Is that really one kilogram?

When a retailer weighs out his product in front of the customer, can the customer trust the scales? It is usually up to local government to certify the accuracy of such scales, though in recent years, certification of measuring devices within much of the world has been privatised with various countries’ national laboratories overseeing the certification process.

With the advent of digital weighing devices, the increased sensitivity of devices has become an issue as has the threat of multiplicity of differing local regulations. To promote international harmony, the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) has introduced various recommendations which member states can adopt into their legal structures. The EU was in the forefront of adopting these recommendations and when the United Kingdom left the EU, these rules remained in place. The three recommendations that are of interest to non-automatic weighing devices (i.e. weighing devices that you see at food and vegetable markets, at the deli counter, in the doctor’s surgery, at the Post Office etc) are:

  • R 52 – Hexagonal Weights – metrological and technical requirements
  • R 76 – Non-automatic weighing instruments
  • R 111 – Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F3, M1, M1-2, M2, M2-3 and M3

Recommendation R 52 – Hexagonal Weights

Recommendation R 52 was the first of these recommendations to be published. It defined the physical sizes of cast-iron weights that are sometimes seen in markets. The recommended sizes are 100 g, 200 g, 500 g, 1 kg, 2 kg, 5 kg, 10 kg, 20 kg and 50 kg. Such weights are made of cast iron and have a hollow in their base. This hollow is partially filled with lead to bring it up to the required weight. Once this is done, the lead plug is stamped by an auditing organisation to certify its weight. The allowable tolerance is ±0.05% apart from the 100 g weight where a tolerance of ±0.1% is allowed.

(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1kg_with_creditcard.JPG)

Typical hexagonal 2 kg weight with a credit card to show its relative size.

(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2kg_auditmark.JPG)

The same 2 kg weight showing the assayer’s mark on the lead plug.

In view of recommendation R 111, there have been moves to deprecate this standard but a counter argument that these weights are easy to manufacture and are often still used in third world markets has prevailed.

Recommendation R 76 – Non-automatic weighing instruments

Recommendation R 76 covers almost all weighing devices that display the weight in question and covers anything between jeweller’s balances and industrial weighbridges.

The OIML originally categorised weighing devices in one of four classes defined by the allowable tolerance of the device, but in recent years have expanded Class III, when it is used for weights above 4 tonnes, has been split into two classes – Class III and Class III L.

All classes must meet the following criteria:

  • For a weight to be valid on the device, it must be equal to or exceed the minimum number of divisions with each division usually being equal to one increment.
  • The maximum range of the device must be equal to or exceed the value given in the column “Maximum number of divisions.”
  • The device must be certified by an accredited certification agency, both when it is new and at regular intervals as specified in the manufacturer’s documentation.
  • Other criteria also apply, which are discussed later.

Since the recommendation covers such a wide range of devices the recommendation uses the symbol “e” to represent the minimum increment on the scale. To put this into perspective, consider two different weighing devices that I own. One is a jeweller’s scale which has a capacity of 200 g in 0.01 g increments. The value of “e” for this device is 0.01 g and the maximum value is equivalent to 20 000 times the basic increment. My bathroom scales on the other hand have a different value for “e.” In the range 50 kg to 100 kg, the display is rounded to the nearest 0.2 kg, so on this device, “e” has a value of 0.2 kg thus at 100 kg, the display is 500 times the basic increment.

The classes are defined as follows:

ClassMinimum number of divisions at minimum weightMinimum number of divisions at maximum weightMaximum tolerance at maximum weightApplications
I50 000Not specifiedNot specifiedHigh precision laboratory work
II100 (Note 1) 3 000100 000±0.001%Laboratory work and transactions of high value goods (such as jewellery)
III100 (Note 2) 50010 000±0.01%Most commercial and medical transactions
III L2 000 (Note 3)10 000±0.01%Weighbridges etc (Weights above 4 tonnes)
IIII1001 200±0.08%Portable devices used in medical clinics etc

Note 1: e <= 50 mg

Note 2: e <= 2 g

Note 3: e >= 2 kg

Outline definitions of the various classes of weighing devices

The recommendation runs to almost 100 pages as it covers a variety of weighing devices, both analogue and digital including yardarm balances, point of sale weighting devices, medical scales etc. The points that the recommendation covers include:

  • Default temperature ranges of operation which varies by class. If the device is designed to operate in extreme heat or extreme cold, the ranges should be catalogued and certification tests planned accordingly.
  • If a device has multiple ranges, then each range should be tested separately. For example, my bathroom scale has 0.1 kg increments for weights below 50 kg, 0.2 kg increments for weights between 50 and 100 kg and 0.5 kg increments for weights above 100 kg – this being typical of multiple-range devices.
  • The default range of permitted power fluctuations is defined. Operational use must not be affected if the electrical power fluctuates within the specified limits. If the power fails or is outside limit, the device should either turn itself off or display an error message.
  • Specification of printouts and displays.
  • If the device has a dial and pointer the recommendation defines the spacing of graduation marks.
  • The acceptable accuracy of weights used during certification and must be “e/3”.

The above list is a fraction of the criteria that are listed in the recommendation. The interested reader is referred to the recommendation itself.

Recommendation R 111 – Weights of varying classes

Recommendation R 111 covers three principal categories of weights – those used as references for the calibration of other weights, those use for the calibration of weighing devices and those used for everyday purposes in conjunction with a weighing device. The recommendation is limited to weights that are greater than or equal to 1 mg and less than or equal to 5 tonnes.

The standard defines nine classes of weights known as E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M2, M3, M1-2 and M2-3 (in descending order of accuracy). Three classes of weights are defined for calibration purposes of weighing devices of Classes I, II and III respectively and the remainder are intended either for everyday use for scales of Classes I, II, III, III L and IIII or for calibration purposes of Class IIII devices.

Weights of Class E1 are designed to be calibrated against the national prototype kilogram and to serve as working copies for calibration of other weights. A certificate of traceability against the national prototype accompanies such Class E1 weights. For Class E1 weights of 100 g and above, the permitted tolerance of ±0.5 parts per million. At the other end of the scale, the tolerance weights of class M3 having a nominal weight of 100 g or more is 0.05%. Below 100 g, the tolerance level for all classes of weight is relaxed due to the difficulty of manufacturing of such weights.

Most of the recommendation is devoted to detailed rules concerning the physical construction of the weights, the environment in which they are to be used and the way in which tests are to be carried out. Of note is that the calibration of the weights assume that they will be used in air and that the buoyancy effects need to be considered. The recommendation states that the weight should be accurate when used in air with a density of 1.2 kg/m³ against a target object having a density of 8000 kg/m³. (The density of water is approximately 1000 kg/m³).

Other parts of the recommendation deal with the way in which the calibration is to be recorded, the requirement that the apparatus reaches thermal stability before performing the test and ensuring that magnetic fields are either absent, are negligible or that there is compensation for them.

The interested reader is referred to the recommendation for further details.

(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weights01.jpg)

Set of weights, range 10 mg – 100 g used for laboratory work.

References:

10 thoughts on “Is that really one kilogram?”

  1. When my wife and I go shopping at a well-known supermarket, we usually use the scