produced by the automatic indicator. The

most commonly used sensors to produce this signal mechanically

are pendulums and springs. A pendulum mechanism is basically an automatic weighbeam. Pendulum units utilize weights to provide power. These weights are automatically positioned to offset the load received by the pendulum mechanism. Either one or two pendulums can be used for this purpose.

The spring is a force transducer based on Hook's Law and,

through elongation, provides the necessary power to offset the

load being transmitted to it. The amount of elongation is in

direct proportion to the applied load. It can be a single- or

multiple-spring sensor, depending on the capacity, travel desired,

etc. Both the pendulum and the spring are highly sensitive,

accurate load sensors. Units using these principles range from

the common bathroom scale to complicated center-of-gravity

units.

Mechanical-Electrical.—Frequently, to utilize the information

obtained from the load receiver to the best advantage, an automatic mechanical-electrical sensor is employed. Mostly, these use 103
one of the two automatic mechanical load sensors as the mechanical part. In addition, however, one other type of mechanical

equipment, the weighbeam, may be utilized.

On the pendulum and spring units, as a load is applied and the

pendulum or spring offsets the signal obtained from the load

receiver, transducers or other controls are actuated. On the

weighbeam the poise is motor-driven, and, as the load receiver

sends its signal to the weighbeam, the weighbeam goes off bal- ance. The electrical equipment immediately senses this out-ofbalance position of the weighbeam and actuates a motor which

drives the poise, usually by means of a finely threaded screw. When the poise is driven to the point where the beam will

balance, the electrical connection is broken and the movement of

the poise is stopped.

A scanner system is employed at times. As an automatic

mechanical sensor reaches a balance point, it exposes a number of

lines representing the percentage of capacity of the sensor offset

by the load on the load receiver. These lines are then scanned

and counted electrically to produce a signal which can be con- verted to a weight. Sometimes when, due to outside forces such

as vibration, the sensor cannot reach a stable balance, the varying number of lines uncovered are scanned repeatedly and fed

to an averaging computer to arrive at a weight, even though the sensor never can come to a complete null-balance.

Recently, a continuous instantaneous weight sensor has been

introduced. It employs a microscopic binary code, representing

weight, photographed on a glass disc which is rotated by an

automatic balancing system. The code is projected on a glass screen behind which is located a series of photo cells. These

cells, in various combinations set up by the projected code,

instantly transmit the weight signal to a readout.

Transducers are attached to the pendulum and spring mechanism, as well as to the driven screws on the electrically operated

weighbeam. These transducers, consisting of potentiometers,

servo-systems, linear differential transformers, and scanners, then convert the load-sensing signal into signals that can be

used for other means. Electrical contacts can be used to automatically add or deduct automatically applied ranges or drop-weights.

Electrical.—A fully electrical automatic system frequently

employs a null-balance principle. In this system, an electrical

signal is received from the load receiver and amplified. The cur- rent is then directed to a small servo-system which positions the

potentiometer. The potentiometer provides a null-balancing

signal to offset that which is received from the load receiver. As

soon as the signal produced by the potentiometer equals that

obtained from the load receiver, the system ceases to operate.

Other automatic electrical systems are in use to a limited exj tent today. These consist of magnetic units in which the current

produced operates a precision magnet to offset a load. Still others

utilize the signal generated by crystals to produce a readable elec- trical output which can be converted into weight. These latter are very much in the minority at present and are not generally

part of today's weighing.

! 104
Hydraulic-Pneumatic.—The hydraulic load sensor is an automatic unit utilizing a pressure cylinder to convert the signal

received from the load receiver to an output that can be converted to a readout. The automatic pneumatic load sensor

operates on the same principle as the hydraulic load sensor in

that it, too, is a pressure cylinder which converts the signal re- ceived from the load receiver to one utilized for readout. The

fundamental design of both of these sensors is the same as the

cylinder used with a pressure gage. Of course, great refinements

are employed in manufacture of these units to produce the

accuracies required for today's weighing.

Hydraulic-Electric—Pneumatic-Electric.—The hydraulic-electric and pneumatic-electric automatic load sensors use pressure

cylinders, and the output of the pressure cylinder is utilized to operate certain electrical equipment. One of the most popular is the utilization of the output of these cylinders with Bourdon

tubes which accept the signal and, in turn, operate linear differential transformers. These transformers, of course, then produce an electrical signal which is converted to a usable output

for operating certain readouts.

Readouts

Load sensors, of course, feed into the readouts. There are many different types of readouts, but in today's weighing the

two principal types are those that are on the site as an integral

part of the weighing system itself and those that are remote.

On-the-site readouts include beam faces on hand and automatically operated weighbeams, sensor-operated dial charts

(such as those utilized with pendulum and spring scales), sensor- operated charts themselves (such as the strip-chart recorders

and circular-type recorders), sensor-operated digital readouts

(which are essentially similar to a Veeder-Root counter or the

odometer as used on an automobile), and scoreboard-type and

sensor-operated projections (which can be practically any type

of mechanical sensor that operates a projection system, pro-

! jecting the converted values which are now weight increments

i onto screens of various types). In addition, digital printed

weights, either with or without charts or projections, are used

extensively. These employ the step-cam system or a binary

' coded disc.

1 Remote sensor-operated readouts and printouts normally are

electrically actuated. Even though they are located right at the

: scale, they are considered remote because it is as easy to utilize

; those away from the scale as it is at the scale. These electrical

3 remote readouts usually operate dials, charts, projections, digital

t indicators, typewriters, light banks, adding machines, tape punch

machines, computers, etc. To fit the problems of today's weighing, the utilization of the

t various load receivers in combination with various types of load

s sensors and readouts provides a very pliable system that can do

the job required in the best manner,

r The utilization of the various types of scales plus added equipjr ment has truly made the scale a factor so vital in today's

economy that, without these, this economy could falter. 105
Today's advances in knowledge, techniques, and modern technology make weighing equipment absolutely indispensable. Life

itself depends on weighing today. Agriculture depends on it, industry depends on it, trade and commerce depend on it, your

government depends on it, and, without it, our advances in

science would be impossible.

The Scale Today

We mentioned that life itself depends on the scale. One of

the first things that happens to a child after it is born is the

determination of its weight. Frequently nature produces a child

that is not yet ready for life. The struggle to maintain life in

many instances is completely guided by weight. A constant

check on the weight of the child denotes, in these instances, the

progress the child is making in its fight for life. If the scales

reveal the desired result is not being obtained, new formulations

and new attacks on the problem are the result. Many adults today owe their lives to the fact that scales re- vealed what had to be done in order to save them. In the operating room, one of the most important things is the measure- ment of the loss of fluids. A patient's life depends on this

knowledge. Doctors are constantly checking weight ; and to give

them this knowledge, some special scales have been designed.

New drugs on the market are so powerful that the amount given

to each patient is critical. This amount is determined by weight.

Frequently physical problems require a close control on the

intake of certain foods. Such diets are based upon weight.

The use of the laboratory balance, both mechanical and elec- tronic, the use of the dietary scale, the use of the person-weigher,

all play very important roles in the maintenance of life itself. Even in death, weight again plays a part. Frequently, the

amount of embalming fluid injected into the body is determined

in proportion to the weight of the body. Autopsy scales provide

medicine with information which helps extend our life span.

Agriculture could not succeed without weighing. Today, to grow the amount of food required on the available land, we are producing seed to give us greater yield. In the production of I these seeds, both weight and count are important. Small laboratory scales and counting scales are used for this purpose. The

amount of seed to plant per acre in order to obtain the best results is determined by weight. The amount of fertilizer to be

used per acre in order to properly nourish the crops to produce

the greatest amount of food is determined by weight. Even the

feeding of stock is by weight, because it is necessary for the

farmer to keep a record to determine whether weight is gained

at the speed required. Those that do not gain must be eliminated. Those that do gain do so on a weighed amount of feed

given to them daily. The mixture of the feed to produce the

most rapid gain in the cattle is also formulated by weight. For

this, the motor-truck scale, the stationary and portable stock

scale, the hopper scale, and the truck-mounted scale are all utilized.

The wholesale and retail distribution of food is controlled by

weight. The farmer, delivering his crops to the grain elevator,!

weighs them on motor-truck scales. His cattle, when sold, arej

106
weighed on cattle scales. As the animals are killed and processed through the packing plants, they are weighed frequently

to determine yield, grade, the amount of loss, and shipping

weight. Produce is purchased by weight by the processor and

wholesaler and is resold to the retailer by weight. The retailer,

in turn, sells it to the consumer by weight. Truly, without scales

agriculture would come to a standstill.

One of the most prolific users of weighing equipment is industry. Consider everything around you that is not in its natural state. (Probably the only thing you will see that is in its natural state is wood; and even this, in many cases, has been

processed.) The paint on the wall, the glass in the window, the

tile on the floor, the metal in the chairs, the nylon in your suits

and dresses, the paper in your hand, the plastic in your glasses

frame, the synthetic covering on your chair, the rubber on the

heel of your shoe, the money in your pocket, the rouge and fingernail polish on the ladies, the aftershave lotion on the men, the

lead in your pencil, the toothpaste you used this morning—all are products of formulation. None of these items is found in its natural state. They are manufactured, and they are proportioned. Every single one of these items has been made by

weight. Not only once have they been weighed, but many times.

Let us consider briefly how these are formulated. In today's

economy, with the high production required to satisfy the needs

of our people plus the necessity for keeping costs down, these

products are formulated automatically by scales. Not only are

they formulated by scales, but scales probably have controlled

all or a great part of the manufacturing.

Examining a few batching or formulating systems, one can see

that a lot more than a scale is involved. One or more of the load

receivers, one or more of the load sensors, and one or more of the

readouts are utilized in these systems. In addition to this, many

outside controls also are employed. As an example, let us consider the problems facing the producer in a concrete batch plant.

Not all concrete delivered to a job is of the same formulation.

The engineer today demands a formula which is the best for his

project. How does he specify? He specifies each ingredient used

in the formula by weight.

To automate the concrete batch plant, a punch-card or formula-capsule system, which contains the various formulas,

frequently is used. Different aggregates and different cements

are used. Sand is a very important part of the final product.

The amount of water used in the mix controls the time required

for the concrete to set up and attain its required strength.

Formulas differ not only in the products used, but in the total

amount of concrete desired. Sand absorbs moisture, and this

moisture will go into the final product and must be taken into

consideration.

Today the formulation and the amount of each ingredient is put on a punch card or formula capsule. These are then inserted

into readers, which immediately sense how much weight of each

ingredient is to be used in the final product. The system automatically starts up and the scale tells the system when the proper

amount of each ingredient has been delivered. The scale also

controls the conveyors and other material-handling equipment

107
that delivers the various materials to the multiple weigh-hoppers.

The system automatically determines how much moisture is in

the sand and allows for that moisture, so that, when water is added to the mix, only that amount is added which will bring

the final total of water to exactly what is required by the formula. When the final ingredients are in the batch, the scale

tells the system to dump this into the mixer. When the proper

mixing time has elapsed, the completed batch is delivered to the

carrier, which, in turn, delivers it to the job. The heart of this

whole system is the scale. The scale determines when things

happen, determines how much of each ingredient goes into the

formula, and delivers the final product as it is specified.

The same general procedure holds true for the glass, rubber,

plastic, steel, chemical, bakery, paint, and other plants.

Power plants located near mines receive fuel, weighed over conveyor scales, direct from the mine.

Practically everything you receive today is packaged. These

packages must be filled. Almost all packaged goods are sold by

weight, so the proper amount must be delivered to the package.

Consider packages of flour. Each of these has been filled by

weight. As an illustration, the automatic bagging scale takes

the ingredient, weighs it, and then delivers it to the bag. All

of this is done automatically. The scale controls the flow from

the supply hopper, the scale trims the load to the proper amount,

and the scale delivers the load to the package. In addition to

this, interlocking controls prevent the scale from delivering when

the package just filled has not yet progressed far enough to allow

the system to accept another package. The scale shuts down

the whole system when an insufficient amount of material is available for a continuing process. The scale again is the heart

of the whole system, and the scale delivers at a high speed and

low cost the packages which make it possible for the manufacturer to provide the consumer with a product that is within the

reach of that consumer's purchasing power.

Not all packages are weighed as they are filled. Volumetric

filling is frequently employed. These machines are designed so they can be adjusted to deliver more or less material. To check

the amount of material placed in the container, special checkweighing scales have been developed. Since these scales need to indicate or read out only a small amount of weight on either side

of a target quantity, they usually are of the restricted-movement

type, in which there is no scale response unless the commodity

is within a small range, plus or minus, of the predetermined

setting.

As production-line speeds of food products, chemicals, automotive parts, and the like, increase, checkweighing scales are required to perform weighings in ever shorter time intervals.

Speeds on the order of 100 to 400 per minute are quite common,

with some production lines running even faster.

The importance of proper weights at such speeds can be readily

realized if one considers the cost to the producers of even small

amounts of overfill. For example, a food product worth 50 cents per pound on a relatively slow 100-per-minute line is worth $50

for each minute of production. Even a small overfill of 1 percent, or approximately %6 ounce, can cost that producer $30 an

108
hour, or $240 in an 8-hour shift. Such a loss projected over a 300-working-day year, on one shift only, amounts to $72,000.

There are, of course, many other important considerations such

as guarding against short weight for the consumer.

Faster weighing operations required many significant changes

in scale design. The older principles of weighing with systems

that involved large masses in motion and lever-restoring force

from pendulums are no longer adequate. Inertia in the lever

systems was reduced, and the movement of the mechanisms per

unit of weight applied was greatly restricted. Restoring forces

usually are produced by springs in one form or another. Even

on systems which are essentially even balance, where an unknown

weight is compared with a known counterweight, the small range

of variation indicated on predetermined-weight and checkweigh

scales is usually controlled by a spring-restoring force.

A scale can be likened to any tuned oscillatory mechanism

involving mass and restoring force. It can be seen that virtually

any such mechanism can be made faster by increasing the re- storing force, even after the mass in motion has been reduced

to the minimum practical. Obviously, if that device is a scale,

the motion, or mechanical sensitivity, per unit of weight applied

will decrease as restoring forces and speed are increased.

The need for lower mechanical sensitivity with increased speed

of response led to the development of electrical and electronic

indication, readout, and control systems. With modern checkweighing machines, weigh cycle time intervals are in the order

of 0.1 to 0.5 second, and mechanical movements in the load

receiver are sensed electrically to 0.0001 inch with great reliability.

Another development in connection with fast checkweighing of

commodities in motion is the refinement of transfer systems

which move the commodities on and off the scale. It is necessary

to allow only forces related to weight to register on the scale. Impacts, the sloshing of liquids in containers, the rocking of a

tall box, or even the aerodynamics of the package can introduce

errors if they translate to vertical forces on the scale. Many

and varied conveying and transfer means are employed to eliminate these factors.

Vibration in supporting framework or in floors can be detrimental to the fast-response, restricted-motion scale mechanism.

More or less elaborate means are employed in the mechanical

dynamics of the system to offset these effects. Also, some systems

filter out, electrically or otherwise, the vibration-induced signals

from the weight signal, though this is often impractical, especially if the disturbance frequency approaches the weigh-cycle

frequency.

Modern checkweighing machines utilize a great many of the

techniques in general use by the instrumentation and control

industry. Weight readout and display systems of nearly every

type are used as accessories. Statistical control techniques and

computers monitor commodity weights automatically and effect corrective action at fillers ahead of the weigh stations. Rejection and segregation of commodities by weight into many channels are commonplace.

It is worth noting that the scale industry is often called on 109
to produce overall system accuracy to a much higher degree

than most typical electrical and control instrumentation used in

other industries. One-tenth percent (0.1 percent) is a common

requirement for scales, and often the requirements are much

tighter. Modern weighing equipment has kept pace with these

stringent needs. The buyer of scales today can specify phenomenal speeds and can get readout information in many formsdecimal, binary, analog, or in combinations—to feed into computers or control systems of his choosing.

No one has estimated the value of goods that is produced each

year for distribution in predetermined-weight lots. None will

deny that such goods are worth many billions of dollars. The

potential for savings to the producer and the consumer are tre- mendous. No longer is it necessary for the management of any

company to wonder how much of his production has gone to his

shipping department either slack-filled or overfilled. Automatic

checkweighing machines keep a constant and tireless account of j the efficiency of production machines. Not only do they attack

the weight problem through the first step (measurement of the

commodity) ; they also analyze the error pattern, and they initi- ate corrective action by means of auxiliary control systems.

Modern checkweighers are tuned with the times.

With the prodigious consumption of materials today, one of j the biggest problems of industry is to keep a balance of inventory to permit continuous manufacture at high speed. Incorrect

inventory or lack of inventory can cause layoffs with consequent

loss of money to the stockholders of the company, and loss of

work to labor. Inventory control, therefore, becomes a very vital concern to every company. Again, scales become the deciding

factor. Raw materials are received into the plants and checked

in by railway-track scales, motor-truck scales, hopper scales,

built-in scales, conveyor scales, etc. The amount of each item

is recorded by the scale either at the scale or at a remote point

where inventory control is established. As the material flows

in, the equipment records the weight, and credit is issued to the

inventory. As the raw material is removed from the inventory,

it is moved over scales in order to formulate it and produce the

final product. As each scale weighs out an identified material,

information on how much of that material has been weighed

out is transmitted to the inventory control department and goes on the debit side. This provides an immediate check by the

inventory control department and makes it possible to route the

proper material to the plant in time to keep the plant producing

at full capacity. Just another instance of weighing today ac- complishing something other than producing an indication of

pounds and ounces. Trade and commerce could not exist without scales. The tin

coming from Bolivia, the rubber coming from Malaya, the raw

materials coming from all over the world to the United States or going from the United States to the other countries of the; world, or between other countries, moves in terms of weight.

The life blood of freight transportation depends on weight. The

railroads do not haul wheat, stone, iron ore, machinery, food, oil, etc. Railroads haul tons. So do ships, trucks, and planes. The

110
life blood of these companies, the thing that produces the revenue for them, is the weight they haul. Every single bit of revenue reverts to this. The government even fixes the rates they are allowed to charge by weight. Not the amount they are

allowed to charge per bushel of grain, per gallon of oil, per foot

of steel, but in terms of pounds.

Money is only a medium of exchange. Weight becomes the important factor. Scales are designed to automatically convert from

metric to avoirdupois weights. The shipment of diamonds, ra- dium, nuts, fruit—in fact, the complete international exchange

depends on weights. Trade and commerce might easily be

described as the exchange of weights.

Your government could not exist without weighing today. Tax

is collected on vehicles weighed over motor-truck scales to determine the licensing fees. Highways are built for definite weight

capacities, and trucks are tested constantly by axle-load scales

t to assure they are not overloaded. Tolls on bridges are collected

1 by weight. The amount of gold our government owns is deteri mined by ounces. The amount of various metals used in each

coin is determined by weight. The tax collected on whiskey and

tobacco, two of the greatest sources of revenue of our government, is determined by weight. Even the size of a loaf of bread

that is being sold is set by the government according to weight.

The letter and parcel post move by weight. Truly, the functions

of the government are today closely tied to weighing.

Today we speak of the atom, of space travel, of exotic materials,

much as we speak of the weather or of food. The scientific

marvels of our age are being accepted as commonplace. Science

could not have progressed to its present stage without modern

weighing equipment. As an illustration, the knowledge gained

through research into the atom has been closely connected with

weight. Uranium 238 and 235 are strictly weight designations.

The proper mixture of various items to make up fuels for the

launching of our space ships is determined by weight. The main

reason for miniaturization, which has been carried to such a

great extent in our missile program, has been because of weight

considerations.

The measurement of mass on the moon and planets is of great

importance to science in our future space exploration. The

knowledge we have today, brought about by scientific research

i into the wonders of the world, is directly connected to weighing.

Without a doubt, weighing today is responsible for most of the

tremendous progress made in the 20th Century. Think of synthetics, a mixture of materials by weight to produce the final product. Think of air travel, the new designs of planes to provide greater lift, to cut down drag, all brought about through

the use of scales testing the lift, drag, pitching and yawing

moment, the center of gravity. Think of the new lighter,

stronger materials such as titanium and magnesium made possible through the use of weighing equipment to formulate them.

Think of the tremendous progress made in steel with the new

basic oxygen systems where the whole process, including computers, is tied into weighing. Think of our present high standard

of living brought about by the ability to produce the synthetic

111
materials, food, etc., at low prices we can all afford. Weighing

equipment has made this possible.

Little of our scientific and technological progress would be

possible today without modern weighing equipment.

We could go into greater detail on individual applications of

weighing equipment, but we would only touch a fraction of a

percent of the total. We could write books on the use of weighing

equipment in one small industry.

The scale is no longer a piece of machinery used only to obtain a weight. It is an instrument designed to do a specific job in a specific way and to provide to the user exactly what he needs,

whether it is a weight alone or the complete control of a system.

Weighing has always played a very important part in the lives of people of the world. It has become increasingly important

in the 20th Century. What does the future hold? This we

cannot say. But if history is prologue, weighing will become

even greater in importance as we continue to progress.

THE SCIENCE OF WEIGHING—TOMORROW

by V. C. Kennedy, Jr., Executive Vice President, StreeterAmet Company, Grayslake, Illinois

When we speak of the future we are, at

best, looking through a cloudy crystal ball. The further ahead we look, the less we can

project with any reasonable degree of ac- curacy. Fortunately, information in science

and technology is nearly always ahead of its practical implementation. We can also look

into the future with demographic projections and consider the trends in modern

technology.

There is at least one way of making use

of the past to determine the future, i.e.,! major technological breakthroughs that have

occurred, but have not yet been applied in industry. The

speakers who have covered the past and present of weighing have

discussed classical and modern weighing techniques. As we project into the future, we can make use of these past breakthroughs

as a tool to see what may lie ahead in weighing.

In order to look into the future of weighing, it might be desirable to make an initial step forward 20 years to the year

1985. In order to establish a frame of reference for this period,

it is possible to make some conjectures on what the world environment will be during this period, with particular emphasis onl the United States. Demographic indications are that, by 1985, the population of

the U.S. will range from between 250 and 275 million. We will

be a nation of young people, with a median age well under thirty

and approximately 50 million males in the age group from 17' to 50.

112
Better than 80 percent of the population will live in or near

the major metropolitan centers which exist today. The majority

of this growth will not take place in the central cities, as they

now exist, but will be an expansion of the suburban sections of

these cities which will lead to the establishment of the increased

number of major city complexes or "megalopolis."

The training of engineers, technicians, and scientists will be one of the major problems of this era. We can look forward to a college and university population at least four times as large

as it is today. If this projection is reasonable, we can predict

that, in the 80's, the 15 million or so college graduates that will

leave school each year will barely fill the requirements for industry and related technical activities. To further complicate

the shortage of skilled people, there will be a tendency to reduce

the work week, and particularly heavy increases in more spare

time for recreation and, hopefully, education.

Economists indicate that the total production of goods and

services in the United States will exceed one trillion dollars in

1985. This is approximately double the current Gross National

Product. As a result, there will be an appreciable increase in

per capita income and, consequently, in terms of general living

standards.

The rapid increase in industrial growth will cause major

changes in the labor force of the United States. It is projected

that the number of farm employees will be reduced by half. The

size of farms and requirements for capital will have greatly ex- panded. There will also be major reductions in manual work

in manufacturing, mining, and other heavy industries. Fewer

men with more sophisticated equipment will be doing much that

unskilled labor does today. As a result of automation, there will

be major changes in clerical personnel and activities by reduction

of routine work. On the other hand there will be a tremendous

increase in the areas of automation, machine control, and

inspection.

There is no doubt that automation, which has started to play

a major role in the second half of this century, will be greatly

expanded. Automation's most important impact will not be on

total employment but rather on the qualifications and requirements of the skilled employees. Large numbers of well educated

personnel will be required for new jobs such as, designers, technicians., systems engineers and, above all, individuals with managerial ability who are capable of analyzing problems, making

decisions, and assuming risks.

Much study has been made as to the resources of the future.

Based on known and blocked out resources, we can project that raw materials will be available to satisfy the growing and nearly

insatiable American economy during this time period. Part of

this will be due to the development of new techniques, the use

of currently marginal resources, or by substitution of various

materials for those that become in short supply. We also will

have an ever increasing demand for the import of raw materials

from the less developed countries. The by-product of this is that

there will be great emphasis on conservation of our national

resources with an increasing tendency to bring raw materials

to the United States from abroad.

113
Experts in the field of power project that electrical demand

in this period will be better than three times that of today, or perhaps 700 million kilowatts. Although there will be a steady

tendency to the increased use of nuclear power, the major fuels

for power production during this period will be fossil fuels,

primarily coal. One of the most important characteristics of the period will

be greatly improved transportation. There is little doubt that

the majority of the transportation systems in use then will be

not dissimilar from those of today. There will be, however,

many changes in increased efficiency and new techniques that

will allow modern transportation and methods to meet the demands of this period. We can project that while mail and freight

rail transportation will be substantially improved, passenger rail

traffic will continue to decline except for mass transit systems

in the urban areas. It is also probable that improved techniques

and equipment will allow the speed of railroads to be much

faster than is possible today. There will, of course, be many

alternate methods of transportation such as, pipelines, for gas,

oil, and other liquid materials, as well as for the transportation

of coal and other fluidized solids.

Although American industrial production will have probably

doubled by this period, there will still be approximately 500

major corporations that will produce in excess of 70 percent

of the total American industrial product. These corporations

will be larger, more complex, and closely tied together by a net- work of communication, equipment, and computers that will al- low them to operate efficiently on not only a national but an

international basis.

Sophisticated, computerized control systems will be the dominant factor in industrial production. The basic oxygen systems,

continuous casting and rolling techniques in the steel industry,

completely automatic chemical complexes will do much to change

the appearance of the industrial world. Light materials such

as, plastics, aluminum, and high strength steel will tend to re- duce the overall percentage requirements of basic steel, but steel will still be the backbone of industry.

By 1985 there will be major advances in communications. We

can look forward to reductions in the cost of long distance calls,

extensive use of video telephone service in industry, and a great

expansion in international communications facilities. In this

connection, we can hope that our international relations will be

greatly eased by expansion of the use of English as a common

language throughout most of the world and an ever increasing use of computer translators to assist humans in translating large masses of literature. As a by-product of the expanded computer

and communication facilities, it is possible that the nationwide

distribution of daily newspapers may have great impact on our

life and cause great changes in the speed and extent of news

coverage.

Between now and 1985, science and technology will grow.

However, the rate of growth of knowledge compared with the

last few centuries will probably slow appreciably. Much of this

will be due to the shortage of skilled personnel and the necessity

of applying knowledge that already exists. Scientists and tech114
nicians will be relatively scarcer in the United States than to- day. There will consequently, be great competition for their

services. While much routine work that is now carried on by

engineers and other technologists can be carried on by machines,

the demand for these people will be far greater than in the

world today.

Weighing in 1985 Now that we have generally considered a synthetic world of

1985, let us become more specific as it relates to instrumentation

and, specifically, weighing. Instrumentation and computers will

be the backbone of industry. As a result, weighing devices will

be more and more associated with data handling of process control equipment. In order to be compatible with computers and

communication links, there will be an increasing tendency to emphasize direct reading, projection, digital presentations, or other digital presentation of weight information.

Large dials as primary indicating will become increasingly

obsolete. Improved instrumentation will make it possible, in many cases, to achieve greater accuracy. On the other hand,

for the control of instrumentation there will be a definite tendency for the establishment of different classes of weighing equipment that are not necessarily designed to meet commercial tol- erances. This will be particularly true when they are tied

directly into process control and computers.

Force transducers can be expected to be changed tremendously by this time. It may well be that electronic load cells or force transducers will be entirely semiconductor which may

allow direct reading devices without the need of any amplifiers or complex circuitry. We can also assume that much of the

instrumentation will involve micromolecular modules that are

designed for ease of maintenance and immediate replacement.

Force transducers will definitely not be limited to strain gage

devices. There will be great advances in the art of hydraulic

and pneumatic transducers. These will be particularly important in process industries where there is a high degree of danger

from fire or explosion. It is also probable that totally new techniques not presently used in the scale industry will be replacing

conventional weighing methods. We may be determining weight

by indirect means such as, changes in the molecular structure of

materials, piezoelectric effects, magnetostrictive characteristics

of materials, radiation absorption, and perhaps on other techniques that will be developed as a result of our increased

knowledge of gravity and related phenomena.

In the next twenty years there will not be a giant step that

will replace existing equipment and techniques. A large number

of the scales that are in service today will be in use at that time. In this connection, it might be interesting to note that today

there are many thousands of electronic and other load cell scales

in use, not only in the United States, but all over the world.

As a matter of fact, there is far more written in the technical

journals in Europe on load cell scales than has been written in

the United States. We cannot be complacent about foreign competition. Even today there are aggressive and very competent

foreign firms that are rapidly establishing a beachhead in the

United States. We also should note that in Europe there are 115
far more load cell scales of European manufacture than of United

States manufacture.

We can project that low capacity and even laboratory scales

may well be using electronic instrumentation. Currently, in a number of laboratories throughout both this country and in Europe, rapid advances are being made in the development of elec- tronic instrumentation for very low capacity scales, ranging from

checkweighers to laboratory instrumentation. These should be

in wide use within 20 years.

In view of the fact that there will be a significant increase in

needs of transportation and the overall problem of logistics, we

can look forward to greatly improved equipment in connection

with transportation. The improved systems may include weighing devices that will be able to weigh motor trucks and railroad

cars at full road speed. We may also see that fluidized coal

and other materials carried in pipelines can be weighed by such

techniques as gamma ray absorption. Gamma rays may also be

extensively used in connection with belt conveyor scales. One of the greatest complications of this period will be the

tendency for the weighing industry to be greatly expanded by

instrumentation manufacturers currently in other fields. Even

today there is a great tendency for the instrumentation industry,

as a whole, to be moving into the historic area of the scale industry. We can expect to see more and more of this as time goes

along. Certainly by 1985 there will be little difference in instrumentation concepts whether the physical quantity being measured is weight, heat, electric current, or any other.

One of the most important improvements in all weighing sys- tems will be greater emphasis on improved reliability and dependability with particular emphasis on ease of maintenance if and when required. In 1985, there will be much greater realization and emphasis on total system reliability. This will be materially aided by the concepts that are extensively involved in

the design of missiles and space stations today where extremely

high system and component reliability is a major design cri- terion. Although in most industrial instrumentation there is not a great need for miniaturization, in view of the great increase

in miniaturized components, we can expect an automatic byproduct of this to miniaturize and modernize all weighing

instrumentation.

We can expect all classes of scales ranging from grocery

stores to the heaviest of industry to tend toward automatically

generated printed records with a by-product consisting of

punched tape or magnetic tapes that can be fed directly into

computers for inventory control, costing, and related accounting

and reorder problems. In this connection, the automated grocery

store and drug store of the future will be a distinct reality.

Much work has been done in recent years to develop these, but

by 1985, we can expect the housewife to be able to do her

shopping directly from display cases by pushing buttons or otherwise storing her needs which will be automatically selected.

The weight and price will be computed and her order bagged

and delivered to her by the time she reaches the door.

Perhaps, through improvements in communication networks,

it may be possible for the housewife to have a telephone type

116
directory of the products she requires and, using the keyboard

on the telephone, to complete her order and have it packaged

and ready for delivery in a matter of seconds.

Some of the greatest problems in forthcoming years will be

presented by a major reorientation of scale manufacturing.

In heavy capacity systems, the use of foundries and heavy machine shops will be practically eliminated, although structural

steel fabrication will be used for large platforms. On the other

hand, there will always be a certain place for beam scales and low

cost scales for certain applications. However, in commerce, in- dustry, and science in the United States, the mechanical scale

will tend to be an increasingly minor portion of the market.

Much of the improvement of the weighing industry will be as

a result of good competition, not only from those who currently

identify themselves with the scale industry but, more importantly, with those who will bring new concepts from related industries into the design, manufacture, and functioning of scales.

It will be increasingly important for users, manufacturers, or weights and measures officials to eliminate obsolete concepts and

to adopt new and even radical techniques.

Weighing as it Relates to Space

By 1985, we can expect to have moon stations established and

orbiting space stations. We will be well on the way to making

probes for exploration to the more distant planets. There will,

of course, be much interest in gravitational field measurements

which are directly or indirectly related to the weighing industry.

Perhaps more important will be the ever increasing demand for more accurate weight and force instrumentation in connection

with the space vehicles themselves and with problems associated

with their launch and, most critically, a determination of payload. Space vehicles require thousands of pounds of thrust for

each pound of payload, particularly during lift off. There is no doubt that, by 1985, fuels will be available that

will be more efficient than today; however, the thrust requirements will still be the same in order to place an object in orbit

or to reach a given celestial target. One thing we can be sure

of is that the space traveler in the future will not be allowed

any 40 pounds in his baggage except as it relates to life support.

In fact, every fraction of an ounce of weight that is carried as payload will have to be critically determined. High accuracy

and dependability of this determination will be a problem of the

first order. We can expect that information of this type will be

fed directly into computers, so that last minute changes can be

incorporated into corrections in the computation of the path of

the vehicle.

Although we do not normally consider thrust measuring devices as being within the purview of the weighing science, they

are, in fact, insolubly linked. Thrust measuring devices will be

of the most importance in space vehicles, not only at the time

of launch, but also during their free flight through space. Of

course, in these cases, the emphasis on microminiaturization for

reduced weight and volume will be the primary design consideration. High dependability and reliability as well as accuracy will

be far greater than any normal need of science and industry.

117
The Metric System

While today the United States and a portion of the old

British Empire are still plagued with the English measurement

system, we can hope that, by 1985, the world will fully have

converted to the metric system. Although this may be wishful

thinking, due to both political and economic considerations, we

can certainly expect a broad acceptance of both systems and

major interchangeability in data presentation. If, by that time,

we are in a period of transition, it would be very simple to ] merely have a selector switch on any weighing instrument to: switch it from the metric to the English system depending on

|

the needs of the user at that moment. Today, we are seeing a

definite trend towards greater acceptance of the metric system

and, to a much greater degree, decimal dimensions in the English

system. For instance, all range, trajectory and other calculations in the Space Agency are metric. Our military maps are

all metric. As a result of this, military fire control systems are; becoming entirely metric.

As a partial step toward decimal systems, industry is rapidly

eliminating the use of halfs, quarters, eights, and thirty-seconds

and going to tenths and hundredths of inches. This is becoming practically universal throughout the electronic industry. At

least we are taking steps in the right direction and we can hope that, by 1985, we will have fully converted to a truly

universal system of measurement.

As we can see, the world of tomorrow will be an era of ex-|

tensive instrumentation. This will impose an ever increased

consciousness on science and industry to use good standards.

Although weight and mass may be measured indirectly, by comparison, the necessity of positive standards of a high degree of

reliability will be imperative. As a result of this, the scope

and activities of weights and measures officials and other agencies

interested in reproductibility, accuracy, and particularly, dependability will become increasingly important. One major problem

that will have been resolved by this time is who will be re- sponsible for measurement standards. Will weights and measures officials expand their activities into the broad field of in- strumentation or will they continue to limit themselves primarily

to the field of commercial weighing? This is a question that

should be resolved in the near future.

Today, we find many of the major government contractors

establishing excellent standards laboratories. In most cases, these; are far superior and go far beyond the scope of the calibration'

capabilities of any regular weights and measures facility except

the National Bureau of Standards.

As we all know, today, we are in a period of transition. More

new techniques and technical installations have been introduced

than in any other period in history. As we look forward, we

must be prepared for even greater changes. The philosophy of a

solid and unchanging industry will have long been a thing of the

past. Engineers, technicians, managers, and, certainly, weights

and measures officials will be oriented to the requirements of

industry and science, and to the equipment that will be available.

No industry can remain static and live. We must be responsive

to the future and to the many advancements that will be available to meet the needs of industry and technology.

118
AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1965

No Business Session

GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE BANQUET

Wednesday evening at 7 :30, the Golden Anniversary Conference Banquet was held in Sheraton Hall. Guest speaker was

Mr. Bryce Harlow, Director of Governmental Relations, Procter

and Gamble Manufacturing Company, Washington, D.C., (former

Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States), who

entertained the delegates with his comments on his 25 years of

experience in the Federal Government.

119
1
MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1965

(W. I. Thompson, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

REMINISCING

by John

1 P. McBride, Past Chairman of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures, and retired Director of Standards,

Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries

The most poignant memories are those of

the persons with whom you have worked and

who have contributed so much to the weights

and measures cause. The first to come to mind are the members of the old Specifications and Tolerances

Committee with whom I worked for some

fifteen years. Some of these men were Fay

Holbrook of the National Bureau of Standards, Joe Rogers of New Jersey, and Morris

Fuller of Los Angeles (all of whom have now

passed on to their eternal reward), George

Austin of Detroit, and Ralph W. Smith of

NBS. It must be said of Ralph Smith that he was an indefatigable worker, painstaking and thorough, always cognizant

of the long-range view. If such there be, he surely is Mr.

Weights and Measures. In later years Bill Bussey and Mac Jensen, both very able men, came to this Committee with Mac Jensen

the only member still in the harness as an active official at NBS.

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances convened

three or four days before the Conference and undertook the

task of preparing the language covering proposed codes in what

was often referred to as understandable English, or the lack

thereof, to cover all situations that might develop. On the one hand was industry in its competitive field looking for workable

controls, and on the other hand, the weights and measures

officials seeking the utmost in consumer protection.

Specifications governing devices cannot be beyond reasonable

expectation of possibility of compliance and should be consistent

with good engineering practice, but must not be readily susceptible to the perpetration of fraud. This latter phrase brought in

the so-called "human element" and offered the greatest difficulty,

provoking most of the floor discussion among delegates and in- dustry members.

I recall one incident involving a demonstration to show the

necessity of air separation and elimination on a motor-driven

gasoline dispenser. The air-elimination unit was not used in this

showing, the result being an appreciable discrepancy between

actual delivery in the test measure and the indicated amount

shown on the reading element of the device. Apparently, a member of the press was present at the meeting and, lo and behold,

in the next day's edition of the local paper was a picture of the

dispenser with some of the delegates standing alongside. The

accompanying headline read that gasoline dealers were mulcting

121
the public. The newsman had missed the point; perhaps he was

confused by the discussion, but he created an embarrassing

situation.

As we look back, it is apparent that weights and measures

began to take shape on the national level in an appreciable way

with the first National Conference in 1905, when the National

Bureau of Standards entered the field, establishing with the delegates the practice of annual National Conferences with speakers and exhibits and publication of educational material to weights and measures officials aimed toward uniformity in basic

requirements and methods of tests. State conferences subseqently developed, although a few States had started prior to this. (Massachusetts held its first in 1898). The Southern Conference became the largest regional conference, beginning in 1946.

Industry and a member of the Office of Weights and Measures

always attended and participated in these meetings. The National Bureau of Standards became the weights and measures

reference bureau and, with its scientific staff available, was of

immeasurable value to officials with technical problems, providing expert counsel on requirements for mechanical devices, and

thus encouraging the competency of officials in their various

duties.

The National Bureau of Standards has certain statutory authority under its Organic Act to cooperate with the States in

securing uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods

of inspection, and its Directors, Dr. Stratton, Dr. Burgess,

Dr. Briggs, Dr. Condon, and presently Dr. Astin, have always

acted in a most cooperative and helpful manner. Field work of

the Office of Weights and Measures consisted of surveys in the

States, followed by recommendations, helpful suggestions, and

various kinds of technical training. The work was largely co- ordinated with the activities of the National Conference and its standing committees. This was supplemented by periodic visits

of representatives from OWM to the State and local offices for

observation and discussion and by publication from time to time

of handbooks of instruction embracing the duties of officials. While earlier reference is made to the so-called "human ele- ment," a term that usually applies to the user of the device, I recall one instance where this might be applied to the manufacturer. This involved an early computing scale wherein the

money-value indication on the scale appeared wrongly calculated on breakage (fraction cent), and the sealer in Cambridge, Massachusetts, condemned the device on the ground of arithmetical

inaccuracy. The manufacturer challenged this action on the

ground that it was beyond the scope of the sealer's duty, he

being confined to checking the accuracy of the weight determinations only. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, however, sus- tained the sealer, and ruled that he had the right under the

covering statute to test computing scales as to correctness of

both indicated weight and value.

The computing scale was indeed a remarkable innovation, but

it brought problems of its own. In order to attain maximum efficiency, it needed a weighing range that would cover the field of most transactions, and needed to embrace the widest scope

of price per pound of retail commodity and total price. This

122
was attempted on a chart of about 27 inches in length, needing

space for 1700 to 1800 characters. A field of magnification was

needed to satisfy dimensional requirements such as width of

graduations, intervals between graduations and indicator wire,

so that compliance might be had therewith yet have the user

visibility necessary to enable proper reading, accomplished by

proper lens power. The NBS Division of Optics and Metrology was very helpful in the code development for actual and apparent dimensions. While the specifications required visibility

of a specified range of the weight values on the customer side,

it is interesting to note that one company went beyond this and

showed money value in addition to the weight* value far beyond

this limit as an advantage to the consumer. According to some

sources of information, this did not prove very popular with a few retailers. To meet the code requirement of reducing parallax

effects to a practical minimum, one method offered was two parallel indicating wires, spaced apart, employing the same theory

as applies to sights on a rifle. An interesting feature developed

in certain types of this scale whereby it was possible, with certain

commodities, to so far extend over the load-receiving element

as to lock it against the drum as the load was applied which

prevented oscillation and thus indicate in excess of actual weight.

This resulted in the requirement of the so-called New York platter guard, to prevent overhang. When we view the modern

computer we can appreciate the progress industry has made in

this field. Springs in the scale weighing operation presented difficulty

and, at one time, scale competitive advertising carried the slogan

"Honest Weight—No Springs." Springs of that time were susceptible to temperature change, and one company had affixed to

its scale a means of adjusting the scale to the temperature at the place of weighing. The so-called peddler scale was a great

source of trouble here as it was used largely outdoors. While

the code took cognizance of this, it was not entirely satisfactory,

and finally the temperature-compensated spring was developed

and proved to be the answer. With the passing of the so-called hay wagon in favor of auto

trucks, the problem of adequate platform length and approach

for vehicle scales arose. Some scalemen merely lengthened the

existing platform without regard for the understructure of the

scale and its weighing capacity. This necessitated regulation

by requiring reference back to the manufacturer's design of the

particular scale, and perhaps was the forerunner of requiring

licensing of scale repairmen.

As truck-load weights increased, adequacy of testing equipment became a must and several States developed special test trucks with test weights of 500- and 1000-pound denominations, with various types of power hoists and power drops for

placement of the weights on the scale platform. The Office of

Weights and Measures surveyed the field on this matter and ac- quired a test unit which was sent, with a special instructor, to the various States for the promotion of uniformity of test and

equipment.

While the established procedure would be to send in weights

to the Mass Section of NBS for calibration, it was no easy task

123
to send in these large weights and NBS produced the Russell

equal-arm balance by means of which tests could be accomplished

by the State and local authorities at their own location. With

modern equipment, weight placement now is a push-button

operation.

The automobile raised the problem of gasoline measurement.

The first development here was the "blind pump" of the onegallon and five-gallon type. The difficulty was leakage back from

the measuring chamber between periods of delivery. Holding

valves did not function satisfactorily, and special tolerances were set up for specified elapsed times. Operators were advised of the necessity of periodic priming of the unit, but this,

in some cases, had the effect of encouraging short measure, and

precipitated the development of the decoy fuel tank in sealers'

automobiles; early morning checks were fruitful in controlling

this feature.

The visible pump offered more problems in that public safety

requirements prohibited the product from remaining in the glass

cyclinder overnight. This necessitated a means of returning

the product to storage by a valve-control line. The result of this was that the dishonest operator, during delivery to the cus- tomer's tank, could also open the valve on the return to storage

with the product going both ways and full delivery indicated.

The only preventive here was warning signs and locked delivery

positions, but both were dependent on customer observations and

did not work out too well. A self-service pump, coin-operated, was developed by two former members of this Conference, but

the fire hazard involved precluded its use (although I recently

read that such a device is operable in Tennessee).

The big development in gasoline dispensing was the motor

driven pump with price-per-gallon and total sale price indicated,

and the volume in gallons and tenths of a gallon. This powerdriven unit made possible the passage of air with the liquid and

hence required a means of separating and eliminating the air

before reaching the measuring chamber. This was successfully

accomplished, although there were ways of blocking this unit

from so functioning. The visigage which serves under certain

circumstances to indicate the passage of air, came into being.

Further problems on this type of device were the wet-hose with

product in the line to the discharge nozzle with possibility of

hose distortion; interlocking devices on return to zero, manual

or automatic. Competition between the manufacturers for

equipment attractiveness brought about various size units, so it became necessary to prescribe an angle of vision and minimum

height to assure visibility of the reading elements to the motorist. The blending pump that came later was a remarkable in- novation in this field, determining quality by proportional means,

as well as determining quantity.

Solid fuel, such as coal, coke, etc., presented its problems of

checkweighing on the road, with an occasional driver with two

certificates, and coke with its moisture-absorbing characteristics.Fuel oil, however, became the predominant home heating commodity and home deliveries were accomplished by trucks

equipped with motor-operated pumps, and the measuring element

124
was a meter with air separator and eliminator. The first effort

to afford visibility of the measuring element to the householder

from within the home was a large dial-indicating element, but

this was susceptible to breakage and more cumbersome than

useful, and was later abandoned for the rotor type and ticket

printer. Household tanks were generally of 265-gallon capacity

and the individual deliveries were quantities in excess of 50 gallons, which necessitated again adequacy of testing equipment

to meet prescribed methods of test, and portable provers ranging

from 50 gallons were developed. Retailers of this product

bought from bulk distributors by truckload, and larger portable

provers ranging from 500 gallons came into being.

In Massachusetts, we purchased our first 1000-gallon prover

in 1938, and one large oil company had a permanently installed

3,000-gallon prover for barge deliveries. Massachusetts is one

of Ihe largest markets for this product and, as in all devices,

determination must be made as to whether there is susceptibility to fraud. On trucks with more than one compartment

it was found that compartment line valves, where one or more

compartments were empty, could be manipulated to introduce

air beyond the capacity of the air separator and eliminator to function, and valve control was required so that only one compartment line might be opened at any one time.

After World War II, housing developments grew apace and,

in many cases, were located away from the regular supply lines

of gas manufacturers. Liquefied petroleum gas hit the market

as a home heating fuel. Deliveries of this product were first made in cyclinders, but this became inadequate and metered

delivery by truck became the practice. This was a commodity

delivered and measured under pressure, and NBS, through its various divisions, was of great help on this question of method

of test, whether it should be gravimetric or volumetric. This

problem took much time and experiment, as the testing equipment was expensive, and final determination was the volumetric

method.

The farmer was not left out in the march of progress and the

time-honored practice of putting out his 20 and 40 gallon jugs

of milk at the farm for the handler to pick up, with quantity

determined at the latter's plant, gave way to the permanently

installed farm milk tank at the farm. The questions here presented were possibility of distortion of tanks, location and

marking of gage rods, and permanency of level of the tank.

In some areas farmers resented weights and measures entry,

regarding it as a contractual matter between the two parties

involved, but it was deemed a matter of public interest and

jurisdiction was taken. Special provers were developed and

methods of tests prescribed. Some of these farms were low on water and were located too far out of the way and the 1000 or

so gallons of water necessary for test purposes was a drain on

low water supply. The gage-rod measuring method is an improvement over the previous one, but is not all that is to be

desired, and a more satisfactory way would be to measure the

milk by meter. Development along this line has been slow. In the field of liquid measures, the single-use measure container, generally of paper-board type, found a ready market

125
in competition with other types, and raised the question of rigidity of its parts as a measure. A special method of test was

prescribed in such cases to so restrain the container under test that it will maintain its normal assembled shape and its sides

will not bulge when filled with water, thus simulating actual use conditions.

The weights and measures official is not confined to the perfunctory task of testing devices, and his field covers the whole

scope of what happens in packaging, methods of fill of containers, apparent against actual quantity of content, slack fill, etc. Even the corner store had a method of compressing the

sides of berry boxes to add design attractiveness, and sometimes

sold peanuts in the liquid quart measure. Marking of packages as to net quantity of content was a

vexatious problem. Emphasis has seldom been extended to this

phase by the packers. The Federal Food and Drug Administration also has jurisdiction in this matter, but the code language

"plain and conspicous" is equivocal and, at one time, this agency

issued publications containing interpretations and decisions

which it had arrived at on questionable compliance. These were

very helpful in the aim at uniformity. It is pleasing to note

that this subject is now regarded of major importance again

and Federal legislation is being proposed. I believe manufacturers are making every effort to remedy this problem. Several

years ago I attended and spoke to several meetings of the

American Management Association where this problem was discussed. A representative of the Federal Food and Drug Administration also addressed these meetings.

The problem of shrinkage and who bears the loss appeared

as one of the insolubles. Before the advent of the self-service stores a product was packed at the place of sale in many in- stances, and the question was thus centered. The factory-filled

J package offered the difficulty. The Food and Drug Administration, in its code, recognized variations due to ordinary and cus- tomary exposure which normally occur in good distribution

practice.

Moisture content of the product is of course an important

factor. A nationwide flour survey, sponsored by the National

Conference, was made at the retail level, this product having | a maximum allowable moisture content of 14.7 percent. The j survey was confined to the 5-pound package and included products of large and small mills. The net weight of the flour was

determined at the time of taking, as was also the moisture content and, where possible, the code number of the packer. Some

430 samples were obtained and data submitted from 34 states. The computed results showed 16.8 percent weighed 5 pounds net [ at the retail level, the balance weighed less than 5 pounds, and f the average weight of all was 4.96 pounds. Where packer codes

made possible comparable data with the mills, results showed

net weight packing at the mills 5.04 pounds and average moisj ture content of 13.79 percent. Of course this product is highly

hygroscopic and can be affected by geographic location, weather

conditions, handling, and storage.

Other products too have their characteristics in this direction,

although I recall hearing one national meat packer state to a 126
National Conference that his company found no problem here

due to their controlled method of overpack. There is, of course,

a shrinkage problem but it can be minimized.

Undercover buying had its problems in properly acquiring

the necessary evidence for prosecution, but the self-service

supermarket has eased this problem in that the evidence is right on the table, package all wrapped, price and weight marked

thereon, merely awaiting the taking thereof and determining

the weight, with a case for either attempt to sell or sale, as the

official may make his case. I understand there are about 300,-

000 supermarkets in the Nation, and this offers a wide new field for reweighing which the officials have taken advantage of. At the repeal of prohibition it was felt that the lapse of time

between prohibition and repeal was sufficient to destroy all previous custom and stock of containers, virtually starting from

scratch, and therefore a good time to endeavor to attain standardization of bottle sizes. The effort was not entirely successful, although this industry more nearly approaches weights and

measures ideals in this respect than almost any other. Only

recently the Distilled Spirits Institute successfully contested an

effort to break down the present sizes and, as part of their argument, used material from National Conference reports on the

subject of standardization of sizes. The then Chairman of the

National Conference, Rollin Meek, represented the Conference

at the hearing, and opposed the suggested changes. Standardization of package sizes for all consumer commodities was

submitted for Federal legislation during the early forties, but

it failed of success. A word of appreciation must be extended for the work performed by Dr. Leland J. Gordon, Director of Weights and

Measures Research Center at Denison University, Granville,

Ohio. He has conducted two national surveys of weights and

measures work as it affects consumer economy, visiting many

State officials. He has made a thorough study of the problem

from all angles from the standpoint of the public interests and

has published reports thereon.

I have great faith in the future of weights and measures. It

is at last receiving more public notice, due in no small part to government-sponsored consumer representatives. New York

State was the first in this field, with the appointment of

Mrs. Persia Campbell as consumer advisor to the then Governor,

followed by a similar appointment of Mrs. Helen Nelson by the

Governor of California. A consumer council in Massachusetts

first operated, with ten members, from the Attorney General's

department. Now there is a council authorized by statute at- tached to the Executive Department, with one member an active

weights and measures official (Frank Hirons, City Sealer of

Gardner). On March 15, 1962, the late President Kennedy

sent a Consumer Message to the Congress in which he directed

that the Council of Economic Advisers create a Consumer Advisory Council. This was the first such council on a Federal

level. All of these groups have weights and measures as a

subject within their authority.

We are living in a rapidly changing world, and technological

changes continue to occur in weighing and measuring devices.

127
In the perhaps not too distant future in the commodity field in this nuclear age we may have atomic energy as the source of

power for automobiles, as well as for home heating. What will

be the method of dispensing and measuring this element?

There is indeed need for schools of instruction and home study

courses as recommended by the Conference Committee on Education. However, the Conference is now operating under a good

organizational plan, and the new National Bureau of Standards

facilities at Gaithersburg will be in readiness to meet these new

problems.

This paper has been necessarily only surface scratching, and

I will close with a note of appreciation to all the delegates,

members of industry, the National Scale Men's Association, and

the Director and all the staff of the National Bureau of

Standards for their contributions to the cause of weights and

measures.

THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

by W. J. Owen, Chief Inspector, Weights and Measures Office,

Bradford, England

The Pound, Yard, and Gallon

The whole of the modern English weights

and measures system is based on two basic

standards : The imperial pound and the imperial yard. All other weights and measures, including measures of volume, are derived from these two measures. The Weights and Measures Act, 1878, defined the imperial pound standard as "The

weight in vacuo of the platinum weight

(mentioned in the First Schedule to the

Act) and by this Act declared to be the imperial standard for determining the imperial

standard pound, shall be the legal standard measure of weight, and of measure having reference to weight

and shall be called the imperial standard pound, and shall be

the only unit or standard measure of weight from which all other weights and all measures having reference to weight shall

be ascertained."

The Weights and Measures Act, 1963, carries a similar description of the pound, but, in addition, defines it as being

equivalent to 0.453 592 37 of a kilogramme. What developed as an arbitrary standard over many decades has now become

precisely defined.

The imperial (avoirdupois) pound of 7,000 grains was first legalised by the Standards Act, 1855, although it was commercially used long before. This Act followed the recommendations

128
of an 1838 Commission appointed to consider what to do about

the loss and damage of the former standard in the fire that

destroyed the Houses of Parliament in 1834. 1 At the time of the fire, the standard pound had been the Troy

pound of 5,760 grains and had been legalised by the Weights and

Measures Act, 1824. The change to the avoirdupois pound was

no more than legal confirmation of the commercial position then

in existence, a position that was emphasized in 1841 when the

Commission reported that:

The troy pound is comparatively useless even in the few trades and professions in which troy weight is commonly used and to the great mass of

the British population it is wholly unknown. The statements of medical men

and those persons concerned in the trade of bullion show that even to them

the troy pound is useless. The avoirdupois pound on the other hand is uni- versally known throughout this kingdom. We see it our duty therefore to recommend that the avoirdupois pound be adopted instead of the troy pound

as the standard weight.

Prior to its adoption in the 1824 Act, the troy pound had been

used as a reference weight for 66 years. It would have been

legalised in 1760 but for the interruption of parliamentary

business caused by the sudden death of George II. The avoirdupois pound, which had been in commercial use from time immemorial, was recommended as the legal standard

of reference in 1841 and was finally legalised by the Weights and

Measures Act, 1878.

The United States pound is the same as the United Kingdom

pound, and, by the terms of the 1893 Mendenhall Order, was

defined in terms of the kilogram—something the United

Kingdom decided to do 70 years later. The United States yard and the United Kingdom yard are also

identical and, by the same history of events which affected the

pound, are both now related to the metric system.

The yard was defined, in 1878, as "The straight line or dis- tance between the centres of two gold plugs or pins (as described

in the First Schedule of the Act) in the bronze bar by this Act

declared to be the imperial standard yard measured when the

bar is at the temperature of sixty-two degrees of Fahrenheit's

thermometer, and when it is supported by bronze rollers placed

under it in such a manner as best to avoid flexure of the bar,

and to facilitate its free expansion and contraction from variation of temperature, shall be the legal standard measure of

length, and shall be called the imperial standard yard, and shall

be the only unit or standard measure of extension from which

all other measures of extension, whether linear, superficial or

solid, shall be ascertained." In 1963, it came to be defined as

"the yard shall be 0.9144 metre exactly." 2

1 This fire on 16th October was caused by excessive stoking:! The House had ordered the

destruction of a store of old tallies, and they were being burnt in the heating- stoves.

3 The figure of 0.9144 has been accepted for all the purposes of the Act as the fixed ratio between the meLre and the yard. If the length of the metre is changed by international agree- ment, then the length of the yard will change. The figure of 0.9144 is given in this form so

that certainty of calculation may be assured. It is the figure accepted for scientific and technological purposes by the National Standards Laboratories of the United Kingdom, the United

States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. The United States, on 1st July,

1959, declared this figure to be the one to be used for all purposes except geodetic surveys. 129
Figure 1. Queen Anne Wine Gallon.

In 1824, there were at least four different gallons in use : The

Winchester corn gallon of 268.8 in. 3

; the Queen Anne's wine

gallon of 231 in. 3

; the Ale gallon of 282 in. 3

; and an older wine

gallon of about 224 in. 3

. In that year, Parliament made an effort to alleviate the con- fusion by providing for one gallon only. It was defined as that

volume occupied by "10 imperial pound weight of distilled water

weighed in air against brass weights with the water and the air at a temperature of 62 degrees of Fahrenheit's thermometer and

with the barometer at 30 inches." This same definition was also

in the Weights and Measures Act of 1878.

The Act of 1963 referred the gallon also to the metric system

by defining it as "the space occupied by 10 pounds weight ofI distilled water of density 0.998 859 gramme per millilitre weighed

in air of density 0.001 217 grammes per millilitre." In the same

Act, those imperial weights and measures which shall be lawful

for use in trade in the United Kingdom are defined. All are

derivatives of the three aforementioned standards. 3

Early History

Although it has often been suggested that the British system

has been arbitrarily conceived, it is certain that there is a re-|

lationship between the British system of weights and measures and the older civilizations. There is evidence of deep-rooted

3 See Appendix A. 130
associations with the cubits and talents of the ancient and medieval Eastern kingdoms. The history of these latter extends

over more than 50 centuries, from before the building of the

Great Pyramids to the tenth century.

The Egyptian Cubit of 18.24 inches was derived from the

length of the bent forearm, from the elbow to the fingertip. The

Greek Olympic foot was 12.16 inches or two-thirds of a cubit.

The origin of the British weights and measures system would

be difficult to trace in detail. But there is no doubt that the sys- tem was influenced by the Phoenecians, the Romans, and the

Scandinavians. When the Saxons arrived in this country in the

fifth century, they adopted the weights and measures already in

use, as did the Normans some six centuries later. The first recorded law on weights and measures is dated 965

A.D., in the reign of King Edgar, when it was decreed "that

only one weight and one measure should pass throughout the

King's dominion." The desire for uniformity existed many years

before this, and in the reign of King Athelstone, who succeeded

to the throne in 925 A.D., the pound, bushel, quarter, mile,

furlong, and acre were in common use. In 1066, William the Conqueror made no attempt to change the

existing system, but he did ordain "that they shall have throughout the whole kingdom most accurate and stamped measures."

One measure of length known to be in existence at that time was the perch of 11 cubits used for the measurement of land.

The records of the Domesday Book (1085) show that this measure was the same before and after the Norman conquest.

There is no further historical reference to standards until the

reign of King John. In the Magna Charta of 1215 it prescribes

that the measures of corn and wine should be corrected. Later,

when this clause of Magna Charta was amended in the reign of

King Henry III, it was stated that there should be one measure

for wine, one measure for ale, and one measure for corn, "and

it shall be of weight as it is of measure." Amongst other things,

the width of cloth was fixed at two cubits.

A few years later, a royal ordinance of considerable importance was issued. This was entitled "Assize of Weights and

Measures" and contained the first real definition of English

weight and measure. It was to remain in force for nearly 600

years until repealed by the Weights and Measures Act, 1824.

The credit for this may be ascribed to Henry III (1216-1272).

He was the first to make and prescribe a standard yard and to

define the length of a foot. The definition was as follows : "And it is to be remembered

that the Iron Yard of our Lord the King contains III feet and

not more ; and the foot must contain XII inches by the correct measure of this kind of yard, that is to say one thirty-sixth part

of the said yard makes one inch, neither more nor less. And

five and a half yards make one perch, this is sixteen and a half

feet in accordance with the above described Iron Yard of our

Lord the King."

The measures were, therefore : Three barley corns = one inch

12 inches = one foot ; three feet = one yard ; five and one half

yards = one perch ; 40 perches = one rood or acre's length.

131
These units are all still used today—even the reference to barley corn. The sizes of shoes in England progress in thirds

of an inch.

Two different pounds are described in the "Assize of Weights

and Measures." The troy pound was used for weighing gold and

silver bullion and certain drugs. This was divided into 12

ounces, each ounce being 20 pennyweights and each pennyweight

consisting of 32 wheat grains. The second pound was one used

j by merchants for other types of goods, and it consisted of 15 i troy ounces. The "Assize of Weights and Measures" also described certain measures of capacity, but in this case it is not clear whether the

gallon—there being only one mentioned—was for corn or wine.

Following the setting up of the standards of weight and measure, copies were made and sent out by the Exchequer to the cities and boroughs of the Kingdom with instructions as to their use and with instructions to certain trades such as "Statute concerning Bakers etc." and the "Statute for Measuring Land." This was about the year 1250.

An extract from the Ordinance relating to bakers is of

interest, as it refers to the sealing of weights and measures at

this time

The standard bushels, gallons and yards which have been sealed with the

iron seal of our Lord the King, are to be kept diligently and safely under 1 the penalty of £100. And let no measure be made in a town unless it agrees j with the measure of our Lord the King, and is sealed with the seal of the Corporation of the town. If any person buys or sells with measures that have not been sealed, and that have not been inspected by the mayor and . the bailiffs, he will be severely punished. And all measures and yards,

greater or less, are to be inspected and carefully examined twice every

year. The standard bushels, gallons and yards, and the seals with which ' they are sealed, are to be kept in the custody of the mayor and bailiffs and

of six legally sworn citizens of the town, in whose presence all the measures must be sealed. These ordinances were included in later Acts of Parliament, one of the earliest of which appears to be the Statute of Wales

of 1284. The important Act of 1340 was passed during the reign

of King Edward III and contained references to uniformity of

weights and measures throughout the country. This Act also

includes penalties as : "that is to say, one greater to buy and

one less to sell with shall be imprisoned as a deceiver and

grievously punished."

An incursion into the rights of local authorities commenced

about this time by the granting of statutory power to certain

trade guilds, usually in the City of London, to inspect and

supervise weights used in the trade represented by a guild.

For example, the charter of the Goldsmiths Company dates

from 1327 ; and until 1679, all "troy" weights used in London

were sealed at the Goldsmiths' hall. The Coopers' Company obtained powers in 1531, the Plumbers'

Company in 1611, and the Founders' Company in 1614. Lineal measures were once tested by the Merchant Taylors' Company.

The reign of King Edward III (1327-1377) was notable for

several Acts relating to weights and measures, and in 1353

appears one of the earliest references to avoirdupois

132
As we have learned that some merchants buy aver de pois goods such as wools and other merchandise by one weight and sell by another and also use deceitful practises in the matter of weighing; and they have illegal measures and yards to the greater deceit of us, and of all the community, and

of honest traders; we will and ordain that there shall be one weight, one measure, and one yard throughout all the land. And that wool and all kinds

of aver de pois goods are to be weighed by the balance in such a way that

the tongue of the balance is even, without inclining to one side or the other,

and without touching the same with hand or foot, or in any other way; and

that he do the same to the damage of the seller shall forfeit the goods so weighed and measured; and the complainant shall receive four times the damage, and the delinquent shall be imprisoned for one year and shall be

released at our pleasure.

In this context the word aver de pois—the old spelling of

avoirdupois—related to the nature of the goods and not the

particular kind of pound to which reference has already been

made. Under the terms of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878,

all articles sold by weight had to be sold by avoirdupois weight,

except

1. Gold and silver, and articles made thereof . .

, platinum,

diamonds, and other precious metals or stones may be sold

by the ounce troy . . ; and

2. Drugs when sold by retail may be sold by apothecaries'

weight.

(Metric weighing became peimissible for all goods, as an

alternative, under the terms of the Weights and Measures

(Metric System) Act, 1897.)

Acts of Parliament in the reign of Henry V (1413-22) made

the first official reference to the troy pound of 12 ounces and the

"Tower" pound, used for bullion at the Royal Mint. The rela- tion between the former and latter was in the proportion of

32:30.

In 1492, Parliament ordered that new bronze standards of

weight and measure were to be sent to every town of importance

in the country, and four years later 43 towns were listed where

the standards were kept in charge of the mayors and bailiffs. This arrangement resulted in serious discrepancies between the measures in use in different places. In 1496, a royal commission

sat in the Star Chamber at Westminster Palace to enquire into

the whole British system of weights and measures. The main

outcome of this enquiry was the acceptance of the troy pound of

12 ounces (each ounce of 640 wheat grains) and the avoirdupois

pound of 16 troy ounces. There was no reference to the merchants' pound of 15 troy ounces or the avoirdupois pound of 16

avoirdupois ounces. Accompanying new standards sent out to various towns were

instructions that all old weights and measures were to be destroyed. This explains the difficulty one encounters in finding

examples of English weights or measures before 1497. One

well-known exception, due to disobedience of royal commands,

is to be found in the City of Winchester, where is the finest col- lection of pre-Henry VII standards and the only known set of

weights of the reign of Edward III. 133
At about this time, the use of multiples of the pound were

fashionable for the weighing of certain commodities. In one Act there was reference to "weights of sack, half-sack and

quarter, pound, half-pound and quarter according to the standard of the Exchequer." It is probable that the time coincided

with the reception by Winchester from the Exchequer of the

set of avoirdupois weights consisting of 56 lb., 28 lb., 14 lb., and 7 lb. Winchester was also important as a wool-trading

centre and it is interesting to note that the stone of 1415 and

the clove of seven pounds were recognized as the units of weight

for wool and merchandise. More recently, at the beginning of

the nineteenth century, the woollen industry moved to Bradford

and the unit of weight for wool weighing was the tod of 28 lb. In modern times, the unit of weight for weighing wool has be- come the pound alone. In 1588, during the reign of Elizabeth I, new sets of standards were made and, by Royal Proclamation, were dispatched to 57

towns and counties. These included 56 lb. and 7 lb. bell-shaped

and 8 lb., 2 lb., and 1 lb. flat-shaped weights, all of brass. An

issue is still preserved at Winchester.

The most ancient measure in the Winchester collection is the

standard yard, a hexagonal bar of bronze, considered to be the

original yard of Henry I (1100-1135) and later adjusted and

lengthened by means of a new iron end in the reign of Edward I (1189-1199).

Perhaps the most interesting in the collection is the 91 lb. weight. Its origin is, again, connected with the wool trade of

that period when a bale of wool consisted of 26 stones or 364 lb., a quarter of which is 91 lb. Measures for the measurement of land remained untouched

for several centuries until 1963, when the rod, pole, and perch were abolished. The acre, the breadth of which was four perches

and the length of which was 40 perches, was known before

1272. One improvement came in the seventeenth century when

Professor Gunter had the idea of taking the acre's breadth of

four perches, which he called a chain, and dividing it into 100

links. This made the acre ten square chains and the square

rood, or furlong, ten square acres. Gunter's chain was legally

adopted in the Weights and Measures Act, 1878.

No revision of weights and measures law was found necessary

for 200 years after Elizabeth I. But, in 1701, an act was passed

defining the corn bushel—now famous as the Winchester Bushel —as "Any round measure with a plain and even bottom, being

18 ^ inches wide throughout and 8 inches deep."

Similar methods were used to define the wine gallon in 1707,

when it was described as a round measure having an even bottom

and containing 231 cubic inches. This definition was abolished

in 1824.

The Act of 1824 replaced an earlier statute, and the Imperial

System of Weights and Measures was introduced. The standards

approved were a troy pound of 5,760 grains and a yard measure

of 36 inches. In 1855, the new pound of 7,000 grains was

legalised.

In 1866, the custody of the standards was given to the Board

134
of Trade and four copies of the standards were made and

deposited at the Royal Observatory, the Royal Mint, the Royal

Society, and the House of Commons.

Inspectors of Weights and Measures

During the past thousand years, many laws have been made

relating to standards of weight and measure. Over the centuries, it has been proclaimed that "measures should be true" or

that merchants should not "buy by one weight and sell by

another" or that "he shall be convicted of having double measures." It is obviously insufficient to make such proclamations

without providing enforcement, but it is only within comparatively recent times that any serious effort has been made to provide efficient inspection.

Powers were given to town authorities to inspect weights and

measures in the Saxon period. William the Conqueror had or- dered that weights should be true and stamped. In 1266, six

men were appointed to inspect all the measures in London.

Edward I ruled that measures should be stamped. Succeeding

monarchs imposed similar regulations. Powers of inspection were usually vested in the Mayor and Aldermen of a town, but, as these gentlemen had much other business, it is apparent that

inspection of weights and measures was neglected or ignored

altogether.

Henry VII appointed men known as "Tronators" to visit vari- ous parts of the country, but their main function was to weigh

the wool clip and to assess the King's tax on it. In markets, the

"Clerk of the Markets" inspected all weights and measures

whilst the owners of the markets checked cloth, bread, and ale. In country districts, the Courts Leet could appoint juries to inspect weights and measures. As already mentioned, some

companies and guilds could inspect their own weights and

measures. Not until 1795 was the first serious attempt at inspection

made. "Examiners" of weights and measures were appointed by

justices at Quarter Sessions, and these men were the first full- time inspectors. Inspectors of Weights and Measures, by that

name, were first appointed by the Acts of 1834-35, when duties

of stamping and inspection were combined in one person.

Administration was inefficient, however, and complaints multiplied. It was not until 1878 that weights and measures administration was given a qualified and efficient inspectorate who

were supported by a coded statement of law. The Act of 1878 was supplemented by many other Acts, Acts dealing with weighing and measuring appliances and commodities of many kinds.

All of these Acts have now been repealed and brought up to date by the Weights and Measures Act of 1963 and the numerous

regulations now being issued under its authority. The protection which this law provided is now enforced, uniformly and

efficiently, by the modern, well-qualified Inspector of Weights

and Measures.

Today, the British Inspector is concerned with weighing and

measuring throughout the whole of trade. Not only is he con- cerned with the accuracy of standards and of weighing

135
and measuring appliances, but also with the difficulties and

peculiarities which may be associated with a particular

commodity.

For example, moisture content is always a problem, especially

in a commodity like wool, which is so very hygroscopic, and in

solid smokeless fuels and many other domestic commodities. In

this respect, the Inspector is further assisted by codes of practice

and standards which are produced by the British Standards

Institute and which the Inspector himself frequently helps form.

During the last ten years, the British public has become suddenly and acutely conscious of trading practices which affect

the pocketbook to a considerable degree. The continually in- creasing prices of everything has caused attention to be

directed not only to price and weight, but to quality of goods

and services.

For the most part, the Inspector of Weights and Measures

has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring that

standards of quality are maintained as described and to prosecute any misdescription.

For example, he may concern himself with the misdescription

of cloth, or the adulteration of liquor or milk, or the upgrading

of solid fuel (of which there are five principal grades), or the

testing of goods for which special safety standards are claimed,

or with many other matters for which claims are made.

This surge of public opinion is directed at protecting the consumer against sharp practices of all kinds, with the result

that the Inspector of Weights and Measures now finds himself

to be an Inspector of many kinds of trading standards of which

weights and measures constitute but one category.

The title of Inspector of Weights and Measures—albeit an

honourable title—is fast becoming a misnomer so far as Britain

is concerned, and possibly the title of "Inspector of Standards"

may emerge in order to more adequately describe the functions

for which he is now responsible.

Landmarks in the History of Weighing and Measuring, C. S. & C. B. Davison.

Historical Metrology, A. E. Berriman.

Weights and Measures Act, 1963, W. Roger Breed.

Measures and Weights Lawful for Use for Trade in the United Kingdom

Bibliography

APPENDIX A

Part I. Linear Measure

Imperial system:

1. Measures of

100 feet 66 feet (Chain)10 feet

8 feet

6 feet

5 feet

4 feet

1 yard (0.9144 metre)

50 feet 33 feet 20 feet

2 feet

1 foot

6 inches

1 inch 136
Metric system:

2. Measures of20 metres

10 metres

3 metres

2 metres

1 metre

1 decimetre

1 centimetre

Part II. Square Measures

Imperial system

1. Measures of, or of any multiple of, 1 square foot. Metric system:

2. Measures of, or of any multiple of, 1 square decimetre.

Part III. Cubic Measures

Measures of, or of any multiple of, % cubic yard.

Part IV. Capacity Measures

Imperial system

1. Measures of

Any multiple of 1 gallon

1 gallon

M> gallon

1 quart

1 pint

% pint

2. Measures of

1 bushel Measures of

8 fluid ounces

Mi pint

6 fluid ounces

1 gill 4 fluid ounces

Vi gill

% gill % gill % gill M gill % gill

y> bushel

3.

4 fluid drachms {}/> fl. oz.) 2 fluid drachms

1 fluid drachm (60 minims)

Metric system

4. Measures of

Any multiple of 10 litres 10 litres

5 litres

2\<, litres 2 litres

1 litre

1 peck

30 minims

10 minims

500 millilitres 20 millilitres 250 millilitres 10 millilitres 200 millilitres 5 millilitres 100 millilitres 2 millilitres 50 millilitres 1 millilitre 25 millilitres 137
Part V. Weights

Imperial system

1. Weights of

56 pounds cwt.) 50 pounds (% cental) 28 pounds (quarter) 20 pounds

14 pounds (stone)

10 pounds

7 pounds

5 pounds

4 pounds

2 pounds

2. Weights of- 500 400

300

200

10050

40

30

20

10

ounces

ounces

ounces

ounces

ounces ounces

ounces

ounces

ounces

ounces

troy- troy

troy

troy

troy

troy

troy

troy

troy

troy

1 pound (0.453 592 37 kilo) 8 ounces

4 ounces

2 ounces

1 ounce

8 drams

4 drams

2 drams

1 dram

5 ounces troy

4 ounces troy

3 ounces troy

2 ounces troy

1 ounce troy

0.5 ounce troy

0.4 ounce troy

0.3 ounce troy

0.2 ounce troy

0.1 ounce troy

0.05 ounce troy

% dram

100 grains

50 grains

30 grains

20 grains

10 grains

5 grains

3 grains

2 grains

1 grain

0.5 grain

0.3 grain

0.2 grain

0.1 grain

0.05 grain

0.03 grain

0.02 grain

0.01 grain

0.04 ounce troy

0.03 ounce troy

0.025 ounce troy

0.02 ounce troy

0.01 ounce troy

0.005 ounce troy

0.004 ounce troy

0.003 ounce troy

0.002 ounce troy

0.001 ounce troy

3. Weights of10 ounces apothecaries 1 ounce apothecaries (480 gr.) 1% scruples

8 ounces apothecaries 4 drachms 1 scruple

6 ounces apothecaries 2 drachms scruple

4 ounces apothecaries 1 drachm 6 grains

2 ounces apothecaries 2 scruples 4 grains

4. Weights of10 pennyweights

5 pennyweights

3 pennyweights

2 pennyweights

1 pennyweight (24 gr.)

Metric system:

5. Weights of

20 kilogrammes

10 kilogrammes

5 kilogrammes

2 kilogrammes

1 kilogramme

500 grammes

200 grammes

100 grammes

6. Weights of

50 grammes

20 grammes

10 grammes

5 grammes

2 grammes

1 gramme

500 milligrammes

200 milligrammes

100 milligrammes

50 milligrammes

20 milligrammes

10 milligrammes

5 milligrammes

2 milligrammes

1 milligramme

500 carats (metric) 200 carats (metric) 100 carats (metric) 50 carats (metric) 20 carats (metric)

10 carats (metric)

5 carats (metric) (1 gramme)

2 carats (metric)

1 carat (metric)

0.5 carat (metric)

0.25 carat (metric)

0.2 carat (metric)

0.1 carat (metric)

0.05 carat (metric)

0.02 carat (metric,

0.01 carat (metric)

138
APPENDIX B

Some Old English Series Saxon Lane-Measures Derived from Northern Foot

{13.2 in.)

3 barleycorns = 1 thumb 15 feet = 1 land-rod (perch)

3 thumbs = 1 palm 40 land-rods = 1 furlong- (furrow length)

4 palms = 1 foot Edward I Length-Measures—1305

3 grains of barley = 1 inch f>V> ulne = 1 rod

12 inches = 1 foot 40 rods in length and

3 feet = 1 ulna 4 rods in breadth = 1 acre Henry VII Capacity Standards—1497

2 pints = 1 quart 2 pottles = 1 gallon

2 quarts = 1 pottle 8 gallons = 1 bushel (800 oz. troy of wheat)

Henry III Weights—1266

32 wheat grains = 1 pennyround

20 pennies = 1 ounce

12 ounces = 1 London pound

The above scale was for spices, confections, apothecaries' goods

and coinage.

Henry VII Weights—1497

Troy: 24 grains = 1 pennyweight

20 pennyweights = 1 ounce

12 ounces = 1 troy pound = 5,760 gr. The above scale was for silver, gold, and bread.

Avoirdupois, for commercial use: 16 troy ozs. = 1 Merchants

pound avoirdupois = 7,680 gr. Avoirdupois, for wool weighing:

1 oz. = 437.5 gr. 16 ozs. = 7,000 gr.

APPENDIX C

A Selection of Old English Terms

Schooner: A beer measure of fairly recent use. In 1902 a Schooner of beer cost about 2d., whereas a pint cost 3d. The

origin of the name is obscure, but is said to have been first used

in Scotland by a Spirit Merchant for seamen who visited the

harbour of Glasgow.

Winchester Bushel: This is the earliest British Bushel (a

Saxon one) which was ordered by King Edgar towards the

middle of the tenth century, to be kept at Winchester.

Stone: The stone of 14 lb. is well known. The butcher used

a stone of 8 lb. In Darlington a stone of wool was 18 lb. A

stone of flax in Downpatrick was 24 lb. and in Belfast 16% lb. In the glass trade a stone is 5 lb. 139
Melte: Two bushels of coal (Kent).

Tod: 28 lb. of wool (Bradford).

Woffier: The name given to certain individuals of the criminal type who toured the shops of larger towns representing

themselves as bona fide scalemakers.

Nail: The discontinued cloth measure of 2% inches.

Wick Basket: A variety of quarter-chain measure.

Stillion: Old name for steelyard.

Yard of Ale: A drinking glass, resembling a coaching horn,

approximately a yard in length.

Black Jack: The name of a seventeenth century drinking

vessel made of leather.

Ale-Conner: An old time officer of the City of London whose

duty it was to inspect the measures of public houses.

Ell: The best known of all ancient measures. Believed to have

been derived from the word "elbow" and being the distance from

the elbow to the end of the middle finger, about 19 inches.

Ullage: The volume of available space in a container unoc- cupied by contents.

Officer for White Meal: An enforcement officer of about 200

years ago whose duty it was to see that butter weighed 16 ounces

to the pound, that milk was sold in a sealed measure, and whose

duty concerned the quality, price, and weight of bread.

Weighbaulk: A North of England name given to a weighbridge—probably from baulks of timber.

Mancurs Balance: A form of spring balance—about 1840.

Very compact and made from a piece of circular steel.

APPENDIX C

Weights and Measures of the United States of America

United States Yard and Pound

These are the same as the corresponding United Kingdom units

and are defined in terms of the metric system.

United States Hundredweight and Ton

When used without qualification, hundredweight and ton com- monly mean 100 lb. and 2,000 lb. These may be referred to as short hundredweight and short ton to distinguish them from the

long hundredweight of 112 lb. and the long ton of 2,240 lb., the

latter being the English versions.

United States Gallon

The prototype of the United States gallon was the Queen Anne

wine gallon of 1706. Its volume is 231 cubic inches.

140
United States Bushel

The prototype of the United States bushel which is used as a dry measure, was the Winchester bushel legalised by William III in 1696. It has a volume of 2,150.42 cubic inches.

THE ART OF MERCHANDISING—YESTERDAY,

TODAY, AND TOMORROW

by M. D. Smith, Executive Vice President, National

Canners Association, Washington, D.C.

Merchandising is probably as old as man's

discovery that each of us has talents of his

own and that these talents may have value

to others. Before the invention of money,

or even an organized barter system, an ac- complished maker of stone points or bolas

probably found that he could obtain more game by exchanging the fruits of his specialized labor for a fat deer or a share of

mammoth meat than he could by becoming

a hunter himself. Experimentation produced better products and put greater value on some of these points than others. As

evidence, right here in our own country, the grooved "Folsom"

arrowheads, produced by neolithic tribes in New Mexico, have

been found as far east as Kentucky ; and in the cliff dwellings of

the Southwest, beads of cowrie shells from Florida waters have

been discovered. In those dim days of the past, some enterprising early inhabitants of this land produced a product attractive

enough to go beyond the boundaries known to him in return for

something of value.

The earliest man who produced something a little bit better

in order to trade it for an article he wanted to possess was the

world's first merchandising man. Merchandising, by definition,

is the promotion of a product by making it more desirable, more

attractive, and easier to obtain. Anyone ambitious enough to want to continue his enterprise should also be perceptive enough

to make quality the most attractive attribute of his product.

John Ruskin knew this when he pointed out that "Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. There must be a will to produce a superior thing."

Packaging played its utilitarian role in the days of the ancients

just as it does today. When the keels of Phoenician trading

vessels grated on the sands of the Lycian shore in Asia Minor,

or the mud of caphtor on the Nile Delta, seafaring merchants set up shop at shipside. The graceful amphora, the large jug with

a pointed base and handles on either side, was developed specifically for this trade. Easy to lift overside, the pointed amphorae were thrust into the sand or mud shore. This probably constituted one of the world's first point-of-sale displays, as the

natives gathered to trade or fight; whichever it was to be, depended upon how effective the merchants were at establishing

good customer relations.

141
In those days, consumer dissatisfaction usually resulted in

wholesale butchery at the retail level. It became a matter of some importance, even survival, to display a line which was at

least as competitive as some of the cutrate items offered by the

Thracians or had more appeal than the olive oil of second-pressing

quality packaged in fancy filigreed amphorae by Corinthian merchants who were catering to the women's market in Tyre and

Cyrene. It was quite evident that some ground rules were needed.

Consumer groups were abroad in the land, and their accusations

that conical amphorae were designed to delude the buyer, not

as a convenience package, were believed in high places.

Now, I cannot vouch for the complaints of any specific ancient

Mediterranean consumer group, but I can say that accurate

weights and measures played a vital role in merchandising in

Biblical times; so much so, in fact, that weights and measures

are mentioned in five books of the Old Testament. Most specific,

perhaps, is the thirteenth verse of the twenty-fifth chapter of

Deuteronomy. It says, "You shall not have in your house two

kinds of weights. You shall not have in your house two kinds

of measures. A full and just weight you shall have and a full and just measure you shall have." Throughout history, all cul- tures have come to this same general conclusion, and merchandising, as an art, has benefitted from this concept, for it requires quality of product and skill in promotion to vie for con- sumer attention and, more important, repeat sales. The inclusions of Hebrew Law into the early Christian culture

of Europe remained largely a matter between the individual

and his church during the Dark Ages, when there was virtually no manufacturing and there were few, if any, standards of either

quality or merchandising. But with the rise of the guilds, merchandising became important once more, and pride of craftsmanship and product resulted in trademarks, hallmarks, and

brands which could be recognized by consumers everywhere, even

in lands far distant from the point of origin. Brands, in those

days, literally scored into the containers by hot irons, became

tools for merchandising. The name of a product was no longer

generic, but began to become proprietary.

Quality of products, standards of quality and merchandising

promotion have always gone hand-in-hand, and the same is even more true today than it was in the days of the great guilds. The

difference today is in the means of production and distribution

and, most important, the market.

Almost concurrent with the rise of the guilds, dedicated to standards of workmanship, was the establishment of mercantilism, a philosophy advocating the desirability of exports exceeding

imports for the acquisition of national wealth, vested in the

hands of rulers, for the support of armies and fleets to maintain

colonialism. The outstanding exception was Spain, which ac-'j quired most of her wealth from the gold and silver mines of her

colonies and, as a consequence, failed to develop industries of her own.What all the nations espousing mercantilism utterly failed tc recognize is the fact that the principal source of real wealth lay

in the productive and consuming powers of their own peopk

and that merchandising, whether practiced by Phoenicians 01 moderns, can be a key to this wealth.

142
The year 1965 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. It is also the 200th anniversary of the birth of free, private, competitive enterprise as we know it today. Years before the American Revolution, Yankee traders had been "merchandising" American products in the

pursuit of individual profits, directly in conflict with the English

mercantilism's state monopolies and Royal Charters. Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith voiced what most Americans al- ready believed and understood, that "every individual endeavors

to employ his capital so that its produce may be of greatest

value."

Our nation's history is witness to the industry and vigor

which this concept imparted to our people. It gave us the will to compete and the rewards of successful competition. It also

spawned the art of American merchandising which has affected

the business concepts of the entire world and has conferred on

all of us in the United States a standard of living undreamed of

by those who have gone before.

The history of the canning industry actually began with an

announcement from Napoleon that a prize would be offered to anyone who could devise a method of food preservation which

would enable his troops in the field and seamen in the Navy to receive a balanced diet to prevent scurvy. After 14 years, the

problem was solved by Nicolas Appert, who found that, if food

is sufficiently heated while sealed in a container which excludes

air, the food will keep. This is the fundamental principle in- volved in canning today.

Appert subsequently received the prize from the French, and

in 1810 published a book describing the procedures used in canning more than 50 canned foods—probably the industry's first standards.

While Appert knew that his process preserved foods, neither

he nor anyone else knew why. It remained for Pasteur to reveal

to the world that food spoiled through the process of

fermentation because of bacteria.

Two months following the publication of Appert's book in

France, an English merchant applied to King George III for a

patent with the additional provision that the container be of tin, or iron covered with tin, which a good tinsmith could turn out

at the rate of ten cannisters a day. This is probably the first projected production figure on record for canned food containers.

Although canning, as an industry, had its beginning in re- sponse to an urgent need by a government, consumers around

the world responded to this new and convenient food. They at once recognized it as nutritious, healthful, and easy to store, and

that it gave variety at any time of the year—the first time in history that this had ever been possible.

By 1813, canned foods (and by the way, the word "can" was

derived from the original term "cannister") were being tried by

the British Navy, and by 1818 considerable amounts were being

supplied to the Admiralty. Actually, the term "bully beef" is said to come from sailors' efforts to pronounce "soup and bouilli,"

a popular canned food item of those days.

Because canned foods steadily gained in acceptance among

soldiers, sailers, and explorers, thus at government level our

product enjoyed a fine reputation at the outset. 143
In this country, the history of canning dates from 1819, and

the first products packed included pickles, fruits, and condiments,

which were sold in South America and the Far East. In the same year, another canner produced canned salmon, oysters,

and lobsters. Merchandising still was not much of a factor, but ; canned products did go down the Ohio as provisions on the first river steamer in 1821.

Technological improvements in the young canning industry

boosted production during the same era as the great expansion

took place in both railroads and river transportation. Merchan-

dising was still in the "cracker barrel" era, and housewives in

New York and St. Louis, as well as farmers in Maine or Tennessee, were accustomed to sniffing the coffee beans in the bin,

sampling crackers from the barrel after lifting out the cat, feel- . ing the texture of flour in the sack, and generally subjecting the

merchandise to exposure of every kind. They were also inclined

to haggle. Canning injected quite a new element—the need for

trust. Here was an invisible product sealed up in a can. The drummer who displayed his samples to the store owner said that the can contained a vegetable, fruit, or fish. It said so on the label, too. But the customers could not see it, smell it, nor, as a rule,

try a sample without first buying it. The first sale was made on

trust, or curiosity, but the second sale had to be on merit. Such

merit was achieved and aided in merchandising this new product.

Competition, as we know it today, differs from that which existed

prior to the Civil War. When that great struggle began, the government commandeered almost all canned food production. By

the close of the war, canners had increased their output six-fold

and millions of soldiers and sailors had been introduced to the

new product. Even so, until 1870, there were fewer than 100 canners in the country.

Between 1870 and 1900, the industry developed the retort, the

pressure cooker, which enabled canners to control the cooking

temperature of sealed cans; the open-top cylindrical can was invented and many other technological improvements increased

production and acceptance. By 1900, the number of canning!

establishments had multiplied to more than 1,800 and the industry! was on a mass-production basis.

During the same period, the Western Frontier, as it had been

known, disappeared, mass communications became commonplace,

and the consumer began to emerge as a discerning, selective

group.

Until around the beginning of this century, the history of

merchandising in canning, while different in many respects with

merchandising in soft-goods and other products, shared with

other industry a somewhat haphazard regard for quality control. Appert's glass bottles and the early handmade tin cannisters were made with little concern for uniform dimensions and

capacity. If they were airtight, that was sufficient. The no- menclature of can sizes which grew up in the nineteenth century

and continued into this one gave little information concerning

volume and weights.

Actually, the developing methods of mass production, coupled

with the greater need for advertising to market the volumf

144

!
produced, worked hand-in-hand to produce that which was

desirable for the consumer. When brands became nationally advertised and distributed,

this, among many other factors, spurred standards which would

enable its various segments to compete, item-for-item and

product-for-product, to equate costs, volumes, dimensions, and

grades to some established yardstick.

But in merchandising today, all of us are up against a new

factor in our products—the psychological ingredient. Its importance has grown rapidly within the last 20 years, and right now

we are faced with a population in which 40 percent cannot re- member World War II and more than half cannot remember a

depression. An entire nation has now reached the point where

the majority of its people are more concerned with the kind of a life they live than in simply making a living. This is a profound change, and many of us here may find it contrary to our own experience, background, and social education.

What many of this tremendous group of young adults do not

fully understand is that much of the spadework which went into

the production of today's bounty, which they seem to take for

granted, was done before they were born, or at least when they were children. But lest we take too much credit for that fact,

we must remember that a revolutionary force is at work in the

marketplace and that it has been brought on by a whole new

social and economic class which differs as much from us as we

do from the pioneers. If our industry is to continue to be successful at merchandising, it had better learn as much about this

buyer group as about the components of the products which it hopes, through sales, to place on the market profitably.

George Bernard Shaw once said : "The fashion in which we

think changes like the fashion of our clothes, and it is difficult,

if not impossible, for most people to think otherwise than in the

fashion of their own period." By the same token, most of to- day's young adult generation is greatly influenced by the

thoughts and actions of others around them.

While these young people are eager to be independent, while

- they seem sophisticated (even those of today's brides who are most apt to have their first child at age 19), they may not, and

often do not, have the maturity needed to make responsible decisions. They are looking for advice. They want to know how

to live in this complex new world, but they want to define it for

themselves.

Merchandising today must utilize every known tool at its disposal and continue to select new methods to sample consumer

attitudes and shape consumer opinion. This burgeoning young

society could move quite quickly into unexpected and, at the moment, not fully understood attitudes and catch the merchandisers

completely off guard. One unknown and disturbing factor found

among this group is the vague suspicion that somehow they have

been fooled, on occasion, though by whom and by what are not

clear. This is why viewpoint becomes such a vital factor for the

merchandising men's consideration. True persuasion depends

upon the ability to give oneself an understanding of the viewpoint of the audience and the ability to influence rather than

satisfy the persuader of his own product's merit.

145
While this huge new consumer group, including newlyweds,

may appear to have attitudes which are often at variance with

our own, it is nonetheless a group seeking identity and stability.

It is a group which more often than not insists upon quality

which is properly related to price.

As I pointed out a few moments ago, many of these innovations which our young adults enjoy today and accept as products

of their own time were actually envisioned decades previously.

Our pace today is only an acceleration of the trend we, ourselves,

set quite some time ago. We have a responsibility to guide its direction.

Oddly enough, the first institutions to cater to the new "convenience" concept were the nation's banks. About the same

time that the supermarket became the Genesis of today's shopping center, banks did away with the austere tellers' cages and

iron grillwork, carpeted the cold marble floors, and embarked

on a program to merchandise money by making it easier to obtain and more attractive to borrow or save. Merchandising in

this new postwar environment resulted in more evening and

shopping hours, which reflected the proprietor's desires to ac- commodate the wants and needs of the consumer. There has

been a phenomenal rise in the number of discount houses, which,

according to their claim, have lower marketing costs and provide savings to the consumer, who knows his own needs and

requires a minimum amount of attention or salesmanship to consummate his purchase.

Occasionally, a consumer charges that a package is deceptive.

Because such suspicions are almost completely without foundation, we in the canning industry feel particularly strong about

this and are desirous of disseminating the facts regarding proper

filling and packaging techniques. We have pioneered in providing | a simplification of container program and descriptive labeling I standards for containers and labels which go far beyond the

statutory requirements. The field of packaging, as related to merchandising, has become a science in itself. This quiet revolution in the marketplace has brought about a j multiplicity of products directly attributable to industry's desire to provide variety of selection through a vast array of con- sumer articles. It has also confronted the consumer with an

equally broad responsibility to know and understand the facts, so that these products may be selected with wisdom. It is defi- nitely in the manufacturer's best interest that the consumer have I these facts, and the canning industry, as well as most other in- dustries which produce consumer items, has provided vast

amounts of information and material which would give

maximum information and protection to the consumer.

In summary flashback, let me remind you that in the early

1900's the canning industry was one of the leading advocates of a Federal food and drug law. Such a policy, as adopted by the

National Canners Association, assisted in making the law beneficial to the public and industry alike. As a consequence, good

faith was established early, thus permitting the closest cooperation between National Canners Association and regulatory agencies with respect to the formulation of regulations under the law

and even for revision and improvement of the law itself. 146
Over three decades ago, at the request of an association in- dustry committee, a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce, now known as the Office of Commodity Standards, un- dertook a survey to determine the number of can sizes then in

use. From the information collected, this government agency

and the industry representatives evaluated the data and presented a list of can sizes to industry for voluntary adherence.

The Simplified Practice Recommendation for Cans for Fruits

and Vegetables was issued in 1934, subsequent periodic

recommendations have been issued, and a present study is underway.

An important factor in this whole consideration of container

sizes is the need to give the consumer reasonable choice ; also to allow for future marketing innovations, without confusion, while

at the same time permitting savings in that the canner would

find it expensive to make changes or introduce new sizes without good reason. Through its simplified practice, can-size

programs, our industry has successfully met consumer desires

for the widest variety of products and most convenient size of

container. Most important, the program has been remarkably

sensitive and responsive to changes in family size, consumer

demand, and the increasing variety of foods available.

The American housewife of today has a choice of some 8,000

items when she visits her large grocery store—the largest selec- tion in history. Even so, food companies are spending about

$125 million a year on research to widen the variety of their

products by introducing new ones and improving existing ones. According to a recent issue of U.S. News and World Report, by

1975 the big supermarkets will carry 12,000 items, and half of

them will be different from those sold today.

Many of these thousands of new products are test-marketed,

and virtually all have to be merchandised to be successful. The

element of trust by the consumer must prevail, and that trust

will still be based in the public's confidence in the products, co- operation, and responsibility of our industry. The latter implies

it also involves considerable public education and understanding.

For example, in spite of all the research, surveys, package

testing, and advertising which goes into the launching of any new

food product, prices today are generally more favorable to the consumer than a casual glance back at the "good old days" might

indicate. In the first place, in the "good old days," the new items

of today could not be purchased at all. In the realm of convenience foods, U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show that

food in partly prepared form actually costs $1.07 less per $100

spent than do fresh foods, without attributing any value to the

time required to prepare the fresh food.

Another challenge to canners is to educate consumers regarding fill of containers. Many items packed by our members are

subject to Fill of Container Regulations. As you know, this

regulation calls for a can to be virtually filled to the top, thus

allowing the slight leeway for expansion when the food is heated so that the can does not bulge. You gentlemen are well

acquainted with the fact that we in the canning industry have

a long history of striving for accuracy in the areas in which

you have particular interest. We are making a determined ef- 147
fort to educate the public in this regard. As an association, we

do much to inform the general public of the advantages of the

products of our industry. This helps the merchandising efforts

of canners. Before two separate Senate committees, I have

traced the canning industry's interest in protecting consumers from deception. We feel, therefore, that we are sharing with

you in fulfilling our mutual basic objectives.

To aid our members in this phase of merchandising by establishing and maintaining trust, since 1952 we have distributed more than 12 million leaflets explaining our Descriptive Labeling

Program to housewives, students, teachers, and youth groups, as

well as to adult education programs, etc. An additional 21 million leaflets devoted to labeling and other pertinent consumer

subjects have been distributed in the past 10 years to these or

similar groups. Our members, representing 80 to 85 percent of

canning firms packing fruits, vegetables, seafoods, meats, and

specialty items, through the National Canners Association, annually spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on continuing con- sumer and trade-educational programs, and we produce

educational publications which include up-to-date information on

labeling, can sizes, and other data. These publications are made

available to teachers, home economists, youth groups, and

others. Actually, statements which we have disseminated con- cerning these vital consumer-oriented subjects have had a distribution of more than 33 million in the last 10 years, and much

of this material has considerable repeat-use.

Turning for a moment from the consumer to the more technical aspects of weights, measures, and standards, there has been

a revolution in packaging materials and in technology, as a visit to a modern supermarket will verify. We anticipate that this

trend will accelerate.

There is bound to be a vast increase in mechanization of production operations which will increase production rates. You

may rest assured that we are aware of the challenges these

changes present to the food industry generally as they relate to weights and measures.

In order to further improve filling performance, more and more use is being made of statistical methods. These statistical

quality control methods not only help to locate possible sources

of error and provide for immediate corrective measures, but also

set industry operating goals of uniformity and are being used

by regulatory officials in the enforcement of weights and

measures laws.

As a matter of fact, you will, I believe, be interested in vari- ous quotes from my testimony before the Senate Commerce

Committee in May of this year:

Within this past year a number of states have adopted a type-size scale for the quantity declaration on the labels of consumer commodities, in ac- cordance with the recommendation of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures. Canned food labels have no difficulty complying with these

type-size requirements. But we see no valid basis for the promulgation of a Federal type-size scale, which at best would do nothing more than dupli- cate existing requirements already adopted in a great many states, and at worst could impose different and varying size requirements that would lead

to untold confusion and needless costs. Here, again, there is no need and

obvious duplication.

* * * * * * * 148
The idea of establishing standard quantities for packing various commodities is not new. The 27th National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1937 recorded an interest in standardization of quantities in which products

could be sold. Ten years later, in 1947, the National Conference in their summary of objections to such standardization referred to: "the impossibility of canning fruits, vegetables, meat products, seafoods, etc., having dif- ferent specific gravities, on a net-content liquid capacity basis without

creating a multiplicity of slightly different can sizes or violating slack fill provisions of existing law."

% ^< ^ %L ^ ;f: Our industry experiences over the past decades have made us cognizant of

a great many technological problems which I shall not elaborate. The fill of

a canned food container and the specification of net weight for some commodities can most informatively be specified in terms of fluid ounces, or the water capacity of the can. For other commodities, it is best developed

against what is called the drained weight. In still others the canning industry, in collaboration with FDA, has developed formulas for relating what is called pressed weight to input. We have done all of this under the provisions of the existing FDA Act. There is no need whatever for additional regulatory authorization. In closing, I would like to reaffirm my industry's faith in the

historic dedication of the staff of the National Bureau of Standards and that of weights and measures officials in our States

and Cities. Your 50th anniversary meeting marks a most important half-century of service to the American people. As a segment of that great people, we in the canning industry congratulate you for your contributions and know that you will

continue to merit their trust.

149

AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1965

(J. H. Lewis, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

THE NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION—DEDICATION

TO PROGRESS AND PRECISION

by W. S. Fuller, Vice President, H. J. Fuller

and Sons, Inc., Columbus, Ohio

kY" ~~ HUE It is a sincere pleasure for me to have

I this opportunity to be a part of this 50th

W Anniversary Program of the National Conference, and I am honored that my first

; official act as the new president of the National Scale Men's Association is to bring

Mmt greetings from NSMA to this very special

ft A I Conference on Weights and Measures. This

i M 1 Golden Anniversary has double significance

Ifl I for me because the National Scale Men's

I Association will also be celebrating its 50th

^^dfl Anniversary when it meets in Atlanta this

spring for its Annual Technical Conference.

So it is with true appreciation that I bring congratulations on

your anniversary from the National Scale Men's Association to the National Conference on Weights , and Measures.

Your Executive Secretary, Mr. Jensen, has suggested a most

provocative title for my address—"The National Scale Men's Association—Dedication to Progress and Precision." A very soulsearching title. I like to think that the National Scale Men's

Association has this dedication to progress and precision, always

has had this dedication, and always will have this dedication

because, truly, this is the function of any industry's technical

society: To keep it abreast of the times and to lead it into the

future through education; to protect the standards of

the industry, and to constantly try to raise the sights and ethics

of the industry.

But this is quite a responsibility—to maintain progress while

protecting standards, precision, and accuracy—especially in an

industry like ours, where the word precision means so much.

For man's economic survival—and even his ethical survival

depends upon the degree to which precision is maintained by the

scale industry.

It hasn't been easy. In fact it has been a great temptation in

the past to soft peddle the dedication to precision in order to promote progress in a lagging industry. I am quite sure that some of our associated industries have taken over a considerable

volume of business from the scale industry with more progressive, but less accurate, measuring systems. But, ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to say that our industry has remained true

to its responsibility to society. Not only has your technical society, NSMA, been true to this dedication to progress and precision, but so has our manufacturers association, S.M.A.—and,

of course, the work of this National Conference on Weights and

151
Measures has been most effective. Talk about dedication to progress and precision! We can all be proud of the dedicated men

who have worked so hard and so long on a revision for Handbook 44. A revision that would maintain the precise standards

of our industry, but do it in a very up-to-date and progressive manner. This responsibility to society has been shared by all facets of our industry.

I would like to give you a little background on the scale in- dustry's technical society : Some history of the National Scale

Men's Association, how NSMA has always been dedicated to precision, and what is now being done by NSMA to help the scale

industry and weights and measures progress.

The National Scale Men's Association was organized in 1916,

almost 50 years ago, to fulfill a very urgent need for a technical

society in a very important and highly technical industry.

NSMA, however, was slow to grow. In fact, the entire scale in- dustry has been slow to grow because industry in general was

becoming mechanized and resented the time required for precision weighing. Even today the membership of NSMA is still under 1,000. But, through the years, NSMA membership has

been strong in other ways, if not in numbers. The leadership

of the National Scale Men's Association has always been

dedicated to maintaining high standards for the scale industry.

One way this has been accomplished is through the NSMA

Annual Technical Conference. Each year produces a better and more comprehensive technical program where all progressive

ideas on weighing can be presented. But, by NSMA's policy of

stressing accuracy, the originators of these progressive innovations, have been forced to further develop their ideas into acceptable precision devices. If these new ideas had not been exposed

at these NSMA Technical Conferences, they never could have

been refined into some of our modern weighing systems.

Another means of maintaining high standards for the industry

has been promoted by paying honor to the men in our industry

who have stood for high professional standards, and who have

contributed greatly to the Scale Industry. Each year, the National Scale Men's Association, pays tribute to certain deserving

men by publicly presenting them with a special award.

In the Division Organization of NSMA there are many opportunities present for scale men to work together for the good

of their industry, for scale men to learn more of their technology, and for scale men to develop a professional attitude on a

local level where they can recognize the need for precision in our industry.

NSMA has backed and helped promote many projects for the

good of the scale industry. To name a few: Contributions were made by NSMA towards the publishing of a book on Scale Terminology and Definitions by the Scale Manufacturers Association; NSMA has always helped in the promotion of Weights and

Measures Week; NSMA has been active in encouraging the

adoption of Handbook 44 by most of the States in the union;

NSMA has compiled a complete and up-to-date library of weights

and measures laws; NSMA has advocated the transition to thej

decimal and metric systems in our country. These are some of

152
the things which the National Scale Men's Association have been

doing for years to help the industry maintain its standards of

precision, and at the same time to promote its growth.

However, the age of automation has forced a new kind of

progress upon us. Industry in general has progressed from the

age of mechanization to the age of automation. The scale is now an integral part of the production process ; and, at last, the

scale industry is growing at a very rapid rate. As you can imagine, the need for education in our industry is critical, and at the same time the need to protect our standard of precision is paramount.

To help satisfy these needs, our industry has helped to establish a Measurement Science Curriculum at the university level, at Alfred Tech, State University of New York. This could well

be the most important advancement in all our fifty years. Not

only will this technical course help satisfy our educational needs,

the outgrowth of this endeavor will create a feedback effect that

will make our industry grow even faster.

As you can see, the demands of NSMA to progress with this

growth, and to provide the necessary technical society services, are tremendous. But NSMA is taking the necessary steps to meet this challenge. For one thing, NSMA has adopted a new

Constitution. A Constitution which will give the Divisions more

direction and activity, which means that the Association is or- ganized for growth. Already the National Scale Men's Association has established a Scholarship Fund for sending young

men to Alfred Tech where they can study measurement science.

And I predict that the National Scale Men's Association will soon have a full-time staff that will put the Society in a position to publish the much needed technical handbook on scales

and to sponsor seminars for upgrading scale men who cannot go

back to school.

The membership of the National Scale Men's Association

should reach 5,000 members in the next three years. Some of

you may ask—just where are all of these members going to come

from? The National Scale Men's Association is not made up of

a group or several groups ; it is not an organization of companies. No, NSMA is an organization of individuals. All persons

who are interested in the weighing industry are eligible for

membership. This not only includes scale servicemen, but scale

salesmen, engineers of weighing systems, users of scale equipment, and by all means, weights and measures men. We are all scale men.

Yes, the purpose of NSMA is just what the title of this talk

implies—dedication to progress and precision. To protect the

standards, performance, and ethics of our industry—and to promote a professional attitude by all our members ; to educate our members in the unique techniques of our industry—and to educate society in the importance of the scale industry, weights and

measures, and the scale man ; to cooperate with this Conference

in every possible way to promote and help with your important

work.

If any of you weights and measures men, you scale men, in

this room, are not members of NSMA, I want to give you a per153
sonal invitation. I want to encourage you and your associates

to join NSMA—your technical society. And to dedicate yourselves to maintaining progress and precision in your profession.

THE MEASUREMENT OF LENGTH: YESTERDAY

TODAY, AND TOMORROW

by Lewis Barnard, Jr., Chairman of the Board,

Lufkin Rule Company, Saginaw, Michigan

Introduction

If man were not a social being, he would

have no need for units of measurement,

standards of measurement, or measuring

devices as we know them today. But, man

is a social being. He lives among other

men and must communicate with them.

Systems of measurement are a form of communication.

In all probability, he has always felt some need for measurement. The earliest

man, seeking a cave for shelter, tried to find one in which he could stand erect. He was

a unit of measure, a standard of measure,

and a measuring device, all at the same time. As he began to recognize and satisfy other needs, such as clothing, he pieced

together skins and hides to cover him and his mate. Again,

however, he had no need for any system of clothing sizes like that required in the garment industry today.

As long as man produced only for his own consumption, he

had no need to create names for units of measurement. He had

no need for standards of measurement. He required no measuring devices other than the most rudimentary type he might choose

to make for himself.

Measurement of Length—Yesterday

However, when human beings began to depend on each other,

started working together, and began exchanging goods, a com- mon language of measurement became necessary. As in other!

forms of communication, a system of names had to be devised

1 this time for units of measurement. It became necessary to es-l tablish standards, so that these units would have the same'

meaning for every one who used them. It also became necessary

to create devices that measured these units and standards.

The Royal Egyptian Cubit

Although there is evidence that many early civilizations devised units of measurement and some tools for measuring, the

Royal Egyptian Cubit generally is recognized as the first! standard of linear measurement.

It is believed that the Royal Egyptian Cubit came into being

about 3,000 B.C., almost 5,000 years ago. It was decreed equal

to the length of the forearm plus the width of the palm of the

Pharaoh ruling at that time.

154
The distinctive feature of this system, however, was the formation of a Royal Cubit Master. It was executed in black

granite, "to endure for all time." Cubit sticks, made either of

wood or ordinary granite, were the tools of measurement used

by the thousands of individual workers involved in the construction of tombs, temples, and other royal monuments. It was decreed that each cubit stick should be returned at each full moon

to be compared with the Royal Master. Failure to do so was

punishable by death. Although such extreme punishment seems

incredible today, it does underscore the importance which the

Egyptians placed on their standard of measurement.

To recapitulate, we see that the Egyptians, some 5,000 years

ago, had a system of measurement. The Royal Cubit was the

unit. The Royal Master was the standard. The cubit stick was

the measuring device. In addition, they set precedent for government decree in standardizing measurement. This is indicated

I by the fact that it was the Pharaoh's forearm and palm that

i provided the basis for the cubit, and by insistence on regular,

| periodic checking of the cubit stick.

Details of the Royal Cubit.—To achieve some understanding

of the versatility of the Royal Cubit and the cubit stick requires no more than a brief review of its divisions and subdivisions.

The basic unit in the cubit was the digit. There were 28 digits

in a Royal Cubit. Four digits equalled a palm. Five digits

equalled a hand. Twelve digits, or three palms, equalled a small

span. Fourteen digits (V> cubit) equalled a large span. Sixteen

digits, or four palms were one t'ser. Twenty digits, or five palms, were a remen. Twenty-four digits, or six palms, were a

small cubit.

A variety of measurements to fractions of a digit was also

possible. The 14th digit on a cubit stick, for instance, was di- vided by scribed lines into 16 equal parts. The next digit was

divided into 15 equal parts, and so on, to the 28th digit which

was divided into two equal parts. Thus, measurement could be

made in digit fractions with any denominator from 2 through

16. The smallest division, Vie of a digit, was equal to %48 of a

Royal Cubit.

Accuracy of Measurement.—With the Royal Cubit Master as

the standard and periodic checking of cubit sticks against the

master, the Egyptians achieved amazing degrees of accuracy.

For instance, although thousands of individual workers were in- volved in building the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, through the use

of the cubit stick, the length of the sides of this huge monument

vary no more than y, 0 of one percent from the mean length of

9 069.45 inches. This is only about 4% inches in 755 feet. Translating the Royal Cubit—At this point, it is advisable to re-emphasize the communications aspect of measurement. To

the Egyptian worker, cubits, palms, digits, hands, spans, and

remens were common, everyday terms. To the 20th century

worker, they are meaningless until they are translated into

present-day units.

Thus, the Royal Cubit takes on familiar proportions when it

is described as being equal to about 20.6 inches. A digit was

slightly less than % of an inch—,738 of an inch, to be more ex- 155
egyptian royal cubit system

An outstanding feature of the Royal Egyptian Cubit system was the Royal Master, made of black granite, which became the standard. Working cubit sticks,

of wood or regular granite, had to be compared with

it each full moon. The basic unit in the cubit was

the digit, about wide. Four digits equalled a palm. Twelve digits, or three palms, were a span. Sixteen digits, known as a t'ser, measured 11.8", very close to our present-day foot. The Royal Cubit was used in construction of pyramids, temples and

other royal monuments, and achieved amazing ac- curacy in measurement.

m » ad -#» '(£. sC 4- r w TrT.i 9 G

1 II in a. •X -f

'"SF

llllll III ill i inn III! ili I |

I the small cubit

The small cubit was used in building projects not of a royal nature.

It was 24 digits long, compared to the 28 digits of the Royal Cubit.

Figure 1.

act. The smallest division on a cubit stick, '/i „ of a digit, trans

lates into .046 of an inch. One t'ser, which was 16 digits, ii easier to visualize as 11.80 inches, or close to our 12-inch foot

156
Man as His Own Yardstick

The similarity that appears in units and standards of measure among civilizations widely separated by both time and geography has been a matter of conjecture. One logical explanation is that trade, commerce, exploration, and military conquest spread

certain units from one country to another.

For instance, the Greeks under Alexander the Great, con- quered Egypt in 322 B.C. It is entirely possible that the Greeks

adopted and adapted Egyptian units of measure. The Greek

Olympic cubit contained 24 digits, the same as the small cubit

of Egypt. The fact that the Greek digit is .05 of an inch longer

than the Egyptian digit presents no real obstacle to believing

that the Greek measure was based on the Egyptian.

Another explanation for similarity is that the ancients, whenever and wherever they lived, probably started measuring by us- ing the handiest instruments at their disposal—their hands,

their arms, their feet. A finger, or digit, such as the thumb or

the middle finger, understandably would be a basic unit.

There is ample evidence throughout history that parts of the

human body were used as units and standards. King David I of Scotland, in 1150, ruled that the inch was the mean measure

of the thumbs of a large man, a medium-sized man, and a small man. Also, in the 12th century, King Henry I of England decreed the yard to be the distance from the tip of his nose to the

end of his thumb. In the 16th century, the rod was established

as the sum of the length of the left feet of the first 16 men out

of church on a certain Sunday.

In fact, it is not hard to imagine that if we had to start today

to create units and standards of measurement, we would use our

fingers, hands, arms, and feet. We very conceivably could come

up with an American "cubit," divided into digits, palms, and

other natural units. And, despite the fact modern man generally

is larger than ancient man, a unit such as a finger would not be

much different in size from the Egyptian digit.

Land Measurement

Land measurement, too, has its roots in antiquity. The development of surveying instruments appears to have been assisted,

at least in part, by development of instruments used in astronomy. The ancients made unusual strides in astronomy through

careful observation of the heavens.

About 4,000 B.C., for instance, the Chaldeans used a device

known as a "merchet" for measuring time and meridian. It consisted of a slotted palm leaf through which to sight and a

bracket from which a plumb bob was suspended. A line was

projected by sighting through the slot and past the plumb-bob

string.

The Egyptians, too, are known to have developed methods and

instruments for measuring land. They had a system of land

taxes, and with the Nile annually overflowing its banks, benchmarks and surveying techniques had to be developed, so that

property boundaries could be reestablished when the flooding was over. 157
Knotted ropes are known to have been used in measuring land,

and the Egyptians had a knowledge of angles and calculations

for determining areas. Some of our present units of land measurement are related to man and his activities. For instance, the distance a yoke of oxen could plow without stopping was called a "furrow long."

This distance was taken as 40 lengths of the pole or goad used

in driving the oxen. The "furrow long" eventually was standardized as % of a mile. Today, of course, the furlong is % °f a

mile. This is equal to 220 yards. With 40 poles in a "furrow

long," the pole, or the rod, is equal to 5% yards, or 16^/. feet. A strip of land which could be plowed in one day was designated as four ox-goads wide. This would make the area four

rods wide and 40 rods long. This amount was legalized under

King Edward I of England, in the 13th century, as an acre. It

is believed this word derives from the Anglo-Saxon word,

"aecer," which meant a plowed or seeded field. Incidentally, the acre in the United States today is the same as that decreed by

Edward I some seven centuries ago.

Devices of Measurement

To this point, any measuring device we have considered has

been comparable to the ruler or the yardstick—essentially a flat surface, with various divisions and subdivisions marked in some

manner.

Refinements began to appear in the 17th century. In 1631,

for instance, Pierre Vernier evolved the principle of a sliding

scale that made reading of a linear measurement much more ac- curate than was possible with a scale as ordinarily divided. It makes use of our visual ability to bring two lines accurately

into coincidence.

Also, in the 1630's, William Gascoigne devised adjustable indicators to measure stars with the aid of a telescope. Measuring

dimensional adjustments to a few thousandths of an inch were

possible by mathematical calculation of screw movement. This,

in effect, was a forerunner of the micrometer.

In 1772, James Watt invented a micrometer. It had two

dials. One was divided into 100's, and made possible reading of

the measuring face in .01 of an inch. The second dial permitted

readings to ]/2 5c. of an inch.

In 1789, Eli Whitney started "duplicate part production" of

firearms. He devised jigs and fixtures to serve as gages. This was the forerunner of mass production and progressive gaging.

The 19th century witnessed the introduction of devices such

as micrometer calipers, micrometer sheet metal gages, vernier

calipers, vernier protractors, and a system of gage block sizes

based on arithmetical progression.

As the tools of measurement for industry grew in number and

application, advances also were made in the development of tools

for surveying. Naturally, the number of devices and instruments in industry was much greater because of the variety of

manufacturing operations.

In 1620, Sir Edmund Gunter developed an instrument for

measuring land that consisted of 100 pieces of steel rod, linked

together by small rings. It had a total length of 66 feet and

158
was known as Gunter's chain. The units for recording distances were chains and links. A chain, of course, was 66 feet. A link was .66 of a foot, or 7.92 inches. A mile was 80 chains. An

acre was equal to 10 square chains. The 66-foot length of the

chain also was equal to four rods. Ten-link intervals on the chain were marked with metal tabs.

Another chain, known as the Ramden or engineer's chain, also

had 100 links, but each link was one foot long, and total length

of the chain was 100 feet. This, of course, necessitated specifying which chain was used in a surveying project when distances were expressed in links and chains.

Much of the measurement for the subdivision of public lands

in the United States was made with the Gunter's chain, and

many notes and records are still expressed in chains and links.

When steel-making knowledge and technology advanced to the

point where it was possible to make lengths of thin steel ribbon,

the Gunter's chain began to be replaced by steel tape measures. They were more compact and easier to handle than the link

chain. In addition, the chain with all of its links and rings had

so many surfaces subject to wear that it became inaccurate after

repeated use. The steel tape also presented some problems, because it was

affected by temperature. Although it was possible, by calculation, to compensate for the expansion or contraction of steel, the

search was made for a metal with a smaller coefficient of

expansion.

This proved to be a nickel-iron alloy, which is now available

under a variety of brand names. Where temperature differences

encountered are relatively small, there is no need for correction

of readings with this type of tape. The nickel-iron alloy tape

became the standard device for taking baseline measurements

that serve as the known factor in other survey measurements

and computations. Such tapes used in surveying missile tracking

sites are now calibrated by the National Bureau of Standards to about a part in a million. In rough terrain, survey measurements have to be corrected

to straight-line distances. Over the years, aids have been developed, such as the transit and the theodolite, to permit reading

of angles of slope. Through the use of trigonometry, straightline distances are then calculated.

Standards of Measurement

Although the genius of individual men produced advances in

instruments of measurement at various times and places throughout history, the generally confused political and social state of

mankind, in general, militated against orderly development of

standards of measurement.

Even the unification of nations was slow in coming, and the

existence of many small, autonomous units of government

worked against uniform standards of measure. Even the standards that were decreed were not too helpful, because they were

not easily reproducible. These would include standards such as

"the sum of the length of the left feet of the first 16 men out of

church on Sunday," or "the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the thumb."

159
Some rulers even capitalized on the lack of standards by using

overgenerous measures for the collection of taxes. In fact, this was one of the causes of the French Revolution in 1789.

It was one of the reasons why the French Republican Committee, in 1790, turned its attention to measurement. Their unit of

length, adopted in 1790, was the length of the meridian which

passes through Paris and extends from the North Pole to the

Equator. Divided in 10 million parts, this was the meter.

Experience proved the difficulty of using the earth as a standard of measure. Thus, in 1799, a metal standard, known as the

Meter of the Archives, was adopted as the official standard. The

metric system met resistance, sometimes stormy, for almost 50

years in France. In 1837, Louis Philippe finally was able to impose the metric system in all measures except time.

Great Britain also was having its problems with standard of

measurement in the latter part of the 18th century. For instance, they had at least three different miles and two units for

subdivisions. To correct this situation, the British Imperial

Yard was agreed upon as the basis for all linear measurements.

The one standard that was made was destroyed by fire in 1834.

A new standard was constructed and adopted in 1855. Since

1866, it has been in the custody of the British Board of Trade.

In 1870, the first of a series of conferences was held for the

purpose of establishing the metric system internationally. Delegates from 15 countries attended. In 1889, the work of this con- ference was approved. Thirty prototype meters were made from

a platinum-iridium alloy. The one most nearly equal to the Meter of the Archives was selected as the International Prototype

Meter. The others were distributed to participating countries,

including two to the United States. The bar designated as No.

27 has become our National Prototype Meter.

In 1892, using the principles of interferometry, Albert A.

Michelson determined the wave-length of the red-cadmium line

of the light spectrum, and established measurements by light waves as potential standards. In 1927, an International Conference on Weights and Measures established 1 553 164.13 cadmiumred wavelengths as the length of the International Prototype

Meter. In 1960, an international standard of length was adopted

which expressed the meter as 1 650 763.73 wave-lengths of krypton 86. The particular value of using light wavelengths is that they

provide a natural, indestructible linear standard, with accuracy

to within a millionth of an inch, that can be reproduced anywhere on earth.

An important milestone in measurement, of course, came at the beginning of the 20th century, with establishment in the

United States of the National Bureau of Standards in 1901.

Subsequent development of mass-production techniques and

emergence of the United States as the world's leading industrial

power have combined to make measurement standards and re- finement of measuring devices of utmost importance in the

American scheme of things.

160
The universal

length of a brick was a span. Like the Egyptian

span, it is about 9 inches.

the meter

1790, the original meter was

created as one ten-millionth part of the meridian,

from the North Pole to the Equator, running

through Paris. The International Prototype Meter

bar. made in 1889. is in a Paris suburb.

Figure 2.

161
Measurement of Length—Today

Any decision on what constitutes "today" in a discussion of

measurement of length must be arbitrary. As in any evolutionary process, it is difficult to keep today from merging with yesterday and tomorrow. But, for our purposes, let us consider as "today" the period from 1940 to the present. The 25 years since

1940 have brought unprecedented growth and advances in sci- ence, engineering, and industry. Each advance places new

demands on measurement, not only in achieving precision and

accuracy, but also a means of communicating new information.

Degrees of Precision

Much has been said and written about the growing emphasis

on precision manufacture, shrinking tolerances, and finer

finishes. Examples are cited, particularly in spacecraft manufacture, of measurements to a millionth of an inch. Generally

speaking, however, tolerances in the one-thousandth inch range

are still considered precision in most industrial applications.

One author, Ted Busch, whose Fundamentals of Dimensional

Metrology, Part I, was published, in 1964, by Delmar Publishers,

Inc., Albany, New York, has cautioned : "Don't sneer at thousandths of an inch. . . They do not put space vehicles in orbit,

but they do provide the money for all far-out projects. They are

the dimensions that keep the modern mass producing economy

alive and progressing."

The Role of Magnification

Even taking this seemingly common and undemanding re- quirement for "precision" manufacturing, how do you measure

a thousandth of an inch? About the smallest division on a rule

that is discernible to the naked eye is %0 o °f an inch. This, of

course, is 10 thousandths. Thus, you would have to divide the

Y100 graduation into 10 parts to achieve a graduation of a thousandth of an inch. This discrimination between such small

divisions could not be achieved by the human eye. The answer to reading graduations of a thousandth of an inch or smaller is to find some way to magnify the readings. This can be achieved mechanically by such instruments as a micrometer or dial indicator, optically by comparators, pneumatically

by air pressure gages, or electronically by electronic gaging

systems.

A micrometer, for instance, achieves magnification through

the relationship of radial screw movement to lateral movement

of the screw. The screw, or spindle, on a micrometer has 40

threads to the inch. It has a thimble attached and threads into a graduated hub. One revolution of the thimble will move the

spindle laterally the distance of one thread. This is y40 of an

inch, which is the same as .025 of an inch. Now, let us assume

the circumference of the thimble is iy> inches, which is the same as 1.5 inches. Then, to move the spindle laterally .025 of an inch, we must make one complete revolution of the thimble,

which represents a total thimble movement of 1.5 inches. To

move the spindle laterally .001 of an inch, we would turn the

162
thimble y25 of a revolution. This represents a thimble movement

of Y2 5 of 1.5 inches, or .060 inches. We have thus magnified the

.001 inch motion of the spindle into .060 of an inch on the thimble. We have achieved a magnification of 60 times and made

it possible to read .001 of an inch quite easily.

Dial indicators use the mechanical principle of gears to magnify distances. A system of racks, pinions, and gears translate

the relatively small movement of contact points into readable

distances on dial faces. For instance, a dial indicator with a diameter of 2% inches has a dial circumference of approximately

8% inches. If it is graduated to .0001 of an inch and has 100

graduations, it achieves a magnification of more than 800 times,

because .0001 of an inch movement of the contact point is represented by a graduation on the dial of more than .080 of an

inch. Readings to .00005 of an inch are possible with some dial

indicators.

As another example of magnification, let us consider electronic

systems. Briefly, an electronic instrument changes physical

movement of a gaging head into e^ctrical energy, then magnifies the electrical energy and changes it back into mechanical

energy, which is reflected by the movement of a needle across

a meter face. As an example, let us take an electronic system,

which is on the market, that provides a magnification factor of

15,000. It can measure a distance as small as .000002 (2 millionths) of an inch. On the meter face, this is represented by a

space of .030 of an inch. An added advantage of electronics is that different magnifications, or ranges, can be built into the

system. Changes from one range to another can be made with

the simple flick of a switch. This versatility is not possible with

mechanical magnification.

Limitations Inherent in Magnification

Despite the great strides made in finer measuring and precision manufacturing, perfection has escaped human beings in

the field of measurement as it has in all areas. Each method of magnification, such as those discussed briefly

above, has its inherent limitations. In the micrometer, for in- stance, any deviation from perfection in the pitch of the screw

threads could cause variations at any point within the range of

the instrument. Any wear on the spindle or the anvil, which

are the micrometer parts that contact the object being measured,

also will cause inaccuracies.

In dial indicators, the same problem of correctly-shaped and

pitched gear teeth, and wear from metal-to-metal contact, work

against perfection. In addition, there is the problem of inertia

and balance in the dial hand. In electronic systems, safeguards

must be built in against fluctuations in electrical currents, and

there are practical limits, such as cost and space, to such

safeguards. Accuracy of the readout meter also represents a

potential limiting factor.

As a result of these inherent limitations, most manufacturers

of measuring devices specify some limitation on the accuracy

of the instrument. Obviously, these limitations are not too restrictive, because industry has achieved outstanding success in

163
mass precision manufacture of the many items we all use every

day, and also in more sophisticated and smaller volume ventures,

such as satellites, rockets, missiles, and spacecraft.

The Rule of Ten

One means of overcoming the limitations of measuring devices is to apply what is known as the "Rule of 10." This means

that a measuring device should be selected that can measure to one more decimal place than the established tolerance of the

part it is measuring; in other words, the instrument should

divide the tolerance into 10 parts.

For example, if the measurement of a part is expressed with

a tolerance of plus or minus .001 inch, the instrument selected

for measuring should be toleranced to .0001 inch. This still does

not eliminate all possibility of error, but it does reduce the possibility substantially. In practice, it is sufficiently accurate. Compounding this problem, on occasion, is what is known as the "zero of ignorance." Here is how this works. A designer

may feel that a given part should have a measurement with a

tolerance of plus or minus .001 inch. To be on the safe side,

however, he adds another decimal place and specifies the

measurement with a tolerance of plus or minus .0001 inch.

As a theoretical venture, let us see what could happen if the

"zero of ignorance" were compounded all along the line by the

application of the "Rule of 10." This will lead us quickly beyond

the realm of the practical, but it will also give us some insight as

to why efforts are being made continually to find ways of taking

finer and finer measurements with a greater degree of certainty.

This is how it would work. A designer, to be safe, expresses a part measurement with a tolerance of plus or minus .0001

inch. The production worker, applying the "Rule of 10," would

then have to have a gage to measure to .00001 inch. The master

to set the gage would have a tolerance of plus or minus .000001.

The instruments to calibrate the setting master would have to j have a tolerance of .0000001 inch.

Thus, we see that the theoretical application of these rules soon takes us beyond the limits of practicality for normal in- dustrial production. However, measurements this fine are be- ; ing made daily in laboratories all over the world. And, in the

light of human progress thus far, who can say that today's

laboratory achievement may not be tomorrow's production norm?

Measuring Devices at Work

To go from the theoretical to the practical, let us consider

various types of measuring devices, or instruments, and some of

the ways in which they are applied today.

Tapes and Rules.—Tapes and rules are available in many different forms, materials, and graduations. All of them, generally

speaking, offer a flat measuring surface which is divided and

subdivided into recognizable scales. They measure or compare

directly, without benefit of magnification.

Let us assume you are going to build a house. The first step

is to excavate. In all probability, the excavating contractor will use a woven tape to stake out the measurements of the excavation. He could use a steel tape, but woven tapes, normally;

164
available in lengths up to 150 feet, are less expensive, lighter,

easier to handle, and sufficiently accurate for the job. The

"tolerance" on this job probably would be several inches—even up to a foot. Next would come the foundation. Again, fairly sizable measuring jobs would be involved. For this work, measurements

would be taken with a steel tape, because "tolerance" would be- come more critical. As the framework of the house begins to take shape, you probably would see carpenters using folding wood rules, graduated

to y16 of an inch; many of these rules would have metal extensions to facilitate inside measurements. Bricklayers, too, might

have folding wood rules, graduated to y16 of an inch on one side

and marked in brick mason's standard or modular scales on the

reverse side. Or, perhaps, the carpenters and brick masons

might be using steel tape rules. In fact, the building trades on

the West Coast do show a marked preference for steel tapes

over wood rules. Even with inside trim and "built-ins," a

"tolerance" of %6 of an inch usually is sufficiently precise.

Precision Measurement and Gaging.—When your house is built and you begin installing motors and appliances, or putting

your car into the garage, you are dealing with products that were manufactured in plants where tolerances considerably

smaller than yir, of an inch are standard.

Metalworking plants, especially those producing moving parts,

will certainly be concerned with measurements that have toler- ances expressed in thousandths of an inch or smaller. And, as we have discussed previously, this requires instruments that measure to ten-thousandths of an inch.

These precision tools could be micrometers or calipers for

measuring inside or outside diameters, or hole depths, or metal

thickness. They could also be dial indicators, incorporated into

machinery and equipment, to check dimensions at various stages

of production. They could be gages for checking thickness, taper, or radius of a part against a known configuration. In addition, they could be any one of several types of instruments used

in final inspection, such as electronic systems, air gages, or

optical comparators.

Suffice it to say that nothing is designed, developed, or manufactured without being measured. As manufacturers offer

longer and stronger warranties on their products, craftsmanship

is faced with increasingly severe demands for precision and ac- curacy. This, in turn, places greater burdens on the instruments

of precision measurement, whose manufacturers must work to increasingly tighter standards in producing their equipment.

The fact that longer and stronger warranties are being given

on manufactured products is eloquent testimony to the greater

precision being offered in this type of measurement.

165
milestones in measuring devices

horizontal and vertical levels

As adjuncts to measuring length, the Egyptians used

horizontal and vertical levels to achieve trueness. The

base of" the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, for instance, measures about 755 feet on a side. Linear measurement, without regard for trueness, could produce

serious error over these distances.

knotted rope

Land measurement was facili- tated by the use of knotted rope

gascoigne indicator

In 1638, William Gascoigne devised

adjustable indicators, for use with a microscope, to measure stars.

By counting the revolutions of a wheel of known circumference, one man could obtain fairly ac- curate land measurements

quickly.

systeme palmer

Patented in France in 1848, this was a direct forerunner of the present-day micrometer caliper and the micrometer sheet metal

watt's micrometer

In 1772, James Watt made a micrometer with two

dials. One read to 1/100 of an inch; the other to 1/256

of an inch.

Figure 3.

166
Land Measurement

As land values have increased, the need has become greater

for land measurements with a high degree of accuracy. Surveyors and engineers have developed and refined techniques for

achieving this accuracy.

In recent years, also, new instruments have been developed

which take advantage of technological progress in fields such as

electronics and optics. Essentially, these instruments provide a

source for generating radio or light waves to distant transceivers or reflectors. The time elapsed between projection of the

beam or electromagnetic wave and its return, yields distance

when the time figure is applied to the known rate of speed of

the signal.

With built-in computers, much of the drudgery of computation is removed and in many instances, much time and effort are

saved. At present, instruments of this type are being used in

helicopters to survey very rugged areas, including some areas

previously uncharted.

And now, let us take a quick look into the future.

Measurement of Length—Tomorrow

The future really staggers anyone's imagination. By now, it has become evident that truth is stranger than science fiction. We are in the midst of a "knowledge explosion." A very significant result of this "explosion" is that it has tended to level many of the "fences" that have separated various fields of

human endeavor in the past.

The Laser A good example is the laser, development and application of

which impinges on such traditionally specialized fields as optics,

electronics, physical chemistry, and atomic physics. The word

"laser" means Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of

Radiation.

Although the laser holds promise for advances in many fields, we are interested in its application to the measurement of

length. In this field, it means not only more precise measure- ment of length, but also more precise measurement over longer

distances. In fact, its precision has even led to the suggestion

that the laser itself might be used to establish an independent

standard of length.

Although light wavelengths have been used for years to define the International Meter, the distance could be measured only

over a range of about 10 centimeters. Beyond this distance,

fringe patterns of the light become too coarse and not suitable

for fringe count. Because of the greater coherency of the laser

light, this limitation of distance does not exist. Experiments

conducted by the National Bureau of Standards, using a heliumneon gas laser, have been completed over the entire length of a meter bar. The length agreed to within 7 parts in 100 million

with the assigned length of the bar. In other experiments, the

laser has produced light that has remained coherent over

lengths in excess of 100 meters.

167
In the next five years, the laser could bring more advance in

the science of precise length measurement than has been achieved

in the last two centuries.

Electronic Measurement

The ability to process dimensions as electronic signals gives us

the ability to apply this most powerful tool to the art of measurement. Presently, measurements to millionths of an inch are commonplace in the inspection laboratory.

Extension and refinement of presently known electronic and

optical techniques will provide rugged, simple to use, reliable

measuring equipment able to measure to millionths of an inch

without physically contacting the part being measured. This is also a definite possibility with the gas laser mentioned earlier.

The advent of microelectronics and integrated circuitry will

make possible the electronic hand gage or micrometer or dial

indicator.

This will make it possible to give the worker at his station

the ability to measure in tens of millionths rather than in thousandths, as is now the case. As a matter of fact, such devices are already developed, awaiting only market demand. Compared

to the present electronic gage, they are like a wrist watch is to a clock you would have on your mantel.

"In-process gaging" will be greatly expanded. The machine

that makes the part will also gage the part and correct itself so as to eliminate scrap. The contactless gaging previously

mentioned will be extended to machine applications and to automation.

Direct, at-the-machine measurement, using standard light wave lengths as the reference, will become commonplace. The

digital output of such instruments lends itself to direct computerization, which, combined with rapidly-evolving data processing

techniques, will put quality control on an almost automatic basis.

A completely automatic factory, capable of producing any type

of machine part, upon receipt of the desired dimensions and

tolerances, certainly is not impossible to imagine.

Land Surveying

We have been discussing short range measuring techniques.

Let us now look at the future for distance measurement, as in

land surveying and geophysical studies.

We can predict that experimental work now being ac-

complished in the laboratory on electronics and optical ranging techniques which convert distance to a digital signal will

result in greatly simplified surveying systems. As in the case

of short-distance gaging, the ability to process distance as an

electronic signal, combined with microelectronics and electronic

data processing, will relieve the civil engineer of many of his 1 present routine burdens and will actually revolutionize the arti

of land surveying. Use of this type of instrument has already

yielded accurate measurement over spans of up to 20 miles.

Another revolutionary project in the making is one to map

the world, using special cameras and satellites. The NASA and

the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey are leading this effort. One

168
electronic surveying

Since man has successfully, and repeatedly, ventured into space, almost anything seems

possible for the future. Already satellites have

been used in earth-mapping projects. One project revealed that the Bermuda Islands lie 220 feet

north and 105 feet west of their previously mapped locations, a difference that helped to explain inconsistencies that had persisted in tracking data produced at Cape Kennedy and Bermuda tracking stations. Experimental work in electronics and optical ranging techniques also promises simplified surveying systems.

New instruments, using radio

or light waves, have been employed successfully in sur- veying. Time-saving, built-in computers save much of the drudgery of computation.

Figure 4.

plan calls for cameras positioned at three widely separated

points on the earth's surface to photograph simultaneously a

satellite passing overhead. Then by complex calculations, relating the location of each ground station to the spacecraft, dis- tances on the ground can be determined in a way somewhat

akin to conventional methods of land surveying.

In 1964, Coast and Geodetic Survey experts, working with the

satellites, Echo I and II, determined that the Bermuda Islands

actually lie 220 feet north and 105 feet west of their previously

mapped location. The difference helped clear up inconsistencies

that persisted in tracking data produced at NASA's Cape Kennedy

i and Bermuda sites.

j Unquestionably, progress is being made in many other areas, but these few examples serve to indicate that the future may

I well turn fantasy into fact. Now, let us come back to the present

J and consider an important problem in the practical application

it of measurement.

169
Variety in Units of Measurement

Over the years, there has been much discussion centering on

the relative merits and demerits of the inch-pound system ver- sus the metric system. In recent years, a third subject,

the decimal-inch, has been added to the discussion because it has attracted growing support from industry.

Discussion in this area, as in the fields of politics and religion,

has a tendency to turn into controversy.

Such controversy is not new. In fact, in 1906, a certain Col. Sir Howard Vincent, member of parliament from Sheffield, England, had this to say in defense of the Decimal Association,

which then was promoting adoption of the metric system: "It

is simply amazing that the campaign of the Decimal Association

should meet with any opponent. He should be in the moon!"

The Metric System

Without getting into too much detail, here are the chief arguments put forth by proponents of the metric system:

1. It is a "whole" system, encompassing length, width, volume,

area, density, and capacity.

2. It is expressed decimally, and is easier to use than are fractions in making computations. There is no need to convert

in and out of fractional quantities. There are no problems

of finding common denominators.

3. It is estimated that 90 percent of the world's nations, representing 80 percent of its population and 60 percent of

its trade, have adopted the metric system. Among the major

nations, only the United States and British Commonwealth

countries use the inch-pound system.

4. The metric system is the language of scientists the world

over, and science is playing an increasingly important role. The Inch-Pound System

Supporters of the inch-pound system advance arguments such

as these:

1. The inch-pound system is a more natural system, having

developed from the requirements of practical men, producing

real products.

2. Slightly more than 50 percent of the world's manufactured

goods are produced on the inch-pound measurement.

3. Fractional division of the inch is feasible and usable to as

fine a division as 1

/{!4 . This is approximately 1 %ooo °f an

inch. The smallest practical scale division in the metric

system is a millimeter. This is about 4 %ooo °f an inch.

The next metric division would be fiooo of an inch, too small for reading with the naked eye.

4. The number 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6; the number 10 i is divisible only by 2 and 5. The Decimal-Inch

Proponents of the decimal-inch, who include many engineers

and engineering groups, claim it combines the better features off 170
both the metric and the inch-pound systems. Their arguments

run like this:

1. It simplifies arithmetical computation by eliminating

fractions.

2. It simplifies conversion of inches to metric where such

conversion is required.

3. It is already in use in those instruments graduated to thousandths or ten-thousandths of an inch.

4. It is easier to learn than the fractional progression.

5. Complete decimalization of the inch is compatible with computerization.

Deterrents to International Standardization

Achieving international standardization certainly faces practical difficulties. But, it also involves human factors. Like giving up smoking, or stepping into a cold shower, the first problem

is to really make up your mind to do it. This is not to discount the practical problems. They are formidable. To change to the metric system in the United States

would be costly and time-consuming. Estimates range anywhere

from $26 billion to $100 billion in cost, and from 5 to 100 years

in time.

One real problem would be the conversion of drawings and

blueprints from the inch system to the metric. And, a corollary

problem would be duplication of prints. For machinery and

equipment already in the field, present drawings and prints would

have to be retained.

Duplication of parts inventory, by manufacturers and others

in the distribution chain, would be required for some time until

only metric equipment was in use. Gages, dials, and other measuring instruments would have to be changed from their present markings and calibrations to become metric.

Industry has become so complex and interdependent that gradual change would be difficult. If a manufacturer decided to employ metric measurement, his suppliers would be obliged to do

the same. Training salesmen, dealers, distributors, and consumers to work with metric measurement would be time-consuming

and costly. In addition, there would be the expense of new

catalogs, sales aids, and other literature necessary to implement

the change to the metric system.

On the other hand, proponents of the metric system point out

that other nations have made the change at various stages in

their development. This began with the Low Countries in 1820

and has continued right up to 1959, when Japan adopted the

metric system. They point out that Great Britain is very

seriously considering changing to metric, partly to improve its opportunities for trade with Common Market countries. They

emphasize that foreign trade, although a relatively small consideration in the American economy now, can grow significantly

in the future.

They also point out that the metric system is clearly preferred

in science. They argue that it is adaptable to measurements

ranging from the tiny particles of nuclear physics to those en- countered in the literally astronomical distances of outer space.

171
They claim that metric measurements can be communicated

readily and used in complex calculations with relatively small

opportunities for error. They offer the argument that neither

the inch-pound system nor the decimal-inch can handle this wide

range of measurements so easily or systematically.

Communications Problems

The validity and effectiveness of any form of communication

depends to some degree on its audience. A formula is clear to chemists. Morse code is understood by telegraphers and radio

operators. Equations make sense to mathematicians. French

is the way to communicate in France.

In measurement, modes of communication differ with the audience. Metric is the language of the scientist. In the United

States, the inch-pound system has been used by engineers, of

whom many are now inclined to support the decimal-inch. Manufacturing, by and large, is on the inch-pound system, with some

gravitation toward the decimal-inch. Mr. and Mrs. American

Consumer are oriented to the inch-pound system.

In the summer of 1964, for instance, Lt. Billy Mills became

the first American ever to win the 10 000 meter race in the

Olympic Games. Most Americans had little concept of the length

of the race. Had it been called a 10 kilometer race, many of

them who have served overseas or traveled abroad might have

had a better idea of the length of the contest. The most meaningful description for Americans, of course, would be 6% miles.

For the ancient Egyptians, it would have been 19 047 Royal

Cubits.

Whatever the unit or standard used, the distance would be the same and could be measured accurately. Only the mode of

communication and understanding differs.

Thus, if it is proposed to install the metric system at all levels in the United States, perhaps it becomes valid to wonder whether

the American consumer would ever settle for a kilogram of ground

beef instead of two pounds, or whether he would be satisfied

with 118 milliliters of aftershave lotion instead of four fluid ounces.

In any event, it would appear that the need for international

uniformity in measurement will increase in the future. With

the frontiers of knowledge advancing so rapidly and beginning

to overlap in many fields, serious consideration must be given to achieving, rather than talking about, international uniformity.

Hopefully, discussion in the future will shed more light and

generate less heat than in the past.

Summary

There can be little doubt that our whole economic system ol mass production depends on precise and accurate measurement

Neither can there be any doubt that the activities of science

engineering, and business and industry are becoming increas

ingly entwined. The time lag between new scientific theory oi discovery is growing shorter all the time.

As the frontiers of knowledge not only move ahead but als< overlap, the need for clear communication becomes greater.

172
As we have seen, measurement is a form of communication.

More than ever, the world needs universal uniformity in units

and standards of measurement. Whether the inch-pound sys- tem, the metric system or the decimal-inch should prevail is difficult to say. Or, perhaps, there might even be new standards

and new units being shaped that will make the inch and the

meter as obsolete as the Royal Cubit.

Obviously, mankind has made great strides in the measure- ment of length despite the multiplicity of units, standards and

systems. Progress will not come to a crashing halt if this multiplicity persists. It must be recognized that there are serious

obstacles to achievement of worldwide uniformity.

But, there will never be a better time than now to start trying

to solve this problem.

173
MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1965

(J. E. Bowen, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

(Following the Incoming Executive and Annual Committee

Reports, an "Open Forum" was held, led by the Standing Committee Chairmen and Executive Secretary : The session was

thrown open to questions from the floor on any weights and

measures technical or administrative problem.)

(At the conclusion of the Open Forum, Chairman Campbell presented the gavel to the incoming 51st National Conference Chairman, J. F. True of Kansas. The benediction was then delivered

by the Conference Chaplain, Rev. R. W. Searles. Thereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the 50th National Conference on Weights and

Measures was adjourned sine die.)

174
REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE

presented by V. D. Campbell, Chairman, Chief, Division of

Weights and Measures, Reynoldsburg, Ohio

(Thursday, June 24, 1965, 2:15 p.m.)

The Executive Committee of the 50th National Conference on Weights and Measures

held the first session on Monday, June 21,

1965, at 8:30 a.m. Conference activities, program format,

social activities, hotel arrangements, and lo- cality for future Conferences were among

items reviewed and discussed.

Amendment to Organization and Procedure of the National Conference.—During

the past year, the Executive Committee has

given serious consideration to the resolution

adopted by the 49th National Conference in

which the Conference recommended unanimously that a means be found through which the Weights and

Measures Advisory Committee might be continued.

The resolution acknowledged that the Advisory Committee as

constituted at that time, was to be terminated on June 30, 1964.

That Committee had served the National Bureau of Standards

since 1954, and its activities and recommendations have been

valuable both to the management of the Bureau and to the Conference. Discussion preceding the adoption of the resolution in- cluded the thought that an Advisory Committee might be

established within the framework of the National Conference.

The Executive Committee is of the opinion that this is a sound

approach and that it best can be accomplished through an amendment to the Organization and Procedure of the Conference so

as to establish an additional standing committee.

Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommends that the

Organization and Procedure be amended to provide for a new

standing committee to be known as the Committee on Liaison

with the National Government. I, therefore, present this proposal in the form of a motion and move its adoption to become

effective immediately by unanimous consent of the Conference

1. Amend paragraph on standing committees of Section 5 on

page 6 of the Organization and Procedure to read

Standing Committees.-—The standing committees are the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances, the Committee on Laws and Regulations, the Committee on Education, and the Committee on Liaison with the National

Government, each with a normal complement of five members appointed by

the President from the active membership (except that the members of the Committee on Liaison with the National Government may be appointed from

the active or the associate membership) on a rotating basis for five-year terms . . . (No further change in the paragraph.)

175
2. Amend Section 7 of the Organization and Procedure by in- serting at the end of the section a new paragraph:

Committee on Liaison with the National Government.—The Committee on Liaison with the National Government annually presents a report for Conference action. Its mission is to represent the Conference to the National

Government and to consider and make recommendations on matters before

the Conference and on matters concerning relationships of Conference members and associate members with the National Government and particularly

with the National Bureau of Standards.

Location for the 51st National Conference.—Mr. Lawrence

Barker of West Virginia, who had been appointed Chairman of a Subcommittee of the Executive Committee to study and advise on the practicability of scheduling the 51st National Conference

(1966), in Denver, Colorado, presented his report on the activities of the Subcommittee. This report described a very thorough

study of the subject, including a questionnaire to each State

requesting their individual views. Based on the results from the

questionnaire, the Subcommittee recommended that the 51st

National Conference be held in Denver, Colorado.

The Executive Committee as a whole unanimously approved

this report and is recommending to the incoming Executive

Committee that the 51st National Conference be held in Denver,

Colorado. During the open committee meeting no objections were raised to this recommendation.

Attendance at Open Meetings of the Executive Committee.—

The Committee feels that attendance at, and participation in,

the open meeting of the Executive Committee should be improved. The Committee reminds the delegates that they have a very real responsibility in voicing their views as to Conference

plans and affairs.

V. D. Campbell, Chairman N. Berryman

L. Barker J. M. Boucher

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the re- port of the Executive Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

J. E. Bowen

J. H. Lewis

W. I. Thompson

C. C. Morgan

R. W. Searles

R. J. Fahey

R. H. Fernsten

F. M. Gersz

M. Jennings

D. E. Konsoer

J. F. Lyles

E. A. Vadelund

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Executive Committee

176
STATEMENT OF THE INCOMING CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

presented by J. F. TRUE, State Sealer, Division of Weights

Measures, State of Kansas

riday, June 25, 1965, 9:35 a.m.)

The Executive Committee for the 51st

National Conference met for breakfast at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, June 25, to consider

matters falling appropriately within its authority. Decisions were reached as follows:

1. The Conference program should be

loosened sufficiently to permit discussions following formal papers.

2. The Executive Committee recommends

to the 50th National Conference that

the 51st National Conference be held in

Denver, Colorado, the week of July 10,

1966. (If it is the decision of the Conference that the 51st

be held in Washington, it is to be held the week of June 19)

3. The registration fee for the 51st National Conference will

remain at $15.00.

4. The program schedule for the 51st Conference will remain

as has been traditional for the past several years—that is, open committee meetings on Monday, and on Tuesday

morning if necessary, formal sessions to start either on Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon, and to end Friday

morning, with Wednesday afternoon open.

5. The Executive Secretary will plan the program.

6. The Executive Secretary is authorized to arrange for an

appropriate program for the ladies.

7. An allocation of $400 was authorized for use by the Committee on Education for the promotion of National Weights

and Measures Week and to cover other official expenses of

the Committee as approved by the Conference Executive

Secretary.

The Executive Committee expresses satisfaction with the ar- rangements for and conduct of the Golden Anniversary Conference and looks forward to a continuation of progress during

the 51st.

177
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

presented by J. T. Daniell, Chairman, Deputy City Sealer

of Weights and Measures, Detroit, Michigan

(Thursday, June 24, 1965, 10:10 a.m.)

1. Introduction

The Organization and Procedure of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures delegates to the Committee on Educa- j tion consideration of matters embracing the

technical training of weights and measures

officials, the education along weights and

measures lines of the general public and of

j users of weights and measures equipment,

and the public relations programs and procedures for weights and measures organizations.

The Committee on Education has several

topics to consider in submitting its report to the 50th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. The Measurement Science Course at Alfred Tech—Its First Year

State University of New York, Agricultural and Technical Institute, located at Alfred, New York, and known as Alfred Tech,

now has a new curriculum in Measurement Science. The purpose

of the curriculum is to offer a terminal program to prepare

technicians in the field of Scale and Measurement Technology.

After over a year of planning, the Measurement Science Program began at Alfred Tech in September, 1964, with 16 full-time

students. By the beginning of the third quarter, the last of

j| March 1965, forty-five students had enrolled. The increase of,

29 students came about through the transfer into the program,

from other curriculums. It is significant that the program hasj

gained the attention of many students who, before beginning

their studies at Alfred Tech, had not heard of Measurement

Science. By mid March 1965, twenty-two students already had

been accepted for the program for September 1965.

In early September 1964, the entire admissions staff at the!

College spent a week visiting scale manufacturing plants and'

allied industries in the New Jersey area. This kind of orientation has done much to inform the admissions staff of the scope, of the Measurement Science field. During the academic year, over $30,000 worth of mechanical

scale equipment has been sent to the College by 20 different scale

companies. This equipment has represented the major part of|

the Measurement Science laboratory.

The course during the year has been enriched by speakers

from three companies and from the National Bureau of Stand-j

ards. These representatives have effectively spoken of the scope, and opportunities in the field. Next year it is expected that from!

178
15 to 20 specialists will come to the campus and address the

students about their special areas. About one-half of the students during the first year expressed

an interest in summer employment in one of the scale manufacturing plants. This number is far less than that requested by

the plants. This area holds much promise as the program

develops.

Mr. George Whitney, Chairman of the College's Industrial

Technologies Division and an enthusiastic supporter of the program spoke at the 46th Annual National Scale Men's Association

Technical Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, on April 20. Mr.

Whitney explained the aims and objectives of the Measurement

Science Program to the West Coast men. The College advises that it is pleased with Measurement Sci- ence during its first year and hopes that industry will be equally

pleased as qualified and well-trained technicians become available.

Your Committee is indebted to Dean Milo Van Hall who was

most cooperative in supplying information regarding the first year's progress.

Information regarding the Measurement Science Program may

be obtained from Milo Van Hall, Dean of Student Academic

Programs, State University of New York, Agricultural and

Technical College, Alfred, New York.

3. National Weights and Measures Week

A Subcommittee on National Weights and Measures Week was

again appointed this year.

Mr. Lorenzo A. Gredy, Chairman of this Subcommittee, skill- fully directed nationwide activity in this area and will present

the Report on National Weights and Measures Week.

At the 1964 meeting of the Committee on Education when the

"Week" was discussed, it was decided to continue the promotional

activities by the Committee on Education as a whole as has been

done during the past few years. Each member of the Committee

served as regional coordinator with the individual State Chairman responsible for promotional operations within his own State. The Committee feels that this method has proven successful in

the various States. Interest in the "Week," judging from a representative sampling of the reports, indicates that this year's National Weights

and Measures Week was a great success. However, again it was

evident that in some areas there was no participation while, in

other areas, enthusiastic support was overwhelming. From the

reports, it was noted that several Governors' proclamations and

statements were issued, and governing bodies of counties and

municipalities also participated. Excellent use was again made

of the newspaper mats (furnished by the NBS Office of Weights

and Measures) by advertisers who were desirous of having the

public become better acquainted with this very important governmental operation. Many areas throughout the country reported

that displays set up in the lobbies of banks, office buildings, and

in the windows of stores were viewed with enthusiasm with

many questions asked about weights and measures. Lectures

179
and the showing of films were reported by the score. Many of

the jurisdictions reported that they have developed their own

material to be presented along with talks and exhibits. The

Committee is of the opinion that material directed toward stu- dents in the lower school levels should be developed. At the

present time, the only such materials available are the films

produced by the Office of Weights and Measures.

Radio and TV spot announcements and a slide of the weights

and measures emblem were used throughout the country during

the "Week." Also, prepared radio tapes were used to good

advantage.

The Committee on Education is deeply indebted to The Scale

Manufacturers Association for its project in providing over

5,000 "Third Man" posters. From the comments received from

weights and measures officials, all were highly enthusiastic about

the posters. In addition to providing good publicity for weights

and measures and for scales, we feel the poster program created

goodwill for the scale industry and for weights and measures

officials. The Executive Secretary of the Scale Manufacturers

Association reported during the open committee meeting that for

the coming year they will make available to weights and measures officials at no cost a supply of Weights and Measures Week

stickers. However, "Third Man" posters may still be obtained

from the printer at nominal cost. During the year, we were again disappointed in that there was no issuance of a United States commemorative stamp to be

timed for our Golden Anniversary National Conference on Weights and Measures. However, the Committee requests your

fullest cooperation for National Weights and Measures Week

1966 ; a request has again been forwarded to the U.S. Postmaster

General for issuance of a stamp commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Congressional action legalizing the use of the

metric system in this country. We again urge everyone's support in contacting their legislators in order to obtain additonal

consideration for this important project.

It has been the idea of the Conference Committee on Education and a number who attend the National Conference that we

conduct year round publicity and not confine our program to a

so-called "once a year shot in the arm." We feel that considerable impetus has been given to year around publicity for weights

and measures services, as indicated by newspaper articles of

weights and measures activities in particular and consumer inter- est articles in general.

For the 1966 observation, the Committee feels that it may be

productive to consider devising a questionnaire to survey for

promotional ideas. Should Congress approve the first allotment

for State standards in 1966, the Committee will consider at- tempting to obtain some national publicity, whether it comes,

during the "Week" or not. This report cannot be brought to a conclusion without taking

the opportunity to thank members of our Conference, both the

weights and measures officials and associates, who, through their

enthusiastic efforts, are actually responsible for the success of' the occasion.

180
4. New Ideas in Public Education

As a means of getting weights and measures information before the public, a weights and measures official prepared a letter containing tips to housewives and forwarded it to a columnist,

who graciously included his letter in her column. This column

appeared in about five hundred newspapers throughout the

country. This ingenious approach brought the matter of weights

and measures information to the attention of many thousands of

women and in hundreds of communities.

A particularly fertile field for public education is the elementary school classroom. Not only are the young people themselves

presented with weights and measures information, but they take

home the ideas, and the parents likewise are educated and be- come aware of the activities of the weights and measures

official. The need to contact the children and to acquaint them with the

functions of weights and measures officials was very evident at

this hotel last year when a fine group of young people held their

meeting at the same time as the 49th Conference. These stu- dents were designated as "Leaders of Tomorrow;" yet, in talking

with several in this select group, it was noted that they were

unaware of weights and measures activities.

The Committee will undertake as one of its major items for

the coming year the development of suggested outlines and other

instructional material for use in making presentations to school

children starting at the elementary level at a time when basic

units and systems of weights and measures are first studied in

the classroom and continuing through the high school level. The

Committee feels that this is an item of great importance and

solicits the cooperation of all weights and measures officials and

industry members in the development of such material.

The Committee gratefully acknowledges the many constructive

suggestions received relating to the development of material for

use at the elementary and high school levels. These suggestions

will be given consideration during the coming year.

5. New Training Aids Available for Technical Training of Weights and Measures Officials A new self-training aid entitled, "Examination of a Single

Product Motor Fuel Dispenser" is now available. This aid, to- gether with "Examination of a Computing Scale," presented last year, offer audio and visual instruction in a step-by-step procedure as recommended by the Office of Weights and Measures in

the Examination Procedure Outlines for these devices. Loan

copies of the presentations are available for short-term loan or

the series may be purchased at moderate cost for the permanent

use of a jurisdiction. Applications for loan or purchase are

available from the Office of Weights and Measures, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234. Interest in and

use of these training aids by weights and measures officials has

been quite limited and is disappointing to your Committee. The

Committee highly endorses the production of these technical

presentations and urges weights and measures officials to take

advantage of this training opportunity.

181
6. Commemorative Stamp—100th Anniversary of the Congress

Recognizing the Metric System as Legal in the United States The Post Office Department issues about fifteen commemorative postage stamps each year. The Department has a backlog

of approximately three thousand requests and receives from two

hundred and fifty to three hundred new proposals each year. It therefore becomes obvious that to have a postage stamp issued,

it must not only comply with the regulations of the Post Office

Department, but must have a special appeal to the public. In 1866, the Congress recognized the metric system as legal

in the United States, and it is deemed appropriate to request the

issuance of a postage stamp to celebrate the 100th anniversary

of this event. The metric system is a matter of great importance in world

economics. Great Britain is preparing to shift its weights and

measures to the metric system over the next ten years. The con- version will leave the United States, Canada, Australia, and

New Zealand as the only major countries using nonmetric

measurements.

So that the request may receive favorable consideration, the

cooperation of everyone present is earnestly solicited. It is vitally important that many communications be sent. The Committee strongly urges all delegates to this Conference and others

interested in, or affected by, weights and measures control to immediately, upon returning home, prepare and send letters to the Postmaster General and to Senators and Representatives in

Washington, so that this request will represent a nationwide

project.

7. Summary

The Committee wishes to register its appreciation to all who,

by their splendid cooperation, assisted your Committee throughout the year, and to offer them our sincere thanks.

J. T. Daniell, Chairman

S. H. Christie, Jr. L. A. Gredy

A. D. Rose

C. H. Stender

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

R. N. Smith, Staff Assistant

Education Committee

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of the Committee on Education was adopted by voice vote.) DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

J. E. Bowen : As a past chairman of the Education Committee, I was quite pleased that the Committee stressed the importance of promoting weights and measures education in the

schools, both public and private, at the lower grades.

Several of us have appeared before college classes and lectured.

The more of that we can do the better. Several of us have

also made a point of promoting this at the public school level,

sometimes in the primary grades, sometimes at junior high

school age. 182
I would urge everybody here to give that more attention if they can. In another four or five years, these children will be

the adults that are doing the purchasing as well as the selling.

It is certainly a very worthwhile project for any weights and

measures man.

I notice under Item No. 4 that reference is made to a weights

and measures official who prepared a letter that ended up in the

columns of five hundred newspapers. I think it is a little too bad to say just a weights and measures official. It was Bill Thompson, who is now at the lectern, and I think that is one

of the most dramatic promotions that we have had. I think

he is to be highly commended, and we could use a lot more

promotion of that nature.

183
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

presented by Lawrence Barker, Acting Chairman, Commissioner,

Department of Labor, State of West Virginia

(Thursday, June 24, 1965, 12:17 p.m.)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 50th National Conference on Weights and Measures, the report

comprising the Tentative Report as amended

by this Final Report.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING

Prominence and Placement of Quantity

Statements on Package Labels.—The Committee has been encouraged by the almost

universal acceptance by the States and by

the packaging industry of the Administrative Ruling that was adopted by the 49th

National Conference. The Committee is now of the opinion that

the provisions of the Administrative Ruling should be made a

part of the Model State Regulation Pertaining to Packages.

First, the Committee wishes to acknowledge a proposal to amend the Administrative Ruling that was received from the

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc. Said proposal

would permit the net quantity declaration to be blown or molded

in the surface of nonreturnable glass containers in the same manner permitted on reusable glass containers. After serious

consideration of this proposal, the Committee is in agreement

with the proposed amendment and has, accordingly, made the

necessary changes in the language of the Administrative Ruling that is recommended for inclusion in an amendment to the

Model Package Regulation that follows.

(Item 1 was adopted by voice vote.)

2. MODEL STATE REGULATION PERTAINING TO PACKAGE

SECTION 3.6. REDUCTION OF FRACTIONS.—The Committee has received representations to the effect that the language "only binary-submultiple common fractions" tends to lead

to the interpretation that only such fractions with the numerator of 1, such as, y2 , or y8 , are acceptable. To clarify the

intended meaning, the Committee recommends that this section

be amended to read as follows:

3.6. REDUCTION OF FRACTIONS.—declarations of quantity

may employ common fractions or decimal fractions. A common

fraction shall be in terms of halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, or thirty-seconds, and shall be reduced to its lowest terms. Except in the case of drugs, a decimal fraction shall not be carried

out to more than two places : Provided, That, if there exists,

with respect to a particular commodity, a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom contrary to the requirement pertaining to common fractions, as set forth above, for the

184
reduction of a common fraction to its lowest terms, the declaration may be made in accordance with such usage and custom.

(Item 2, Section 3.6., as amended, was adopted by the Conference by voice

vote.) SECTION 3.7. SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATIONS.—The

Model Package Regulation contains no guidelines with respect

to the use of supplementary quantity declarations that are, in

value of weight, measure, or count, equal to the required declaration. This void has caused a certain amount of confusion among

packagers and serious concern to weights and measures officials. In its report to the 49th National Conference, the Committee

included an interpretation directed to this point. The Committee

now recommends that a new Section 3.7.1. SUPPLEMENTARY

QUANTITY DECLARATIONS be added to the Model Regulation

and that present Sections 3.7.1., 3.7.2., and 3.7.3. be renumbered

to become 3.7.2., 3.7.3., and 3.7.4.

3.7.1. SUPPLEMENTARY QUANTITY DECLARATIONS.—

The required quantity declaration may be supplemented by one

or more declarations of weight, measure, or count : Provided,

That any such supplementary declaration shall be accurate ; any

such supplementary declaration shall be neither in larger size type

nor more prominently displayed than the required quantity

declaration ; and any supplementary statement shall not be so located as to detract from, or confuse or mislead as to the precise

meaning of, the required quantity declaration.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

Mr. J. F. Lyles (Virginia) : Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that by the adoption of this section it would help lead to the

confusion instead of clearing some up, in that more than one supplementary quantity statement may appear on the label. I would propose that this section be amended by changing the first sentence to read as follows

The required quantity declaration may be supplemented

by not more than one declaration in the same system of

weight, measure, or count . . . and then continuing on with the remainder of this section.

(Mr. Lyles' proposed amendment was defeated by voice vote.) Mr. 0. A. Oudal : Does this mean, for instance, that a package

with a quantity declaration of 1 pound 2 ounces, which is correct, could carry a supplementary statement such as, 18 ounces

or such as, 510 grams?

Mr. Barker: I would say that your observation is correct, as

long as the supplementary statement is not more prominently

displayed or apt to mislead or to confuse.

(Item 2, Section 3.7.1., as amended by the Committee, was adopted by a

j standing vote of the Conference, 93-45).

SECTION 6. PROMINENCE AND PLACEMENT.—The Committee recommends that Section 6 of the Model Regulation be

expanded to include the provisions of the Administrative Ruling

and that the section thus be amended to read as follows

185
6. PROMINENCE AND PLACEMENT.

6.1. GENERAL.—All information required to appear on a package shall be prominent, definite, and plain, and shall be

conspicuous as to size and style of letters and numbers and as

to color of letters and numbers in contrast to color of background. The declaration of identity, if required, and the net

quantity statement shall appear on the principal display panel

of the package. The name and address of the manufacturer,

packer, or distributor shall appear either on the principal display

panel or on any other appropriate panel. Any required information that is either in hand lettering or hand script shall be entirely clear and equal to printing in legibility.

6.2. DEFINITIONS.

6.2.1. LABEL.—The term "label" as used in this section shall

be construed to mean a display of written, printed, or graphic

matter blown into, applied to, or attached to a package for the

purposes of branding, identifying, and giving other information on the contents of the package.

6.2.2. PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL OR PANELS.—The

term "principal display panel or panels" shall be construed to mean that part, or those parts, of a label that is, or are, so designed as to be most likely to be displayed, presented, shown, or examined under normal and customary conditions of display and

purchase.

6.2.3. AREA OF PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL OR PANELS.—Barring evidence to the contrary, the square inch area

of the principal display panel, or of each of the principal display

panels if there be more than one, shall be (1) in the case of a rectangular container, one or more entire side or sides of which

properly can be considered to be the principal display panel or

panels, the product of the height times the width of that side or those sides; (2) in the case of a cylindrical or nearly cylindrical container where the label covers the entire cylindrical or

nearly cylindrical surface, 40 percent of the product of the

height times the circumference; (3) in the case of a cylindrical! or nearly cylindrical container where the label does not cover the

entire cylindrical surface, the total actual area of the label oit 40 percent of the product of the height times the circumference

whichever is less; (4) in the case of a sack or bag, or other flat

1 container, the total printed area or one-third the total flat area 1 whichever is greater; and (5) in the case of a container with t distinctly identifiable label or label area, the total actual area o:j the label or label space: Provided, That this section shall no' apply to permanently labeled glass containers, for which se< paragraph 6.7.

6.3. EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall be effective wit]

respect to those labels that are (a) redesigned after July 1, 1965

(b) prepared from plates, dies, cylinders, and the like made afte

July 1, 1965, and (c) all labels as of July 1, 1966: Provided

That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled glas

containers, for which see paragraph 6.7. 186
6.4. QUANTITY DECLARATION.

6.4.1. LOCATION.—The declaration, or declarations, of quantity of the contents of a package shall appear on the principal

display panel, or panels if there are more than one, and shall be

presented in such a manner as to be generally parallel to the

base on which the package rests as it is designed to be

displayed.

6.4.2. STYLE OF TYPE OR LETTERING.—The declaration,

or declarations, of quantity shall be in such a style of type or

lettering as to be boldly presented, clearly and conspicuously,

with respect to other type or lettering or graphic material on the

panel or panels.

6.4.3. COLOR CONTRAST.—The declaration, or declarations,

of quantity shall be in a color that contrasts definitely with its background : Provided, That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled glass containers, for which see paragraph 6.7.

6.5. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS.—

The height of any letter or number in the required quantity

statement shall be not less than those shown in Table 1, with

respect to the square-inch area set forth in paragraph 6.2.3.

Provided, That the height of the numbers of a common fraction shall be not less than one-half the dimensions shown: And

Provided further, That this section shall not apply to permamently labeled glass containers, for which see paragraph 6.7.

• Table 1.

Minimum height of niwnbers and lettersMinimum Height Square Inch Area of Numbers and

of Principal Panel Letters

1 4 square inches and less No Minimum

I Greater than 4 square inches and not greater than

| 25 square inches. _ __ _ Yie inch

, Greater than 25 square inches and not greater than

120 square inches. . % inch Greater than 120 square inches and not greater than

400 square inches. ... % inch Greater than 400 square inches. % inch

i 6.6. FREE AREA.—The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be presented in an area sufficiently free from other

; printing, lettering, or marking, to make said declaration, or

declarations, stand out definitely with respect to the surrounding

I printing, lettering, or marking.

6.7. PERMANENTLY LABELED GLASS CONTAINERS.

6.7.1. LABEL INFORMATION BLOWN INTO SURFACE. —When all label information is blown into the glass surface, the

required declaration, or declarations, of quantity may also be

blown into the surface: Provided, That in such cases said declaration or declarations shall appear in close proximity to the

; trade or brand name and the height of any letter or number shall

I be not less than % (i inch for containers of one pint or less capacity and not less than 7/!2 inch for containers of greater than one

pint capacity.

187
6.7.2. LABEL INFORMATION APPLIED TO SURFACE

OF CONTAINERS.—When any label information is applied to the surface of a glass container in white or in any color, the re- quired declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall also be applied to the surface and shall be, in size, not less than % inch for

containers of one pint or less capacity and not less than % r> inch

for containers of greater than one pint capacity.

6.7.3. LABEL INFORMATION ON CAP OR CROWN OF

CONTAINERS.—When all label information is displayed on the

cap or crown of a glass container, the required declaration of

quantity may also be displayed on the cap or crown and shall be

displayed prominently, conspicuously, and in color contrasting

with the background: Provided, However, that in the instance

of glass containers for soft drinks and fruit juices when the

label information is displayed on cap or crown the required quantity declaration may be blown into or permanently applied to that

part of the glass container in close proximity to said cap or crown, in sizes as specified in paragraph 6.7.1.

6.7.4. EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements set forth in

paragraphs 6.7., 6.7.1., 6.7.2., and 6.7.3. shall be effective with

respect to orders placed after July 1, 1966 : Provided, That all containers that are manufactured to conform to these requirements shall be permanently marked with the final two digits of

the year in which the order was placed : And Provided further,

That permanently labeled reusable glass containers in service as

of July 1, 1966, may remain in servke.

6.8. EXEMPTIONS.

6.8.1. INDUSTRIAL-TYPE PACKAGES.—A so-called "industrial" type or "nonconsumer" type package (one that is not

intended to be displayed on a retail shelf or to be sold for home

consumption) shall be exempt from the specific type sizes as set forth in Section 6 of this regulation and the conformance or nonconformance of the labeling of such a package shall be

determined by the facts of the case.

6.8.2. CONTAINERS STANDARDIZED BY DEVICE REGULATION.—Containers, such as milk bottles, lubricating-oil bottles, and measure containers, for which standards are established

and specifications are set forth in National Bureau of Standards

Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices,

shall be exempt from the requirements as set forth in Section

6 of this regulation.

6.8.3. PACKAGES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.—Packages of alcoholic beverages, for which the labeling requirements

are specified in Federal law, shall be exempt from the requirements as set forth in Section 6 of this regulation.

(The Ad Hoc Industry Committee on Quantity Declaration,

formed before the 49th National Conference to assist the Committee on Laws and Regulations in the development of the! Administrative Ruling, has continued as an informal committee

to provide additional effort toward nationwide uniformity in this: 188
area. Communication has been received from the Industry Committee to the effect that the participating trade organizations

and individual business and industrial concerns have been can- vassed and have expressed their endorsement of the proposal to incorporate the terms of the Administrative Ruling into the

Model Regulation Pertaining to Packages. Similar endorsement was received from the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute.)

(Item 2, Section 6, as amended, was adopted by voice vote.)

3. STANDARDIZATION OF CARDBOARD CONTAINERS

The Committee received a request from Mr. John M. Stackhouse, Director, Department of Agriculture, State of Ohio, for

the National Conference to consider the standardization of cardboard containers used in the marketing of apples. It was pointed

out that these containers have not been approved as standard

containers and, since their use is nationwide, a standard should

be established to promote uniformity in interstate commerce. The Committee is sympathetic to Mr. Stackhouse's request.

However, the National Conference has not established standards

for any such containers in the past for this is a responsibility

that has, by tradition and law, been left up to the Federal

Government and the individual States to fulfill. Although the Committee recommends no action by the Conference, it has asked its Secretary to call this matter to the

attention of the proper Federal authorities for their consideration. (Item 3 was adopted by voice vote.)

4. MODEL STATE WEIGHMASTER LAW

A proposed revision has been developed of the Model State

Weighmaster Law so that its format will be similar to that of

the Model State Weights and Measures Law. Relatively few

minor changes have been made in the revised Model State Weighmaster Law from the Model Weighmaster Law which was last adopted by the Conference in 1951.

It is the desire of the Committee to keep all model laws and

regulations up-to-date and, therefore, the Committee recom- mends the adoption of the revised Model State Weighmaster Law

that follows:

MODEL STATE WEIGHMASTER LAW

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE

STATE OF

SECTION 1. MEANING OF TERMS.—When used in this

Act:

(1) The term "licensed public weighmaster" shall mean and

refer to a natural person licensed under the provisions of this Act.

(2) The term "vehicle" shall mean any device in, upon, or by

which any property, produce, commodity, or article is or may

be transported or drawn.

_ (3) The term "director" shall mean and refer to the State

director of weights and measures. 189
SEC. 2. ENFORCING OFFICER; RULES AND REGULATIONS.—The director is authorized to enforce the provisions

of this Act and he shall issue from time to time reasonable regulations for the enforcement of this Act, which regulations shall have the force and effect of law.

SEC. 3. QUALIFICATIONS FOR WEIGHMASTER.—A cit- izen of the United States or a person who has declared his in- tention of becoming such a citizen, who is a resident of the State

of , not less than 21 years of age, of good moral character, who has the ability to weigh accurately and to make cor- rect weight certificates, and who has received from the director a license as a licensed public weighmaster, shall be styled and

authorized to act as a licensed public weighmaster.

SEC. U. LICENSE APPLICATION.—An application for a

license as a licensed public weighmaster shall be made upon a form provided by the director and the application shall furnish

evidence that the applicant has the qualifications required by

Section 3 of this Act. SEC. 5. EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS; RECORDS.—The director may adopt rules for determining the qualifications of the applicant for a license as a licensed public weighmaster. He may pass upon the qualifications of the applicant upon the basis of the information supplied

in the application, or he may examine such applicant orally or

in writing, or both, for the purpose of determining his qualifications. He shall grant licenses as licensed public weighmasters

to such applicants as may be found to possess the qualifications

required by Section 3 of this Act. The director shall keep a

j record of all such applications and of all licenses issued thereon.

SEC. 6. LICENSE FEES.—Before the issuance of any license as a licensed public weighmaster, or any renewal thereof, the

applicant shall pay to the director a fee of Such fees

shall be deposited with the State Treasurer to be credited to a fund to be used by the director for the administration of this Act. SEC. 7. LIMITED LICENSES.—The director may, upon re- quest and without charge, issue a limited license as a licensed

public weighmaster to any qualified officer or employee of a city or county of this State or of a State commission, board, institution, or agency, authorizing such officer or employee to act as a

licensed public weighmaster only within the scope of his official employment in the case of an officer or employee of a city or county or only for and on behalf of the State commission, board,

institution, or agency in the case of an officer or employee

thereof.

SEC. 8. LICENSES; PERIOD; RENEWAL.—Each license as licensed public weighmaster shall be issued to expire on the

thirty-first day of December of the calendar year for which it is issued : Provided, That any such license shall be valid through

the thirty-first day of January of the next ensuing calendar year

or until issuance of the renewal license, whichever event first occurs, if the holder thereof shall have filed a renewal application

190
with the director on or before the fifteenth day of December of

the year for which the current license was issued : Arid provided

further, That any license issued on or after the effective date of

this Act and on or before the thirty-first day of December 19

shall be issued to expire on the thirty-first day of December of

the next ensuing calendar year. Renewal applications shall be

in such form as the director shall prescribe.

SEC. 9. LICENSED WEIGHMASTER; OATH; SEAL.—

Each licensed public weighmaster shall, before entering upon his

duties, make oath to execute faithfully his duties. The issuance

of a license as licensed public weighmaster shall not obligate the

State to pay to the licensee any compensation for his services as

a licensed public weighmaster. Each licensed public weighmaster shall, at his own expense, provide himself with an impression seal. His name and the word(s) (insert name of state) shall be inscribed around the outer margin of the seal and the

words "licensed public weighmaster" shall appear in the center

thereof. The seal shall be impressed upon each weight certificate

issued by a licensed public weighmaster.

SEC. 10. WEIGHT CERTIFICATE: REQUIRED ENTRIES. —The director shall prescribe the form of weight certificate to be used by a licensed public weighmaster. The weight certificate

shall state the date of issuance, the kind of property, produce,

commodity, or article weighed, the name of the declared owner

or agent of the owner or of the consignee of the material weighed,

the accurate weight of the material weighed, the means by which

the material was being transported at the time it was weighed,

and such other available information as may be necessary to distinguish or identify the property, produce, commodity, or article from others of like kind. Such weight certificate, when so made and properly signed and sealed, shall be prima facie

evidence of the accuracy of the weights shown.

SEC. 11. SAME: EXECUTION; REQUIREMENTS.—A li- censed public weighmaster shall not enter on a weight certificate

issued by him any weight values but such as he has personally

determined, and he shall make no entries on a weight certificate

issued by some other person. A weight certificate shall be so prepared as to show clearly that weight or weights were actually

determined. If the certificate form provides for the entry of

gross, tare, and net weights, in any case in which only the gross,

the tare, or the net weight is determined by the weighmaster he

shall strike through or otherwise cancel the printed entries for

the weights not determined or computed. If gross and tare

weights are shown on a weight certificate and both of these were

not determined on the same scale and on the day for which the

certificate is dated, the weighmaster shall identify on the certificate the scale used for determining each such weight and the

date of each such determination.

SEC. 12. SCALE USED: TYPE; TEST.—When making a weight determination as provided for by this Act, a licensed

public weighmaster shall use a weighing device that is of a type

191
suitable for the weighing of the amount and kind of material

to be weighed and that has been tested and approved for use by a weights and measures officer of this State within a period of

12 months immediately preceding the date of the weighing.

SEC. 13. SAME: CAPACITY; PLATFORM SIZE; ONEDRAFT WEIGHING.—A licensed public weighmaster shall not

use any scale to weigh a load the value of which exceeds the

nominal or rated capacity of the scale. When the gross or tare weight of any vehicle or combination of vehicles is to be determined, the weighing shall be performed upon a scale having

a platform of sufficient size to accommodate such vehicle or combination of vehicles fully, completely, and as one entire unit.

If a combination of vehicles must be broken up into separate

units in order to be weighed as prescribed herein, each such sep- arate unit shall be entirely disconnected before weighing and a

separate weight certificate shall be issued for each such separate

unit.

SEC. U. COPIES OF WEIGHT CERTIFICATES.—A licensed

public weighmaster shall keep and preserve for at least one year, or for such longer period as may be specified in the regulations

authorized to be issued for the enforcement of this Act, a legible

carbon copy of each weight certificate issued by him, which copies shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection by any

weights and measures officer of this State. SEC. 15. RECIPROCAL ACCEPTANCE OF WEIGHT CERTIFICATES.—Whenever in any other State which licenses

public weighmasters, there is statutory authority for the recognition and acceptance of the weight certificates issued by licensed

weighmasters of this State, the director of this State is authorized to recognize and accept the weight certificates of such

other State. SEC. 16. OPTIONAL LICENSING.—The following persons

shall not be required, but shall be permitted, to obtain licenses as licensed public weighmasters: (1) a weights and measures

officer when acting within the scope of his official duties, (2) a person weighing property, produce, commodities, or articles that

he or his employer, if any, is either buying or selling, and (3) a person weighing property, produce, commodities, or articles in

j conformity with the requirements of Federal statutes or the

statutes of this State relative to warehousemen or processors.

SEC. 17. PROHIBITED ACTS.—No person shall assume the

title licensed public weighmaster, or any title of similar import,

perform the duties or acts to be performed by a licensed public

weighmaster under this Act, hold himself out as a licensed public

weighmaster, issue any weight certificate, ticket, memorandum,

or statement for which a fee is charged, or engage in the full- time or part-time business of public weighing, unless he holds a

valid license as a licensed public weighmaster. "Public weighing," as used in this section, shall mean the weighing for any

person, upon request, of property, produce, commodities, or ar- 192
tides other than those which the weigher or his employer, if any, is either buying or selling.

SEC. 18. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE. —The director is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of

any licensed public weighmaster (1) when he is satisfied, after a hearing upon 10 days' notice to the licensee, that the said

licensee has violated any provision of this Act or of any valid

regulation of the director affecting licensed public weighmasters,

or (2) when a licensed public weighmaster has been convicted in

any court of competent jurisdiction of violating any provision of

this Act or of any regulation issued under authority of this Act.

SEC. 19. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES.—Any person who

requests a licensed public weighmaster to weigh any property,

produce, commodity, or article falsely or incorrectly, or who re- quests a false or incorrect weight certificate, or any person who

issues a weight certificate simulating the weight certificate prescribed in this Act and who is not a licensed public weighmaster,

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction for the first offense shall be punished by a fine in any sum not less than

twenty-five dollars or more than one hundred dollars ; and upon

a second or subsequent conviction such person shall be punished

by a fine in any sum not less than one hundred dollars or more

than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not less than

thirty days or more than ninety days, or by both such fine and

imprisonment.

SEC. 20. SAME: MALFEASANCE.—Any licensed public

weighmaster who falsifies a weight certificate, or who delegates

his authority to any person not licensed as a licensed public

weighmaster, or who preseals a weight certificate with his official seal before performing the act of weighing, shall be guilty

of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a

fine in any sum not less than fifty dollars or more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days

or more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SEC. 21. SAME: GENERAL.—Any person who violates any

provision of this Act or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto for which no specific penalty has been provided

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be

punished by a fine in any amount not less than twenty-five dollars

or more than one hundred dollars.

SEC. 22. VALIDITY OF PROSECUTIONS.—Prosecutions for

violation of any provision of this Act are declared to be valid

and proper notwithstanding the existence of any other valid

general or specific Act of this State dealing with matters that

may be the same as or similar to those covered by this Act.

SEC. 23. SEPARABILITY PROVISION.—If any provision of

this Act is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof

to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the constitutionality

of the remainder of the Act and the applicability thereof to other

persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

193
SEC. 2k. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING LA WS.—All laws and

parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of

this Act, and specifically .

are repealed insofar as they might operate in the future; but as

to offenses committed, liabilities incurred, and claims now existing thereunder, the existing law shall remain in full force and

effect. SEC. 25. CITATION.—This Act may be cited as the "Weighmaster Act of " SEC. 26. EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall become effec- tive on

(Item 4 was adopted by voice vote.)

5. GLAZING COMPOUND, CALKING COMPOUND, AND PUTTY

The States of Virginia and Wisconsin have pointed out to the

Committee that there exists generally in commerce what appears

to be a violation of Section 25 of the Model State Law on Weights

and Measures in the method of sale of glazing compound, calking

compound, and putty. Section 25 stipulates that commodities

not in liquid form shall be sold only by weight. These commodities, which are not in liquid form, are being labeled and

sold, in many cases, in terms of liquid measure. It is the view

of the Committee that this is a matter that best can be handled

by the Office of Weights and Measures in direct negotiation with

the industry involved, and recommends that such negotiations

be initiated.

(Item 5 was adopted by voice vote.)

6. LABELING OF SOFT DRINKS

A number of States have reported to the Committee frustrating experiences in their attempts to bring about correction in

the labeling of soft drinks so as to bring these into conformance

with the Model Package Regulation and the Administrative Ruling. The Committee urges that the soft drink industry be more

aggressive in its efforts toward the correction of labeling, where

necessary, and recommends that all States cooperate in bringing

about such correction.

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

R. L. Callahan : Mr. Chairman, I am the legal counsel to the

American Bottlers and Carbonated Beverages Association. We

of the national association of the soft drink industry, representing about 3900 bottlers throughout the country and the large

parent companies which produce the syrups and franchises to bottlers to do operations, are somewhat at a loss to understand

this Item 6 in the report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, especially the reference to the fact that we should be more

aggressive in our efforts toward correcting these labeling

situations.

194
We have participated throughout in the drafting of the Administrative Ruling as it applies to our permanently labeled bottles. We have worked with the Committee. We have attended

the hearings, and I myself have attended various groups, local and regional groups, of this Association in efforts to find out what

the problems might be that the State officials are encountering

in dealing with our people, and I have not had any indication of

any problems.

With regard to our efforts, we have made very aggressive ef- forts to try to get the provisions of the Administrative Ruling,

which is now to become a regulation, adopted and put into effect. Immediately after the meeting last year, when you first put out the Administrative Ruling, we gave it wide publicity.

We sent our special mailings to all of our members, and at our

national convention in November in Chicago last year we devoted an entire morning session to discussing the requirements

of this regulation and urging our members to comply with it immediately. Last May we had a meeting here of our State

Association officials from all 50 States, and at that time again we repeated the importance of compliance with this regulation

and the need to cooperate with the State officials in meeting these

requirements.

We feel we are doing everything we can and we will continue

to make a most aggressive effort to bring our people into compliance. I sincerely ask that this Item No. 6 not be adopted here.

Mr. A. L. Little: Mr. Chairman, the Committee will recall

that we recently submitted a sample of a new bottle labeling to the Committee which had been sent to us for our approval by

one of the leading bottlers. Although the new design was intended to comply with the Administrative Ruling it failed to meet the requirements and could not be approved. I feel that our action has prompted the Committee's proposal, and I think

certainly the Committee is justified in bringing attention to the

matter. The bottling industry as a whole possibly is very aggressive

in its efforts to comply. However, in some cases, as we well know,

action of the right kind has not been taken.

Mr. Callahan: I do not know the case which Mr. Little is referring to, but I do believe in all honesty that one isolated

example is insufficient to warrant casting this sort of aspersion

on our industry.

Mr. Barker: I think you misread this as a censure. It is merely a suggestion to States who have not been active in en- forcing whatever violation there has been of the law and to please call it to the attention of the Committee and to the

Bureau, so that it can be adequately handled and talked out with

representatives of the soft drink industry. It certainly is not

intended as a censure.

(Item 6 was adopted by voice vote.) (On motion by Mr. Barker, seconded from the floor, the Conference by

voice vote adopted the Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations.)

(On motion by Mr. Barker, the Conference authorized the Executive Secretary to exercise reasonable editorial freedom in preparing the final report

of the Committee and in preparing the documents based on the report.)

195
Mr. Barker: The Committee desires to record once again its gratitude for the response of weights and measures officials generally and of segments of the packaging industry to the Model

Package Regulation and the Administrative Ruling. This re- sponse is a unique demonstration of what can be accomplished

through Government-Industry cooperation—accomplishments that

in the long run will benefit industry, business, and consumers. The Committee also desires to express its appreciation to all of those who have responded to its inquiries and to those who

presented their views either in writing or orally.

The Committee regrets sincerely that because of travel limitations imposed by his State, the Committee Chairman, Mr. John H.

Lewis, could not be present at this Conference. His absence

has in no way detracted from his contributions throughout the

year.

L. Barker, Acting Chairman

H. L. Goforth

M. Jennings

J. L. Littlefield

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

H. F. Wollin, Staff Assistant

Committee on Laws and Regulations

196
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

presented by R. E. Meek, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Health, State of Indiana

(Thursday, June 24, 1965, 3:10 p.m.)

The Final Report of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances comprises a complete revision of National Bureau of

Standards Handbook 44, covering technical

requirements for all commercial weighing

and measuring devices.

The members of the Committee have been

in almost constant communication throughout the year and have attempted to provide

all who are interested ample time and opportunity to make known their desires with

respect to this revision.

The Committee's Tentative Report was

distributed several months ago and its Final Report made available on Tuesday of this week. With the assumption that the

> delegates are prepared now for final discussion and action, I shall call the codes, code by code, as they appear in the proposed

revision, and shall call for Conference action on each individual

code.

1. GENERAL CODE

Mr. Greenspan: Why was paragraph G-S.5.5.1. deleted?

This paragraph originally read : "Any recorded money-value representation on a computing-type weighing or measuring device

used in retail trade shall be in combination with a recorded

quantity representation."

Mr. Meek : Since the requirements pertaining to printed

tickets now are contained in individual codes, and since in certain instances such requirements are found necessarily to be in

conflict with this proposed general requirement, it is the recommendation of the Committee that this general requirement be

deleted. Mr. Christie: We are interested in paragraph G-T.l., ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES.

We would like to know the reason for the reduction from 90

to 30 days for the application of acceptance tolerances.

Mr. Meek : First, there has been a general reduction in tol- erances and a reduction in the minimum tolerance values for

scales. Furthermore, it would not appear to me to be practical to extend the time limit, for the reason that some devices when

placed into service may be used for thousands and thousands of

weighings, whereas other devices may be used vary sparingly.

Actually, it would seem most appropriate that acceptance tol- erances apply only at the time the device is accepted and placed

into service. But, unfortunately, most weights and measures of197
ficials are not in a position always to be present to test a device

before it is placed in service. Therefore, I think there should

be some latitude, but I question the advisability of extending it beyond 30 days.

(Item 1 was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.)

2. SCALE CODE

MR. WlLDRlCK : Mr. Chairman, I move that paragraph SR.4.1.

be amended to read

"The maximum SR on a livestock scale and on an animal scale

shall be the value of the minimum graduated interval on the

weighbeam."

In Wisconsin there are $40 million worth of veal calves marketed annually. We feel that a 10-pound SR is too great. We

found as a general practice in Wisconsin that in an actual transaction of weighing the animal the livestock dealer believes he is entitled to the "break of the beam."

I have talked to various scale representatives here. None has

expressed any concern over the amendment as I have proposed it. Mr. Meek : It is my understanding that this code has been

studied and agreed to by the Packers and Livestock Division,

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Would Mr. Thompson like to speak on this proposed amendment?

Mr. Thompson : We have given this proposal some consideration. We believe that it would result in the rejection of a large

number of weighbeam scales. Possibly this is desirable, but we

feel that a little more consideration should be given before such

a change is made. We would be glad to conduct a study on this

and try to determine if it is feasible.

(Mr. Wildrick's proposed amendment of paragraph SR. 4.1. was defeated by a standing vote, 62 to 68.) (Item 2 was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.)

3. WEIGHTS CODE

(Item 3 was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.)

4. CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Mr. Meek : Before making a motion on the Code for LiquidMeasuring Devices, I would like to read a statement from the

Committee

Subsequent to the preparation of the Committee's Final Report, a number of weights and measures officials and representatives of the petroleum industry urged the Committee to delay

any adjustment of tolerances for wholesale liquid-measuring devices and also for vehicle-tank meters for a period of one year,

during which time a comprehensive study could be conducted to determine in more specific terms meter performance capability.

The Committee accepts this as a reasonable request, and accordingly amends its Final Report by restoring the tolerances for

wholesale liquid-measuring devices as these appear in the present

Handbook 44.

The Committee feels that the industries involved could hav€

developed meaningful performance data during this past year

198
and probably thus could have avoided this delay. The industries

are urged to try and conduct such comprehensive studies as will

provide the Committee with performance information on which

to base more realistic tolerances.

Mr. Greenspan : Paragraph S.l.4.4. PRINTED TICKET apparently does not require that the total number of gallons be

recorded on a ticket on which the total computed price appears.

Is my interpretation correct?

Mr. Meek : The Committee has been made aware of design

advances in retail motor-fuel dispensers that provide facilities

for printing the total computed price and the price per gallon.

Although the Committee still feels that manufacturers should

work toward the device that prints also the number of gallons,

it feels the Code should not at this time prohibit those advances

that presently are available.

MR. Lyles : Are these devices already on the market or are

they just on the drawing board? It seems to me this may be a backward step.

Mr. Siebold : No, these are in actual use. There are not huge

numbers of them installed as yet, but there will be more and

more of them, especially on large loading racks in wholesale

service.

Mr. Greenspan: Mr. Chairman, I move that proposed Specification S.l.4.4. be amended so as to require that the total

gallons delivered and the price per gallon be printed on a ticket

issued by a retail computing device on which is printed the total

computed price.

(Mr. Greenspan's motion to amend was seconded from the floor.)

Mr. Meek : The Committee is informed that the manufacturers are not now in a position to manufacture devices that will

accomplish what is proposed by Mr. Greenspan's amendment.

If they are not, and they are working toward that end, I see no

reason for us to retard the progress that is being made.

Mr. Stasenko: I am with A. 0. Smith Corporation. I am

representing the gas-pump industry and possibly can be a spokesman for the meter industry.

The printing output that most manufacturers are looking at is a digital readout. The computing mechanism and some other

computers in the industry are analog devices. Now, transferring

the information from a mechanical analog mechanism through

an electronic black box, which is a digital conversion unit, into a

printing output, which would be analog but the output would

be digital—you are asking for a digital output from a mechanical

analog device. In most instances, you will not get agreement.

(A standing vote on Mr. Greenspan's proposed amendment was requested.

By vote of 82 to 51 the amendment was adopted.)

(At this point there was considerable discussion on the words "some

reasonable customer position" in Specifications paragraph S.2.5.I., ZERO

SET-BACK INTERLOCK. The discussion centered about the interpretation

of the language.)

(Item 4 as amended, was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.) [See end of Report of Committee on Specifications and Tolerances for Statement by Mr. Robert Primley read at this point in the presentation

j of the Committee Report.]

199
5. CODE FOR VEHICLE-TANK METERS

Mr. Meek: For the reasons set forth previously with respect

to the tolerances for wholesale liquid-measuring devices, the

Committee amends its Final Report so as to restore the tolerances

for vehicle tank meters as set forth in present Handbook 44.

(Item 5 was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.) (The following codes were adopted by the Conference by voice vote, with- out substantive discussion: LP Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices

Liquid Measures

Vehicle Tanks Used as Measures Farm Milk Tanks

Measure Containers

Milk Bottles Lubricating-Oil Bottles Graduates

Linear Measures

Fabric-Measuring Devices

Cordage-Measuring Devices

Taximeters

Odometers

Dry Measures

Berry Baskets and Boxes)

(Mr. Meek moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, as amended, was adopted by the Conference by voice vote.) (On motion by Mr. Meek, seconded from the floor, the Conference authorized the Executive Secretary to make necessary editorial alterations in' the publication of the revision of National Bureau of Standards Handbook

44-3d Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Require- ments for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices.")

Mr. Meek : The Committee is fully aware that an effort of the

magnitude of the complete revision of all technical requirements

for devices could not be accomplished successfully without the

cooperative assistance of both weights and measures officials and

representatives of industry. The Committee is grateful for the: willingness of the many individuals who participated in this; effort.

It is the sincere hope of the Committee that, with the adoption

by the National Conference on Weights and Measures of the re- 1 vision of the Handbook, the terms thus agreed to will be accept-i

able to every State and that, in each State where action is necessary for official adoption, such action will be started just as soon as the printed version of the Handbook is available. The:

finest evidence of sound leadership toward nationwide uniformity on the part of State officials would be a report by the Executive

Secretary of this Conference to the 51st National Conference

that the third edition of Handbook 44 had been adopted in al 50 States. On behalf of each and every one of the members of this Com

mittee, I want to thank everyone again for the fine cooperatior

given us throughout the year and the fine cooperation extendee

during this Conference, and I do believe and hope that this is ai outstanding piece of progress in the way of specifications anc tolerances to be adopted by this Conference.

200
The Committee owes the National Bureau of Standards, Office

of Weights and Measures, and these various trade associations

and manufacturers a special vote of thanks for their fine

cooperation and help.

R. E. Meek, Chairman

H. J. McDade

G. L. Johnson

J. F. McCarthy

H. D. Robinson

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

D. R. Mackay, Staff Assistant

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Statement by Mr. Robert Primley, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Weights and Measures, Operation and Engineering Committee,

American Petroleum Institute

Mr. Chairman, this is my first visit to a National Conference

on Weights and Measures, and I assure you that it has been a

great privilege and a most challenging situation to be a part of

this 50th Anniversary. I have looked forward to this for quite some time and with anticipation, but for a time my joy was at a

rather low ebb. You see, I come from the midwest. My home is on the shores of beautiful Lake Michigan, and there some of us

still look to Washington, D.C., as the greatest center of leadership in the world. But after about five days of being here,

sitting in a number of meetings during hours of discussion, I was gravely concerned about the leadership idea.

It is most necessary in our dynamic society, and we realize

this, that many changes must constantly be made. Yet, if changes are made without understanding and cooperation, they

will surely not be effective. If we are to build a constructive

future together democratically, then complete understanding is necessary.

I assure you that after what has been said here in these last few moments it has returned my ideals that I have brought with

me to this Conference, and we from the petroleum industry sincerely thank your Committee for giving us the consideration that

you have. We stand ready at all times to help you engineers

and technical people to consider all of these areas of tolerances,

so that we in the future might have perfect understanding, as we all sincerely try to build for the future.

I pledge you our support, and again we thank you very much

for these considerations.

201
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS

presented by D. M. Turnbull, Chairman, Director, Division

of Licenses and Standards, Seattle, Washington

(Thursday, June 24, 1965, 2:10 p.m.)

The Organization and Procedure of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures stipulates that the offices of President

and Executive Secretary shall be filled by, 1 staff members of the National Bureau of

Standards, ex officio. All other officers are

elected by vote of the Conference.

In the selection of active members to be

considered for nomination, consideration was

given to attendance record, geographical distribution, Conference participation, and

other factors deemed by the Committee to be important.

The Nominating Committee submits the following names in

nomination for office, to serve during the ensuing year or until

their successors might be elected

Chairman : J. F. True, Kansas

Vice Chairmen: E. H. Black, California; L. L. Elliott, Massachusetts; M. Jennings, Tennessee; J. L. Littlefield, Michigan.

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, Indiana

Chaplain : R. W. Searles, Ohio.

Executive Committee : A. J. Albanese, Connecticut ; L. A. Gredy,

Indiana; J. G. Gustafson, Minnesota; M. L. Kinlaw, North

Carolina; R. K. Sharp, Oklahoma; F. F. Thompson, Louisiana;

L. W. Vezina, Virginia ; A. W. Weidner, New York ; W. W.

Wells, District of Columbia; E. C. Westwood, Utah.

D. M. Turnbull, Chairman H. D. Robinson

H. E. Crawford C. H. Stender

R. E. Meek R. Williams

J. I. Moore Nominations Committee

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were

declared closed and the officers nominated by the Committee were elected unanimously by voice vote.)

202
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

presented by G..L. JOHNSON, Chairman, Director, Division

of Weights and Measures, State of Kentucky

The Committee on Resolutions, having met

and considered resolutions submitted to it by members of this 50th National Conference on Weights and Measures and other

resolutions that originated with members of

the Committee, now submits to this Conference for its consideration and action the

following resolutions that have received the

unanimous endorsement of the Committee.

There are included a number of individual

resolutions which express appreciation for

the arrangements for, conduct of, and participation in the National Conference. In order to expedite the handling of this phase of the Conference

program, I request permission of the Chair simply to indicate

those to whom appreciation is to be officially expressed

1. To the Honorable John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, for his constructive contribution to the program of the 50th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. To Mr. W. J. Owen, Chief Inspector, Weights and Measures Office, City

of Bradford, England, for his splendid address and for contributing to the

success of committee hearings by participating in the deliberations.

3. To Mr. Bryce Harlow, Director of Governmental Relations, Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company, for his interesting and enlightening

address to the Golden Anniversary Banquet.

4. To all program speakers and Standing Committees.

5. To business and industry for cooperating with the Conference, for attending and participating in the Conference, and for contributing to the

success of the Conference through their participation and their gracious

hospitality.

6. To all State and local governing agencies that have arranged for or made possible the attendance at this meeting of one or more representatives

of their organization to participate in the deliberations directed toward the betterment of weights and measures controls throughout the Nation.

7. To the Director and staff of the National Bureau of Standards for their

tireless efforts to insure a successful Conference in planning and administering the program and other details so essential to an interesting educational meeting.

8. To the exhibitors, who devoted so much time and effort to insure the

success of the Golden Anniversary Exposition.

9. To the staff of the Sheraton-Park Hotel, who materially assisted in the success of the Conference.

(The following resolution was prepared by the Industry Committee on Weights and Measures and read to the Conference by Mr. F. T. Dierson,

Chairman of the Industry Committee.)

Whereas, the Industry Committee on Weights and Measures

represents a substantial part of the various industries whose

products are subject to regulation under State and Federal

weights and measures legislation; and

Whereas, the Industry Committee on Weights and Measures is vitally concerned with uniformity of regulation and has urged

the necessity of a model State regulation of quantity declaration

for packaged commodities : and

203
Whereas, the National Conference on Weights and Measures

and the National Bureau of Standards have developed a uniform

model regulation on prominence and placement of quantity 1 statements on package labels, which the Industry Committee

wholeheartedly supports for general adoption by the various

State officials : Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Industry Committee on Weights and Measures at its June 22d meeting in Washington, D.C., does express

its thanks and appreciation to the National Conference on

Weights and Measures and its delegates for their successful ef- forts in the development and the sponsoring of a uniform regulation on prominence and placement of quantity declaration, and

be it further

Resolved, That the Industry Committee on Weights and Measures extends its appreciation to the National Bureau of Standards of the United States Department of Commerce for its valuable assistance in the development and the sponsorship of a model weights and measures regulation for packaged commodities.

# # * #' # 4r * G. L. Johnson, Chairman

H. P. Hutchinson

E. W. Ballentine

P. DeVries

Committee on Resolutions

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by voice vote.)

204
REPORT OF AUDITING COMMITTEE

presented by A. L. Little, Chairman, Head, Weights and

Measures Division, State of Arkansas

(Friday, June 25, 1965, 9:20 a.m.)

On June 24, your Auditing Committee

checked the books of Mr. Morgan, the Conference Treasurer, and found that everything was in order. It is my pleasure to report that we approved the records of the

Conference as they have been kept by Mr.

Morgan.

A. L. Little, Chairman

I. R. Frazer

N. TlLLEMAN

Committee on Auditing

(The report of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

205
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

presented by C. C. Morgan, Treasurer, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Gary, Indiana

(Friday, June 25, 1965, 9:25 a.m.)

Balance on hand May 1, 1964 $ 3,712.91

Receipts:

Registration fees—427 at $15.00 $6,405.00

Refund from Education Committee — 4.68 Sale of Luncheon Tickets—14 at $4.00 56.00 Bank Interest Accrued 218.79 Subtotal 6,684.47 6,684.47 Total - 10,397.38

Disbursements:

Franklin Press, Luncheon Tickets,

Receipts, I. D. Cards, etc. $ 54.60 William Stancliff, Lettering Award Certificate 26.80 Annual Conference Luncheon—416 at $4,095 1,703.52

Executive Committee Breakfast—24 at $2,925 70.20 Ladies Entertainment for Tuesday Afternoon 14.04 Flowers for Podium 15.45 Expense of Registration Desk, Press

Desk, Headquarters Suite 115.17 Gratuities for Hotel Personnel contributed to Conference, compliment Dinners for Speakers, tips for porter, maid, messenger,

recording, printing, etc. 157.05 A. B. & W. Transit Co., Sightseeing 129.00 The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company .. 21.40 Investigation Service, 2 Employees . 38.25 The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company .. . 1.32

J. T. Daniell, Education Committee . 25.00 William Stancliff, Lettering Certificates 19.60 American Electrotype Co. Inc., 2,000 Mats 72.10 S & T Committee 1,044.41

Bank Charge 7.60 Ladies, Mrs. Virginia Moore, Speaker,

Madison Room 36.00 Deposit on Mr. Gregory's Account 75.00 Subtotal 3,626.51 3,626.5 1 Total balance on hand June 1, 1965 6,770.87

Depository : Bank of Indiana, Gary, Indiana

First Federal Savings and Loan Association, Gary, Indiana

(Signed) C. C. Morgan.

(On motion of the Treasurer, seconded from the floor, the report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

206
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

Delegates—State, City, and County Officials

ALABAMA

Birmingham L. T. Wills, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Department, 406 City Hall. ARKANSAS

State A. L. Little, Head, Weights and Measures Division, State Plant Board, 421% W. Capitol Avenue, P. 0. Box 1069, Little Rock 72203. CALIFORNIA

State W. A. Kerlin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, 1220 N

Street, Sacramento 95814.

County:

Alameda R. H. Fernsten, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 333 5th Street, Oakland.

Kern A. D. Rose, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1116 E. California Avenue, Bakersfield

93307. Los Angeles F. M. Raymund, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, 3200 N. Main Street, Los Angeles

90031. San Bernardino H. E. Sandel, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 160 E. 6th Street, San Bernardino 92410. San Diego H. J. McDade, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, 1480 "¥" Street, P. O. Box 588,

San Diego 92112. San Mateo W. H. Frey, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 702 Chestnut Street, Redwood City 94063. Ventura E. H. Black, County Director of Weights and

Measures, P. O. Box 1610, Ventura 93002. COLORADO

State .... H. N. Duff, State Supervisor, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State

Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street, Denver

80203. H. H. Houston, Director, Oil Inspection Department, 1024 Speer Boulevard, Denver 80204. CONNECTICUT

State F. M. Gersz, Deputy Commissioner, Department

of Consumer Protection, State Office Building,

Room 105, Hartford 06115. John Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures Division. W. B. Kelley, Senior Inspector.

City:

Hartford Nathan Kalechman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 550 Main Street. Middletown Peter Grassi, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Box 223, City Hall. New Britain A. J. Albanese, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. DELAWARE

State W. H. Naudain, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, Dover 19901.

if W. C. Baumgardt, State Inspector.

F. C. Colamaio, State Inspector.

207

- —
F. D. Donovan, State Inspector.

I. K. Gibbs, State Inspector.

Eugene Keeley, State Inspector.

R. R. Smith, State Inspector. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Weights, Measures, and Markets Branch, Department of Licenses and In- spections, Room 227 Esso Building, 261 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

District J. T. Kennedy, Chief.

J. M. Boucher, Supervisor. K. G. Hayden, Supervisor.

J. T. Bennick, Inspector and Investigator.

R. E. Bradley, Inspector and Investigator.

J. M. Burke, Inspector and Investigator.

W. R. Cornelius, Inspector and Investigator.

F. C. Harbour, Inspector and Investigator. H. P. Hutchinson, Inspector and Investigator. G. P. Kosmos, Inspector and Investigator.

E. E. Maxwell, Inspector and Investigator.

C. L. McDonald, Inspector and Investigator.

I. L. Wagner, Inspector and Investigator.

W. W. Wells, Inspector and Investigator.

FLORIDA

State Nalls Berryman, Director, Division of Standards,

Department of Agriculture, Nathan Mayo Building, Room 107, Tallahassee 32304. W. A. Cogburn, Jr., Metrologist.

H. E. Crawford, Inspector of Weights and Measures, City Hall, Room 203. H. E. Howard, Supervisor, Division of Trade

Standards, Coconut Grove Station, P. O. Box

708. GEORGIA

State J. B. McGee, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture

Building, Capitol Square, Room 330 Atlanta

30303.

R. M. Buchanan, Field Supervisor.

J. W. D. Harvey, State Oil Chemist, State Oil Lab.,; Department of Revenue, 264 Capitol Place, At-; lanta 30334.

ILLINOIS H. L. Goforth, Superintendent, Division of Feeds,

Fertilizers, and Standards, Department of Agriculture, 531 E. Sangamon Avenue, Spring-!

field 62706. John Staley, Jr., Assistant Superintendent.

R. J. Fahey, Acting City Sealer, Department of: Weights and Measures, Central Office Building,

Room 302, 320 N. Clark Street. Luke Prendergast, Chief Taximeter Inspector,

Public Vehicle License Commission, 1111 S. State Street, Room 105. INDIANA

R. E. Meek, Director, Division of Weights and* Measures, State Board of Health, 1330 W. Michigan Street, Indianapolis, 46207.

L. A. Gredy, State Inspector.

City:

Jacksonville 32202

Miami 33133

State

City:

Chicago 60610

State

208
County

Clark R. W. Walker, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House Annex, Jeffersonville. Clinton W. H. Crum, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, R. R. #2, Frankfort 46041. Grant _ _ Harvey Cline, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, P. 0. Box 421, Marion 46953. Howard I. R. Frazer, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 113 N. Washington Street, Kokomo

46901. Lake Nicholas Bucur, County Inspector of Weights

and Measures, 15 W. 4th Avenue, Gary 46408. LaPorte Edwin Hanish, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Michigan City 46360. Marion E. H. Maxwell, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Room G-4 City-County Building, In- dianapolis.

Frank Brugh, Deputy County Inspector.

Miami Victor Scott, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, R. R. #1, Bunker Hill 46914. Porter R. H. Claussen, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Room 6, Court House, Valparaiso.

St. Joseph C. S. Zmudzinski, County Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Court House, Room 4, South Bend

46601. Vigo _ R. J. Silcock, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Room 5, Terre Haute.

City:

Gary 46402 C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Hammond 46320 .... Dean Brahos, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 5925 Calumet Avenue.

Indianapolis 46204 W. R. Copeland, Director, Department of Weights

and Measures, Room G-6, City-County Building.

South Bend B. S. Cichowicz, City Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. Terre Haute 47801 J. T. Harper, City Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Hall, Room 205. KANSAS

State J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Office Building, Topeka 66612.

R. N. Davis, State Inspector.

W. B. Sprang, State Inspector.

Raymond Vell, State Inspector.

4 City:Kansas City D. L. Lynch, Deputy City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall, 6th Ann Ave. Topeka D. J. Weick, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Room 254, City Hall. KENTUCKY

State G. L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol

Annex, Frankfort 40601. LOUISIANA

State J. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture and Immigration, Box 4292, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge

70804. A. J. Mayer, Jr., Weights and Measures Inspector,

Dept. of Agriculture, 1631 Music Street, New

Orleans. 209
F. F. Thompson, Chief Chemist, Department of Revenue, P. O. Box 18374 University Station, Baton Rouge 70821. MAINE

State H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Augusta 04330.

City: 1

Portland 04111 C. J. Wills, Jr., City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Room 16, 389 Congress Street. MARYLAND

State J. E. Mahoney, State Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Department of Markets, State Board of Agriculture, University of Maryland,

College Park 20742.

R. L. Thompson, Assistant Superintendent.

E. E. Baumann, State Inspector. D. E. Helms, State Inspector.

R. W. Glendenning, State Inspector, P. O. Box

356, Chestertown.

L. H. DeGrange, State Inspector, Route 2, Frederick.

C. R. Stockman, State Inspector, Route 5, Box

251, Cumberland 21505.

R. J. Cord, Chief Sealer of Weights and Measures,

County Service Building, Room 101, Hyattsville

20780.

L. S. Grasso, Deputy County Sealer. D. G. Trask, Deputy County Sealer. A. H. Gardner, Sealer Trainee.

City:

Baltimore 21207 G. H. Leithauser, Chief Inspector, Division of Weights and Measures, Municipal Building,

Room 1106. MASSACHUSETTS

State W. C. Hughes, Head Administrative Assistant,

Division of Standards, Department of Labor

and Industries, State House, Boston 02133.

City:

Agawam 01001 L. D. Draghetti, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 36 Main Street. Boston 02108 J. F. McCarthy, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Room 105 City Hall Annex. Cambridge 02139 .... A. T. Anderson, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall, Room 202. Everett 02149 L. L. Elliott, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall, Room 2. Fitchburg 01422 ...... W. T. Deloge, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall Annex, Elm Street. Holyoke J. E. Richard, Deputy Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. Newton J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall.

Pittsfield ... F. J. Hughes, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Box 530. Salem B. A. Kotulak, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 174 Bridge Street. Somerville .. E. L. Mallard, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Public Works Building, Franey Road.

County

Prince George's

210
West Springfield C. A. Jacobson, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 61 Morgan Road, Town Hall. MICHIGAN

State J. L. Littlefield, Chief, Food Inspection Division,

Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing 48913.

C. O. Cottom, Supervising Inspector.

Jack Hartzell, General Supervisor.

Miss Margaret Treanor, Secretary, Food Inspection Division (representing Michigan Association of Weights and Measures Officials). R. J. Tuttle, State Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 321 East Street South, Morenci

49256.

County

Saginaw ..._> W. E. Hoffman, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 6358 Mackinaw Road, Saginaw 48604.

City:Detroit 48216 J. T. Daniell, Deputy Sealer, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, 2693 18th Street. Livonia 48154 R. C. Baumgartner, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 15050 Farmington Road.

Pontiac M. J. Nolin, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Pontiac Police Department, 110 E. Pike

Street.MINNESOTA

State W. E. Czaia, Supervisor, Department of Weights

and Measures, Railroad and Warehouse Commission, One Flour Exchange, Minneapolis

55415. K. L. Lockwood, Weights and Measures Inspector

III, Track and Hopper Scale Department, Rail- road and Warehouse Commission, 320 Grain Exchange Building, Minneapolis 55415.

City:

Minneapolis 55415 _ J. G. Gustafson, Chief Inspector, Department of Licenses, Weights and Measures, Room 101A,

City Hall. MISSISSIPPI

State ._. P. W. Gaither, Deputy Director, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Agriculture

and Commerce, State Office Building, P. O. Box

1609, Jackson 39205. MISSOURI

State .__ J. P. Argenbright, Assistant Commissioner, De- partment of Agriculture, Jefferson Building,

Jefferson City 65102.

J. H. Wilson, Director, Weights and Measures Division. County

St. Louis L. A. Rick, Supervisor, Division of Weights and

Measures, 8008 Carondelet, Clayton 63105.

City:

St. Louis .. D. I. Offner, Commissioner of Weights and Measures, City Hall. MONTANA

State C. L. Purdy, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Helena 59601. 211
NEW HAMPSHIRE

State G. H. Laramie, Director, Division of Markets

and Standards, Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Concord 03301. A. H. Dittrich, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures.

NEW JERSEY

State —- Michael Gold, Deputy Attorney General, State House Annex, Trenton.

S. H. Christie, Jr., Deputy State Superintendent,

Division of Weights and Measures, Department

of Law and Public Safety, 187 W. Hanover

Street, Trenton 08625.

J. R. Bird, Supervisor, Technical Services. Anthony Del Tufo, Supervisor of Enforcement.

A. T. Smith, Supervisor of Licensing.

E. N. Colgan, Regional Supervisor.

County:

Atlantic J. E. Myers, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 350 S. Harbor Road, Hammonton. Bergen J. A. Pollock, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 66 Zabriskie Street, Hackensack

07601.

F. C. Holley, Assistant County Superintendent.

Burlington D. F. Hummel, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 49 Water Street, Mt. Holly.

James Carnival, Assistant County Superintendent. E. D. Gaskill, Assistant County Superintendent,

Jacksonville Road, Bordentown.

Camden E. T. Carey, Jr., Director of Weights and Measures, City Hall. A. C. Becker, County Superintendent.

Carmen Cirucci, Assistant County Superintendent. H. J. Davidson, Assistant County Superintendent.

Steve Francesconi, Assistant County Superin-;

tendent. Cumberland G. S. Franks, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 1142 E. Landis Avenue, Vineland

08251. Nicholas DiMarco, Assistant County Superintendent, 305 N. 11th Street, Millville 08332. Essex W. H. Schneidewind, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, 278 New Street, Newark

07103. Mercer R. M. Bodenweiser, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Court House, Trenton

08607. Monmouth W. I. Thompson, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, P. O. Box 74, Allenhurst

07711.

J. A. J. Bovie, Assistant County Superintendent,

82 W. Wall Street, Neptune City 07753. W. G. Dox, Assistant County Superintendent, 40 \ Waverly Place, Red Bank 07701.

E. H. Camoosa, County Inspector, 1106 Jeffrey

Street, Asbury Park 07712.

J. J. Elker, County Inspector, 1219 1st Avenue,

Asbury Park 07712. Passaic . William Miller, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, 317 Pennsylvania Avenue, Patterson 07503. 212
Salem R. B. Jones, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Box 24, Salem 08079. Warren G. E. Connolly, County Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Court House, Belvidere

07823.

J. P. Burns, Assistant County Superintendent.

City:

Bayonne J. J. Sheehan, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. Jersey City P. A. Wermert, Municipal Superintendent of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Kearny James Pollock, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 402 Kearny Avenue, Town Hall. Passaic 07055 Paul DeVries, Municipal Superintendent of Weights and Measures, City Hall.

P. J. Domino, Assistant Municipal Superintendent. Trenton 08608 R. J. Boney, Municipal Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 324 East State Street, City Hall Annex. NEW MEXICO

State C. B. Whigham, Chief, Division of Markets,

Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Box 457, University Park 88070. NEW YORK

State J. F. Madden, Director, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Laboratory Building, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany 12226.

County

Monroe R. J. Veness, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1400 South Avenue, Rochester 14620.

L. P. Romano, Deputy County Sealer. Nassau r __ Robert Williams, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 1035 Stewart Avenue, Garden City

11533. A. W. Weidner, Jr., Assistant County Sealer. Washington C. F. Fountaine, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, R. D. #2, Fort Ann 12827. Wayne H. H. Wright, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 30 Catherine Street, Lyons 14489.

City:

Binghamton 13901 E. N. Volkay, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Glen Cove 11542 E. T. Hunter, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Ithaca 14850 E. P. Nedrow, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Lackawanna 14218 J. J. Seres, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 84 Rosary Avenue. New York 10013 Moe Greenspan, Supervising Inspector, Bureau

of Weights and Measures, Department of Markets, 137 Centre Street. Martin Aurigemma, Inspector.

White Plains 10601 T. E. Latimore, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Department of Public Safety, 279 Hamilton Avenue. Yonkers 10701 S. J. DiMase, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. 213
NORTH CAROLINA

State J. I. Moore, Superintendent, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building, Raleigh.

M. L. Kinlaw, Supervisor. D. G. Perry, State Inspector.

W. D. Taylor, State Inspector.

NORTH DAKOTA

State Adin Helgeson, Chief Inspector, Department of:: Weights and Measures, Public Service Commission, Capitol Building, Bismarck 58501. John Kaufman, State Inspector.

OHIO

V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights and 1 Measures, Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg 43068.

Ferd Wellman, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, R. R. #1, New Knoxville 45871. Brice Mann, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, c/o County Auditor, Court House, Wauseon 43567.

R. W. Searles, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Board of Education Building, 137 W. Friendship Street, Medina 44256.

G. D. Thacker, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Court House, Chillicothe. A. L. Deckerd, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Court House, Canton. W. K. Commerson, Deputy County Sealer of 1 Weights and Measures, Court House, Akron

44308.

J. E. Mathews, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Court House, New Philadelphia

44663. j J. W. Swinehart, Deputy County Sealer of Weights and Measures, County Auditor's Office, Wooster 44691.

A. J. Ladd, Acting Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 69 N. Union Street. L. B. Frank, Supervising Inspector, Markets,

Weights, and Measures, 316 George Street.

C. R. Mercurio, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 200 Greenlawn Avenue.

C. A. Turner, City Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Building.

OKLAHOMA

State H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing Division, State Board of Agriculture, 122 Capitol

Building, Oklahoma City 73105.

City:

Tulsa J. L. Smith, Director, Weights and Measures, Office of Commissioner of Finance and Revenue,

City Hall.

PENNSYLVANIA

State W. A. Polaski, Director, Bureau of Standard

Weights and Measures, Department of Internal

Affairs, Capitol Building, Harrisburg 17120.

State

County:

Auglaize .....

Fulton

Medina

Ross

Stark

Summit

Tuscarawas

Wayne

City:

Akron 44304

Cincinnati 45202 .... Columbus

Springfield

214
E. A. Vadelund, Assistant Director. George Mraz, State Inspector.

F. E. Dysinger, Field Supervisor of Weights and

Measures, Mifflintown 17059.

County:

Allegheny E. W. Stec, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Grant Street, Pittsfa ui-gh.

Delaware E. B. Story, Jr., Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Media 19063. Philadelphia 19107 _. S. F. Valtri, Field Inspection Supervisor, Bureau

of Weights and Measures, Room 306, City Hall. Washington P. J. Pavlak, Chief County Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Box 147, Daisytown.

City:

Philadelphia v19107 J. E. Ryan, Field Inspector II, City Hall, Room

306. Bethlehem 18018 .... Castanzo Castellucci, City Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Department of Public Safety, 623

8th Avenue.

Wilkes-Barre 18701 Chester Ostrowski, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall, E. Market Street. Williamsport S. J. ClLLO, City Inspector of Weights and Measures, City Hall. PUERTO RICO Commonwealth H. L. Schmidt, Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures, Economic Stabilization Administration, P.O. Box 4183, San Juan 00905. RHODE ISLAND

State E. R. Fisher, State Sealer of Weights and Measures, Department of Labor, Veterans Memorial

Building, 83 Park Street, Providence 02903. SOUTH CAROLINA

State C. H. Stender, Deputy Commissioner, Department

of Agriculture, P.O. Box 1080, Columbia 29202.

E. W. Ballentine, Director, Bureau of Inspection.

J. V. Pugh, State Inspector of Weights and Measures. W. H. Rhodes, State Inspector.

SOUTH DAKOTA

State Donald Spiegel, Director, Division of Inspections,

Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Pierre 57501.

L. G. Bies, Heavy Scale Inspector, Public Utilities Commission, Salem.

J. A. Etzkorn, Scale Inspector, State House,

Pierre 57501. D . C. Hanna, Senior Heavy Scale Inspector,

Spencer.

B. E. Hofer, Scale Inspector, Pierre. TENNESSEE

State Matt Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing,

Department of Agriculture, Melrose Station, P.O. Box 9030, Nashville, 37204.

J. F. Burton, Weight Inspector.

State R. T. Williams, Chief, Marketing Division, De- partment of Agriculture, John Reagan Building, Austin 78711. 215
City:Dallas 75201 F. G. Yarbrough, Chief Deputy Sealer, Weights,

Measures, and Markets, City Hall. Fort Worth 76107 R. L. Sharp, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Department of Public Health and Welfare,

Public Health Center, 1800 University Drive. UTAH

City:Salt Lake E. C. Westwood, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 140 South Third West. VERMONT

State T. F. Brink, Director, Division of Standards, De- partment of Agriculture, Agriculture Building,

Montpelier.

VIRGINIA Weights and Measures Regulatory Section, Division of Regulatory Services,

Department of Agriculture & Immigration, 203 N. Governor St., Richmond

23219. State M. B. Rowe, Director, Division of Regulatory Services. J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Regulatory Section.

J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor.

O. T. Almarode, Field Supervisor.

B. P. Bowers, State Inspector. G. T. Copenhaver, State Inspector, R. R. #1, Box

318, Rural Retreat.

R. M. Cox, State Inspector.

S. L. Duke, State Inspector.

W. M. Dunn, Jr., State Inspector, R. F. D. 3, Box

892, Suffolk. R. W. Elliott, State Inspector.

W. L. Gray, State Inspector.

W. R. Igo, State Inspector.

J. B. Haun, State Inspector, 234 W. Frederick

Street, P. O. Box 363, Staunton.

E. W. Hudson, State Inspector.

W. R. Jones, State Inspector.

G. P. Latimer, State Inspector.

J. E. Michaux, State Inspector. R. Owens, III, State Inspector. G. E. Porter, State Inspector.

J. W. Rogers, State Inspector.

J. W. Sadler, State Inspector.

J. G. Sanders, State Inspector.

F. W. Saunders, Field Supervisor.

R. H. Shelton, State Inspector.

R. V. Thomas, State Inspector, 1013 11th Street

R. N. Trenary, State Inspector, Box 342, Middleburg.

J. F. Wells, State Inspector. R. S. Winfree, State Inspector.

T. H. Wood, State Inspector.

C. E. Whitman, Field Supervisor, Scale Maintenance, Department of Highways, 1221 E. Broad

Street, Richmond.

County:

Arlington G. D. Taylor, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 1400 N. Court House Road, Arlington. 216
L. W. Vezina, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall.

C. H. Wrenn, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Curb Market Building, Spring Street.

C. A. Wood, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Lynchburg Health Department, 701 Hollins Street. W. F. Bradley, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Department of Public Safety, 406 E. Plume Street.

C. R. Branch, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. W. G. Alvis, Inspector, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Safety-Health-Welfare Building, 501 N. 9th Street. M. L. Rice, Senior Inspector.

M. B. Bear, Inspector. A. B. Moody, Inspector.

E. C. Rager, Inspector.

J. M. Aldrich, Jr., City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Market Building, Campbell Avenue.

E. L. Whitehurst, Supervisor, Division of Weights and Measures, P. 0. Box 6175, Prince

Anne Station.

G. E. Ferrell, Inspector.

WASHINGTON

City:Seattle 98104 D. M. Turnbull, Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Office of the Comptroller, 101 Seattle Municipal Building.

WEST VIRGINIA Weights and Measures Division, Department of Labor, State Office Building, 1800 E. Washington Street, Charleston 24305.

State Lawrence Barker, Commissioner, Department of Labor.

W. H. Holt, Administrative Assistant to Commissioner.

B. R. Haught, Director, Weights and Measures

Division. R. B. Coughenour, Chief Inspector.

J. S. Finley, State Inspector, Danese. Carl Freeland, State Inspector, Middlebourne.

E. L. Hoskinson, State Inspector. V. S. Matson, State Inspector.

Haskel Schilansky, State Inspector.

R. E. Short, State Inspector.

J. C. Spinks, State Inspector, Craigsville. Joe Straface, State Inspector, Stak City. F. J. Thomas, Chief Inspector.

R. D. Williams, State Inspector, Prosperity.

E. B. Woodford, State Inspector. WISCONSIN

State D. E. Konsoer, Assistant Chief—Trade, Division

of Dairy, Food and Trade, Department of Agriculture, Hill Farms State Office Building, Madison 53702.

T. E. Wildrick, Technical Supervisor.

City:Green Bay 54301 .... N. P. Tilleman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. LaCrosse .. A. L. Klein, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, 416 Jay Street.

City:

Alexandria 22313

Danville 24541

Lynchburg

Norfolk

Petersburg 23803 _

Richmond 23219

Roanoke

Virginia Beach

23456

217
Racine 53403 R. J. Zierten, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Sheboygan 53081 .... R. K. Lorenz, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Wausau 54401 J. H. Akey, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

400 Myron Street. West Allis 53214 .... J. J. Persak, Deputy Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1559 S. 65th Street. Advisory Members

U.S. Department of Commerce:

Honorable J. T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce.

J. H. HOLLOMON, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology.

National Bureau of Standards:

Office of the Director (Division 100) : A. V. Astin, Director.

I. C. Schoonover, Deputy Director.

Office of Public Information (Division 102) : J. F. Reilly, Writer-Editor.

Office of Associate Director for Administration:

Plant Division (Division 126) : Dick Baldauf, Engineering Planner, Gaithersburg Plan- ning Group.

Office of Associate Director for Technical Support:

Office of Technical Information and Publications (Division 141)

W. R. Tilley, Chief. Information Section

R. T. Cook, Chief. Mrs. C. C. Atwood, Technical Information Writer.

M. A. Bond, Information Specialist. Editorial Section: R. S. Will, Technical Editor. Graphic Arts Section: Mrs. E. V. Meyer, Illustrator. Photographic Services Section: W. P. Richardson, Chief.

L. W. Furlow, Photographer.

J. D. Watkins, Photographer.

Office of the Manager, Boulder Laboratories (Boulder, Colo.) (Di- vision 160) : J. R. Craddock, Chief.

C. L. Bragaw, Information Specialist. Institute for Basic Standards:

Metrology Division (Division 212) : Photometry and Colorimetry Section: R. W. Crouch, Jr., Technologist.

Engineering Metrology Section: W. F. Vogel, Engineering Advisor.

C S. Kopec, Mechanical Engineer.

Mass and Volume Section:

P. E. Pontius, Chief. H. E. Almer, Physical Science Technician. H. L. Badger, Physicist. Mrs. G. D. Golson, Physical Science Aid.

Geraldine E. Hailes, Mathematician.

Jean M. Howell, Physical Science Technician. H. K. Johnson, Mechanical Equipment Inspector. Mrs. M. W. Jones, Physical Science Technician.

B. C. Keysar, Physical Science Technician.

L. E. Lambrecht, Railway Track Scale Inspector.

Josephine W. Lembeck, Physical Science Aid.

J. J. Litzinger, Engineering Technician.

J. L. Mason, Physical Science Technician.

R. C. Raybold, Mathematics Statistician. Physical Chemistry Division (Division 223):

Thermochemistry Section: Mrs. M. V. Kilday, Physical Chemist.

J. I. Minor, Jr., Physical Chemist.

218
Institute for Materials Research

Inorganic Materials Division (Division 313) : H. S. Peiser, Chief, Crystal Chemistry Section.

Institute for Applied Technology (Division 400) : D. A. Schon, Director.

J. P. Eberhakd, Deputy Director. W. R. Herron, Civil Engineer.

R. W. Smith, Manager, Special Projects.

Office of Weights and Measures (Division 404) : M. W. Jensen, Chief. W. C. Bandy, Coordinator, Federal-State Technical

Services. H. F. Wollin, Engineer.

D. R. Mackay, Engineer.

R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator.

S. Hasko, Engineer.

T. M. Stabler, Laboratory Metrologist.

L. J. Chisholm, Technical Writer.

J. H. Griffith, Engineering Aid. M. J. Tartaglia, Engineering Aid. Mrs. F. C. Bell, Administrative Assistant. Mrs. M. M. Brodmerkel, Secretary. Mrs. E. M. Burnette, Secretary. Mrs. D. J. Snyder, Secretary. Mrs. B. B. Watkins, Secretary.

Office of Engineering Standards (Division 405) ; D. R. Stevenson, Project Manager.

Building Research Division (Division 421) : W. Hansen Hall, Electrical Engineer, Codes and

Standards Section. Central Radio Propagation Laboratory (Boulder, Colo.) : Aeronomy Division (Division 540) : E. E. Ferguson, Electronic Engineer, Aeronomical Collision Processes. Business and Defense Services Administration:

Containers and Packaging Division:

O. C. Reynolds, Director. R. Weinstein, Chief, Consumer Packaging Branch.

C. H. Felton, Chief, Containerization Branch.

U. S. Department of Agriculture:

Consumer and Marketing Service

Dairy Division: Fred Stein, Marketing Specialist.

Packers and Stockyards Division

Scales and Weighing Branch

R. D. Thompson, Chief.

C. H. Oakley, Assistant Chief.

T. C. Harris, Jr., Scales and Weighing Specialist. R. L. Hahnert, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Indianapolis, Indiana.

W. R. Madden, Scales and Weighing Specialist, Omaha, Nebraska. Poultry Division: Inspection Branch: R. D. Murphy, Marketing Specialist.

Standardization and Marketing Practices Branch:

H. C. Kennett, Assistant Chief. U. S. Federal Trade Commission: P. R. Dixon, Chairman.

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:

Food and Drug Administration:

Office of Federal-State Relations

J. C. Pearson, Director.

B. V. McFarland, Deputy Director. W. J. Kustka, Food and Drug Officer. O. H. McKagen, Food and Drug Officer. Food Standards and Additives Division: Food Additive Branch: M. M. Smith, Jr., Analytical Chemist.

Food Technology Branch : M. W. Prochazka, Chemist.

219
U. S. Post Office Department:

Bureau of Facilities: A. J. Coffman, Deputy Assistant Postmaster General. Maintenance Division: Charles Dieman, Director. Kenneth Brown, Maintenance Management Officer. Operating Equipment Branch

D. C. McCutcheon, Chief.

J. W. Duchesne, Equipment Specialist, General. W. F. Fitzgerald, Equipment Specialist.

Realty Review Branch: M. C. Mathews, Realty Analyst.

Bureau of Chief Postal Inspector:

L. A. Peter, Investigations Reviewer, Service Investigations and

Inspections Division. U. S. Treasury Department:

Bureau of Customs:

E. W. Teagarden, Engineer, Division of Technical Services.

Associate Members—Manufacturers of Weighing and Measuring Devices

Aero-Chatillon Corporation

G. C. Reiley, Executive Vice President, 85 Cliff Street, New York,

New York 10038. George Reynolds, Vice President, Sales.

S. Hejzlar, Chief Engineer.

W. B. Wagner, Manager, Field Sales.

J. A. Smith, Field Sales Manager, A. H. Emery Company, 25 Pine Street, New Canaan, Connecticut.

E. C. Prietz, N. E. Field Representative, John Chatillon and Son, 30 Waldorf Road, Newton 61, Massachusetts.

Ainsworth, Wm., & Sons, Inc.: R. D. Bennett, East Coast District Manager, 2157 Lawrence St., Denver,

Colo. 80205. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

J. B. Henry, Product Sales Manager, Oliver Building, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15222. American Can Co.: D. H. Johns, Director, Special Projects, 100 Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017.

C. G. McBride, Assistant to Vice President, (Dixie Cup Products), 24th and Dixie Ave., Easton, Pa. 18043. W. H. Marks, Head, Specifications Department.

E. H. Ruyle, Technical Service Representative, 11th Ave. & St., Charles

Road, Maywood, III. American Meter Co., Inc. R. R. Douglas, Design Engineer, P.O. Box 11600, 13500 Philmont Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 19116. W. N. Frick, Engineer.

T. J. Smith, Product Manager.

W. V. Stockton, Product Manager.

Badger Meter Manufacturing Co.: M. E. Hartz, Director of Research and Engineering, 4545 W. Brown Deer

Road, Milwaukee, Wis. 53223. BLH Electronics: H. T. Lowell, General Sales Manager, 42 4th Ave., Waltham, Mass. 02154. Bennett Pump Division, John Wood Co.

A. C. Raschke, General Sales Manager, Broadway & Wood St., Muskegon,

Mich. 49444. M. S. GODSMAN, Service Manager.

L. G. Close, Baltimore District Manager, 2127 N. Charles St., Baltimore,

Md. 21218. A. H. Exner, Baltimore District Manager.

Bowser, Inc.

W. J. Quinlan, Service Manager, Greeneville, Tenn. Ramon Wyer.

Buffalo Scales:

R. J. Coleman, Executive Vice President, 46 Letchworth, Buffalo, N.Y. 220
Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.: D. H. Perry, Sales, P.O. Box 151, Webb City, Mo. 64870. Conoflow Corp.

E. F. Holben, Director of Research, 2100 Arch St., Philadelphia, Pa.

19103. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.: W. C. Kesler, Technical Representative, 9300 Ashton Rd., Philadelphia,

Pa. 19136. DeLaval Separator Co.:

R. J. Rutgerson, Sales Engineer, DeLaval Building, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Detecto Scales, Inc.: M. E. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Secretary, 540 Park Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y. 11205. Mack Rapp, Vice President. Eastern Scale Co.:

E. C. Johnson, Vice President, 30 Carnforth Road, Toronto, Canada.

Erie Strayer Co.: R. L. Strayer, Vice President, Box 1031, Erie, Pa. Exact Weight Scale Co.

W. A. Scheurer, Vice Chairman of the Board, 538 E. Town St., Columbus,

Ohio 43215.

D. G. Marshall, Vice-President, Engineering, 944 W. 5th Ave.

R. W. Grant, Sales Manager, 538 E. Town St. E. A. LeVay, Division Manager, 36 W. 25th St., Baltimore, Md.

Ex-Cell-0 Corp.:

D. J. Crawford, Director of Pure-Pak Laboratories, R&D Packaging

Division, 850 Ladd Rd., Walled Lake, Mich. 48088. Arnold Dorbeck, Supervisor, 1200 Oakman Boulevard, Detroit, Mich.

48232. Fairbanks Morse Weighing Systems Division

R. E. Isaacson, President, 19-01 Route 208, Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410. H. E. Bosley, Marketing Director.

J. L. Trebilcock, Manager, Government Business.

R. H. Damon, Director, R. & D. Engineering.

Roy Johnson, Manager, Advertising.

R. P. Lofquist, Product Manager.

J. H. Nowlan, National Service Manager.

P. J. Rozema, Manager, Standard Products.

Fuller, H. J. & Sons, Inc.: W. S. Fuller, Vice President, 1212 Chesapeake Ave., Columbus, Ohio

43212.

Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co.:

R. E. Nix, Manager, Sales Engineering, West Springfield, Mass.

Gilmore Industries:

D. M. Button, Product Manager, 3355 Richmond Rd., Cleveland, Ohio.

Gurley, W. & L. E.

R. G. Betts, Chairman of the Board, 514 Fulton St., Troy, N.Y.

F. G. Williams, Representative, 5514 Nevada Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20015. Halmor Industries:

J. R. Neal, Sales Manager, 1120 N. Boston, Tulsa, Okla. 74114.

C. G. Shannon, Salesman.

Haskon, Inc.: D. R. Seifel, Staff Engineer, 11-05 44th Dr., Long Island City, N.Y.

Higgin Scales, Inc.

W. L. Higgin, 2622 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, Calif. Hobart Mfg. Co.: D. A. Meeker, Chairman of the Board, Pennsylvania Ave. at Simpson

St., Troy, Ohio 45373.

K. C. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 448 Huffman Ave., Davton,

Ohio 45403.

K. D. Allen, Project Engineer, Pennsylvania Ave. at Simpson St., Trov,

Ohio 45373.

C. G. Gehringer, Sales Manager, Heavy-Capacity Scales. M. E. Bone, Weights and Measures Representative, 448 Huffman Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45403.

E. E. Boshinski, Research Engineer, Manager Dayton Research Division, 228 N. Irwin St., Dayton, Ohio. 221
Howe-Richardson Scale Co.:

I. H. Richardson, Chairman, 672 Van Houten Ave., Clifton, N.J. 07015.

L. R. Gaiennie, President. A. J. Burke, Vice President. Joseph Giner, Vice President, Sales. G. J. Devine, Regional Manager, 36-12 47th Ave., Long Island City, N.Y. George Wilkinson, National Service Manager, 668 Van Houten Ave.,

Clifton, N.J. 07015. V. W. Wyatt, Assistant to President.

R. F. Straw, 311 Northwest 206 Terr., Miami 69, Fla. Johnson, C. S., Division, Koehring Co.:

J. S. Shapland, Chief Engineer, Box 3067, Champaign, 111. 61822. King, J. A., & Co.:

J. A. King, Sr., President, Greensboro, N.C. Kippenbrock Scale Service:

J. B. Kippenbrock, Owner, 9539 First View St., Norfolk, Va. 23503. Laboratory Equipment Corp.: A. E. Cleveland, Director of Engineering and Manufacturing, 156 E. Harrison St., Mooresville, Ind. 46158.

Lily-Tulip Cup Corp.:

D. F. McMahon, Assistant to Vice President, 122 E. 42d St., New York, N.Y. 10017. Liquid Controls Corp.: H. O. Link, Assistant to Vice President, 4305 Canco Rd., Baltimore,

Md. 21227. Paul Renfrew, Consultant, 3050 Roxbury Ave., Oakland, Calif. 94605. Howard Siebold, Chief Engineer, 2100 Commonwealth Ave., North Chiago, 111. 60065. W. S. Fliess, Jr., Sales Manager.

Liquid Package Equipment Corp.:

J. P. Conley, Secretary and Treasurer, Box 430, Woodstock, 111. Lockheed Electronics: Irving Berson, Service Manager, National Road, Edison, N.J. 08817. Lufkin Rule Co.: Lewis Barnard, Jr., Chairman of the Board, 1730 Hess Ave., Saginaw,

Mich. 48601. E. L. Geiersbach, Manager, Government Sales. Martin-Decker Corp.:

C. L. Howard, General Sales Manager, 3431 Cherry Ave., Long Beach,

Calif. 90807.

J. W. Knowlton, Assistant General Manager.

E. I. Shelley, Western District Manager.

D. A. Yeo.

L. G. Almquist, Division Manager, 5929 Waltrid, Houston, Tex. Mclntyre, John J., Sons, Inc.: F. L. McIntyre, President, 514-16 Knorr St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19111. Measuregraph Co.: G. S. Rosborough, Jr., President, 4245 Forest Park Blvd., St. Louis, Mo.

63108.

J. P. Reiton, Vice President.

F. L. Wall, Regional Manager, 7106 Hickory Hill Rd., Falls Church, Va.

Mettler Instrument Corp.:

L. B. Macurdy, Staff Metrologist, 20 Nassau St., Princeton, N.J. 08540. E. R. Roberts, Applications Analyst.

Miller, Byron, & Associates:

B. D. Miller, Owner, 7712 Georgia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012. Moody, Edward G., & Son, Inc.: E. G. Moody, Treasurer, Box 130, Nashua, New Hampshire 01437. Murphy, L. R., Scale Company:

L. R. Murphy, President, 1610 N. C Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Neptune Meter Company:

C. W. Krause, Vice President & General Manager, 47-25 34th Street, Long Island City, New York 11101. E. F. Wehmann, Manager, Engineering Administration.

W. A. Medford, Engineer.

J. C. Hart, Assistant Sales Manager.

H. A. Lentz, Sales Engineer, 7 Bala Ave., Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

222
Nicol Scales, Inc.: W. F. Nicol, President, 1315 S. Akard Street, Dallas, Texas 75202. Ohaus Scale Corporation:

R. E. Ohaus, President, 1050 Commerce Avenue, Union, New Jersey 07083.

J. H. Landvater, Vice President of Engineering.

E. D. Myers, Chief Engineer.

J. P. Slane, Regional Sales Manager.

Ohio Counting Scale, Inc.:

J. D. Gunn, Sales Manager, 3500 St. Clair Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.

Owens-Illinois Glass Company:

F. B. BUSCH, Specifications Engineer, P.O. Box 1035, Toledo, Ohio 43601.

P. H. Petres, Sales Supervisor, Carbonated Beverage Marketing.

D. M. Mahoney, Manager, Quality Centre, 14th and Adams St., Toledo,

Ohio. W. A. Recknagel, Specifications Engineer. M. E. Smith, Supervisor, Customer Service, Plastic Division. Penn Scale Manufacturing Company, Inc.: Sydney Black, President, 150 W. Berks Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122. Pennsylvania Scale Company:

J. D. Fisher, Sales Manager, 21 Graybill Road, Leola, Pennsylvania.

Philips Electronics Industries

D. K. Laine, Sales Engineer, 116 Vanderhoof Avenue, Toronto 17, Ontario, Canada.

Pitney-Bowes, Inc.

R. C. DuBois, Assistant Chief Engineer, Walnut & Pacific Streets, Stamford, Connecticut 06904. Clay Murray, Jr., Product Analyst.

Pneumatic Scale Corporation:

J. S. Blackwell, Research Director, Newport Avenue, Quincy, Massachusetts 02171.

Potter Aeronautical Corporation

James Murphy, Administrative Assistant, Route 22, Union, New Jersey.

Radson Engineering Corporation:

G. H. Fathauer, Vice President, Macon, Illinois. Revere Corporation of America:

P. S. Wells, President, 845 N. Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut

06493.

C. E. Roessler, Regional Manager.

C. W. Silver, Manager, Research & Engineering.

H. L. Zupp, Regional Manager, 3525 Guilford Avenue, N.W., Canton, Ohio

44718

Rockwell Manufacturing Company:

B. A. Broome, Sales Engineer, 309 City Line Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. A. J. Komich, Product Manager, Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia.

C. P. Rennie, Sales Engineer, Measurement and Control Division, 3508

Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10001. Sanitary Scale Company:

E. C. Karp, Vice President, Manufacturing and Engineering 910 E. Lincoln Avenue, Belvidere, 111., 61008. Sven Berglund, Plant Engineer.

R. W. Nicholls, Technician.

Sauter, August, of America, Inc.:

J. R. Gilman, President, 80 5th Avenue, New York, New York.

Sealright Co., Inc.: R. S. Weeks, Manager, Marketing Service, Fulton, New York.

Seraphin Test Measure Company:

L. C. Schloder, Manager and Owner, 1314 N. 7th Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19122.

Smith, A. O., Corporation:

W. T. Schultze, Eastern Manager, 605 3d Avenue, New York, New York

10016. Stephen Stasenko, Engineering Supervisor, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie,

Pennsylvania.

K. W. Steen, Product Manager.

Spinks Scale Company:

D. F. Laird, President, 836 Stewart Avenue, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30310. H. A. Sullivan, N.E. Manager, 609 E. Washington Street, Bloomington,

Illinois. 223
Streeter-Amet

V. C. Kennedy, Sr., President, Grayslake, Illinois. V. C. Kennedy, Jr., Executive Vice President. E. J. Micono, Service Manager.

R. J. Wynn, Sales Engineer.

Suburban Propane:

W. S. Bigelow, Secretary, P.O. Box 206, Whippany, New Jersey.

Sun Oil Company

William Gorden, Manager, Plant Operations Division, General Marketing

Operations, 1608 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

E. W. Hess, Manager, General Marketing Operations.

W. A. Pierson, Special Assistant, Plant Operations Division. Swab Wagon Company, Inc.: W. P. Lehman, Secretary, 21 S. Callowhill Street, Elizabethville, Pennsylvania 17023. W. H. Daniel, Sales Representative.

Telomex-Arenco

B. I. Graab, Product Manager, 500 Hollister Road, Teterboro, New Jersey

07608.

D. H. Newman, Export Sales Manager.

S. C. Whiteford, Technical Director. Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc.

L. E. Young, Manager, Customer Service & Quality Control, Box 265,

Elmira, New York 14902.

J. J. Bober, Assistant Director of Central Quality Control. Thurman Scale Company:

J. R. Schaeffer, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio, 43207. Julian Barnett, Purchasing Agent.

Tokheim Corporation:

William Louthan, Manager, Field Service, 1602 Wabash Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801. Toledo Scale Company:

F. D. Instone, Vice President, 5225 Telegraph Road, Toledo, Ohio 43612.

G. L. Dull, Field Service Engineer.

J. P. Geis. Ed Hall, Regional Engineer.

D. B. Kendall, Manager, Product Engineering.

R. V. Miller, National Manager of Weights and Measures and Sanitary

Standards.

R. Y. Moss, General Manager.

William Winter, District Manager, Baltimore, Maryland.

Richard Sallee, Regional Engineer, 43-25 Hunter Street, Long Island City 1, New York.

J. T. Hoyle, District Manager, 3329 8th Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. Torsion Balance Company:

D. B. Kearney, President, 35 Monhegan Street, Clifton, New Jersey 07013.

C. T. Kasline, Sales Manager.

E. L. Giller, Eastern Area Manager.

Triner Scale & Manufacturing Company

M. J. Chitjian, Vice President, 386 Park Avenue, S., New York, New York

10016.

R. W. Sladek, Assistant to the President, 2714 W. 21st Street, Chicago,

Illinois. Troemner, Henry, Inc.: L. U. Park, President, 6825 Greenway Ave., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19142. John Sharp, Sales Representative.

Veeder-Root, Inc.

H. W. Barnes, Product Sales Manager, Petroleum Products Division, 70 Sargeant Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06102.

R. P. Huckman, Product Performance Manager.

T. J. McLaughlin, Field Sales Representative.

R. W. Moller, Electronics Sales Manager, Danvers, Massachusetts.

Voland Corporation:

Bernard Wasko, Vice President, Engineering, 27 Centre Avenue, New Rochelle, New York 10802. Wayne Pump Company, Symington Wayne Corporation:

W. J. Dubsky, Chief Engineer, Product Engineering, 124 E. College Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801. 224
W. 0. Howland, Manager, Technical Services.

G. A. Lindenkohl, Field Service Engineer.

F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant. Winslow Government Standard Scale Works, Inc.

C. E. Ehrenhardt, Vice President, 25th & Haythorne Avenue, P.O. Box

1523, Terre Haute, Indiana 47808.

Associate Members—Associations, Business, and Industry

Acme IVtsrkets Inc. * H. W. Johns, Quality Control, 124 N. 15th St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages

R. L. Callahan, Jr., Legal Counsel, 1128 16th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. American Butter Institute and National Cheese Institute, Inc.

E. W. Gaumnitz, Executive Secretary, 110 N. Franklin St., Chicago, Il- linois 60606. American Meat Institute: A. D. Bond, Washington Representative, 727 National Press Building,

Washington, D.C. American Movers Conference:

J. McBrayer, Government Liaison Officer, 1616 P St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. American Oil Co.:

R. H. Anderson, Engineering Coordinator, 910 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago,

Illinois 60680. Eugene Runes, Project Manager, Box 431, Whiting, Indiana 46394. American Petroleum Institute:

R. Southers, Operations and Engineering Coordinator, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020. American Standards Association: A. C. Hutton, Consultant to the National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234. American Sugar Co.

R. P. Fremgen, Quality Control Supervisor, 120 Wall St., New York, New

York.

E. P. Lorfanfant, Attorney.

American Taxicab Association:

F. P. Saponaro, Jr., Attorney, 932 Pennsylvania Building, Washington,

D.C. Arabian American Oil Co.:

F. J. Pietrowski, Staff Engineer, 505 Park Ave., New York, New York.

Armour Industrial Nitrogen Division

J. S. Krol, Field Service Administrator, P.O. Box 1685, Atlanta, Georgia

30301.

Atlantic Refining Co.

W. A. Lindsay, Manager, Automotive Section, 260 S. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101. Automobile Manufacturers Association:

R. M. Parsons, Attorney, 320 New Center Building, Detroit, Mich. 48202. Beech-Nut Life Savers, Inc.: D. A. Bell, Salesman, 261 Congressional Lane, #514, Rockville, Maryland

20852. Bon Ton Food Products, Inc.: W. D. Myers, Jr., President, 3801 37th Place, Brentwood, Maryland.

Borden Company:

D. M. Dent, Law Department, 350 Madison Avenue, New York 17, New

York.

Canner-Packer

H. V. Semling, 1401 Sheridan Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Carnation Company:

R. F. Daily, Attorney, Carnation Building, Los Angeles, California 90036. Chemical and Engineering News:

A. E. Levitt, Associate Editor, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20036. Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc.: A. A. Mulliken, Secretary, 50 E. 41st Street, New York, New York 10017.

R. L. Ackerly, Counsel, Sellers, Conner and Cuneo, 1625 K Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 225
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad: H. F. Lucas, Assistant Engineer, Chicago, Illinois. Coca-Cola Company:

H. L. Austin, Executive Staff Representative, Industry Relations, 310 North Avenue, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30301. Colgate-Palmolive Company:

E. E. Wolski, Manager of Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York,

New York.

E. S. Wilkins, Attorney.

Crystal Preforming and Packaging:

C. D. Weissert, Director of Sales, Warsaw, Indiana.

Dairy & Food Industries Supply Association

D. H. Williams, Technical Director, 1145 19th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. W. H. Criss, Technical Assistant. Dairy Industry Newsletter: A. O. Nicoll, Editor, 1111 Barr Building, Washington, D.C. 20006. Dairymens League Co-op Association:

Alfred Ahrens, Supervisor of Quality Control, 51-40 59th Street, Woodside, New York, New York.

DuPont, E. I., de Nemours & Company:

W. A. Crawford, Principal Instrument Engineer, Engineering Department, DuPont Building, Wilmington, Delaware 19898.

F. T. Johnson, Marketing Assistant. M. B. Lore.

F. D. Sparre.

Food Business Magazine, Putman Publishing Company:

Jan Nugent, Reporter, #774, National Press Building, 14th and F Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. Food Chemical News:

Raymond Galant, Assistant to the Editor, 602 Warner Building, Washington, D.C.

Frito-Lay, Inc.: W. J. Gee, Packaging Manager, Exchange Bank Building, P.O. Box 35034,

Dallas, Texas. GD/Convair:

M. J. Sexey, Engineering Supervisor, 5001 Kearny Villa Road, San Diego,

California. General Foods Corporation:

L. P. Anderson, Quality Consultant, 250 North Street, White Plains, New

York 10602.

J. V. Pappianne, Development Engineer, Tarrytown, New York.

General Mills, Inc.: O. A. Oudal, Director, Central Quality Control Laboratory, 1081 21st Avenue, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. D. B. Colpitts, Weights and Measures Technician.

Gerber Products Company:

R. C. Frodey, General Manager, Research, Fremont, Michigan.

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.: C. E. Wagner, Development Engineer, 99 Park Avenue, New York, New

York 10016.

R. E. Fisher, Director of Public Affairs. H. W. Kuni, Secretary-Treasurer.

Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.: F. T. Dierson, General Counsel, 205 E. 42d Street, New York, New York

10017. Heinz, H. J., Company:

P. K. Shoemaker, Senior Vice President, P.O. Box 57, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230. D. W. Leeper, Manager, Food Regulation Administration. Hertz Corporation:

L. B. Mewhinney, Associate Corporation Counsel, 660 Madison Avenue,

New York, New York 10021. Humble Oil & Refining Company:

L. E. Kielman, Construction & Maintenance Manager, 7720 York Road,

Baltimore, Maryland 21203.

G. W. FiERO, Government Regulation Liaison, Box 2180, Houston, Texas

77001. 226
K. A. Hartmann, Oil Loss Prevention Coordinator, 60 W. 49th Street, New York 19, New York.

International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers:

R. H. North, Executive Vice President, 1106 Barr Building, Washington,

D.C.

International Packers, Ltd.:

L. R. Bennett, Manager, Quality Control, 135 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60603.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

G. J. Dillinger, Quality Assurance Supervisor, 4800 Oak Grove Drive,

Pasadena, California 91103. Kraft Foods

C. E. White, Production Department, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago, Illi- nois. Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc.: F. R. Cawley, Executive Director, Room 1015 Shoreham Building, 15th & H Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Betty Horn, Assistant to Executive Director. Lehn & Fink Products Corporation

F. G. Taylor, Group Leader Aerosol Research, 192 Bloomfield Avenue,

Bloomfield, New Jersey 07003. Lever Brothers Company:

Ted Biermann, Quality Control Coordinator, 390 Park Avenue, New York,

New York.

W. L. Button, Jr., Plant Operations Manager.

McGraw-Hill Publications:

J. B. Nicholson, Reporter, 1189 National Press Building, Washington,

D.C. 20004. Milk Industry Foundation and International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers : J. F. Speer, Executive Assistant, 1105 Barr Building, Washington, D.C.

20006.

Millers' National Federation

Fred Mewhinney, Washington Representative, 752 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20007.

Mobil Oil Company:

F. C. Swerz, Manager, Wholesale Plants, 150 E. 42d Street, New York 17, New York.

Modern Packaging Magazine:

R. P. MacBride, Associate Editor, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New

York, New York 10019. National Association of Dairy Equipment Manufacturers:

John Marshall, Executive Vice President, 1012 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

National Association of Frozen Food Packers:

L. S. Fenn, Assistant Research Director, 919 18th Street, Washington,

D.C. 20006. National Canners Association

M. D. Smith, Executive Vice President, 1133 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. H. P. Schmitt, Assistant to the Executive Vice President and Director,

Labeling Program.

National Confectioners Association:

J. M. Scheer, Director of Special Services, 36 S. Wabash Avenue, Suite

1300, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

National Consumers League:

Mary Jane Kaniuka, Assistant to General Secretary, 1029 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

National Fisheries Institute: H. W. Magnusson, Technology Director, 1614 Twentieth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20009.

National LP-Gas Association

W. H. Johnson, Vice President, 79 W. Monroe, Chicago, Illinois. National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer Association:

D. S. Ring, General Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

National Petroleum News:

A. E. Lewis, Operations & Equipment Editor, 330 W. 42d Street, New

York, New York 10036. 227
Package Engineering:

R. A. Laubhan, Associate Editor, 2 Riverside Place, Suite 1500, Chicago,

Illinois 60606. Paper Cup & Container Institute, Inc.: R. W. Foster, Executive Director, 250 Park Avenue, New York, New

York 10017.

L. J. Moremen, Manager, General Services. David Carleton, Administrative Manager.

Paper Stationery & Tablet Manufacturers Association, Inc.: E. P. Eaton, Executive Secretary & Counsel, 444 Madison Avenue, Suite 2301, New York, New York 10022. Frank Cowan, Jr., Associate Executive Secretary.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc.: C. H. Brown, Manager, Product Development Services, Westport Avenue,

Norwalk, Connecticut 06852. Pepsi-Cola Company:

A. H. England, Packaging Manager, 46-00 5th Street, Long Island City,

New York 11101.

Phillips Petroleum Company:

G. W. Swinney, Gas and Liquids Branch Manager, 8A1-PB, Bartlesville,

Oklahoma.

J. W. Hale, Technical Representative.

Pillsbury Company

C. E. Joyce, General Claims Manager, 608 Second Avenue, S. Pillsbury

Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408. Procter and Gamble Company:

J. H. Chaloud, Associate Director, Product Development Division, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217. Bryce Harlow, Director of Governmental Relations, Riddell Building, Suite 319, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

O. J. Hausknecht, Head, Factory Service, Soap Products Weights and

Measures, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45216. H. B. Stevenson, Operations and Planning Manager.

C. R. Test, Attorney, P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201. George Hopper, Attorney, 6th & Sycamore Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Produce Packaging Association, Inc.: R. B. Hunte, Executive Assistant, P.O. Box 29, Newark, Delaware 19711. 1 Quaker Oats Company

F. A. Dobbins, Quality Control Manager, Merchandise Mart, Chicago,

Illinois. Republic Steel Corporation:

D. R. Smith, Corporation Weighing Supervisor, 410 Oberlin Road, S.W.,

Massillon, Ohio 44646. Reynolds Metals Company:

R. B. Millman, Jr., Attorney, 6601 W. Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. Scale Journal Publishing Company:

Mrs. S. T. Pickell, Business Manager, 176 W. Adams Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60603. Scale Manufacturers Association: A. G. Bale, President, P.O. Box 2496, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214. Arthur Sanders, Executive Secretary, One Thomas Circle, Washington, D.C. 20005. Seven-Up Company:

K. J. Beeby, Attorney, 1300 Delmar Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.

Shell Chemical Company:

F. A. Weber, Supervisor, Dairy Packaging, 110 W. 51st Street, New York,

New York 10020. Soap and Detergent Association

Anne M. Fallon, Staff Member, 295 Madison Avenue, New York, New

York 10017. Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

T. M. Carty, Secretary, Plastic Bottle Division, 250 Park Avenue, New

York, New York 10017. Sprayon Products, Inc.: William Moonan, Vice President, Sales, 26300 Fargo Avenue, Bedford

Heights, Ohio 44014.

Staley, A. E., Manufacturing Company:

D. P. LANGLOIS, Director Chemical Market-Development, 2200 Eldorado,

Decatur, Illinois 62525. 228
Swift and Company:

H. L. Hensel, Attorney, 115 W. Jackson, Chicago, Illinois. Technical Communications Associates:

Kay Evans, Consultant, 490 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio. Texaco, Inc.: R. H. Tolson, Assistant Manager, Construction and Equipment Division, 135 E. 42d Street, New York 17, New York.

Theisen Clements Company:

E. C. Primley, Operation Manager, 1207 Broad Street, St. Joseph, Michigan. Thread Institute, Inc.: W. F. Operer, Executive Director 15 E. 40th Street, New York, New York

10016. Tissue Association, Inc.

C. J. Carey, Executive Secretary, 122 E. 42d Street, New York, New York

10017. Tobacco Institute, Inc.

F. J. Welch, Executive Vice President, 1735 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Union Carbide Corporation

W. M. Sawers, Manager, Special Services, Food Products Division, 800 Wyatt Building, Washington, D.C. 20005. United Fruit Company:

H. L. Stier, Director, Quality Control, 30 St. James Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts. Wainess, Harold, and Associates:

Harold Wainess, Public Health Consultant, 510 N. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610. Washington Evening Star:

T. F. DlMOND, Reporter, 225 Virginia Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. Welch Grape Juice Company, Inc.:

J. D. Riley, Legal-Tax-Insurance Manager, Welch Block, Westfield, New

York 14787. Westab, Inc.: R. L. Bullington, Eastern Regional Manager, 800 Gordon Avenue, Richmond, Virginia. Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau

C. G. Johnson, General Supervisor, 450 Union Station, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

Retired Delegates

G. F. Austin, 980 Whitmore Road, Detroit, Michigan (formerly City of

Detroit, Michigan).

C. D. Baucom, 2131 N. Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina (formerly State

of North Carolina).

J. F. Blickley, 4538 N. Carlisle Street, Philadelphia 40, Pennsylvania

(formerly State of Pennsylvania).

W. S. BUSSEY, 1511 W. 29th Street, Austin, Texas 78703 (formerly Chief,

Office of Weights and Measures, and Assistant to the Director, National Bureau of Standards).

W. H. Jennings, 3 Brookside Road, Erdenheim, Pennsylvania 19118, (for- merly District of Columbia).

L. V. Judson, P.O. Box 205, Cumberland Center, Maine 04021 (formerly

Physicist, Office of Weights and Measures).

Alfred Lirio, P.O. Box 369, Vineland, New Jersey 08360 (formerly Cumberland County, New Jersey).

J. D. Maher, Midland, Maryland 21542 (formerly State of Maryland).

J. P. McBride, 3 Livermore Road, Belmont, Massachusetts (formerly State

of Massachusetts).

J. H. Meek, Mine Run, Route 1, Orange County, Virginia 22568 (formerly

State of Virginia).

P. E. Nystrom, 4400 Holly Hill Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 (for- merly State of Maryland).

H. H. Russell, 2321 N. 11th Street, P.O. Box 776, Arlington, Virginia 22216

(formerly Mass Section, National Bureau of Standards).

R. W. Smith, 7202 Oakridge Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015, Honorary Member, National Conference on Weights and Measures (formerly

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures).

229
W. K. Thompson, Woodstown, New Jersey 08098 (formerly Cumberland

County, New Jersey).

Harry Turrell, 1909 N. Front, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (formerly State

of Pennsylvania).

0. H. Watson, 232 Millbridge Road, Riverside, Illinois 60546 (formerly Exact Weight Scale Company)

Harold Williams, 176 Pioneer Boulevard, Grand Island, Nebraska, (for- merly Spinks Scale Company).

Foreign Delegates

Canada

R. W. MacLean, Director, Standards Division, Department of Trade and

Commerce, Ottawa. Robert Caron, District Inspector of Weights and Measures, Standards

Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, 2025 Fullum Street, Montreal, Quebec.

J. W. Kokesh, District Inspector of Weights and Measures, Standards

Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, 1859 Leslie Street, Don

Mills, Ontario.

England:

W. J. Owen, Chief Inspector, Standards Office, Rawson Road, Bradford 1. Germany

M. F. G. Kersten, President of Physikalisch-Technische, Bundesanstalt,

Bundesallee 100, 33 Braunschweig.

Mexico

Ing. Carlos Maria Alcocer Castro, Jefe del Departamento de Medidas,

Direccion General de Normas, Secretaria de Industria y Comercio, Av. Cuahtemoc No. 80, Mexico, D. F. Other Guests

L. J. Gordon, Director, Weights and Measures Research Center, 3 Highgate Road, Granville, Ohio 43023.

G. S. Whitney, Chairman, Engineering Technologies Division, Agricultural and Technical Institute, State University, Alfred, New York.

230
231

SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44, 1965 (Replace- ment Sheets

issued annually)

NBS Handbook 67 NBS Handbook 82 NBS Handbook 94 NBS Handbook 98 NBS Handbook 99 NBS Circular 540 NBS Circular 593 NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 233

NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 247 NBS Technical

Note 195 NBS Technical

Note 196

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices. Looseleaf

(binder not included)

Checking Prepackaged Commodities

Weights and Measures Administration

Examination of Weighing Equipment

Examination of Farm Milk Tanks

Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Liquid-Measuring Devices

Weights and Measures Case Reference Book

Federal Basis for Weights and Measures

Units of Weight and Measure—Definitions and Tables of Equivalents

Weights and Measures Standards of the United States—a brief history

Report on Technical Investigation of Odometers Report of the Investigation of Slow-Flow

Meters for Fuel Oil Distribution Systems

$2.00

0.35

1.75 3.00

.35

.35 1.25

.30

.40

.35

.25

.20 REPORTS OF THE

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1963 Miscellaneous Publication 254 .75 1964 Miscellaneous Publication 263 1.00

Index to the Reports of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures from the First to the Forty-fifth, 1905 to 1960 Miscellaneous Publication 243 .40 ORDER ALL PUBLICATIONS, WITH REMITTANCE, FROM THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT

PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 20402.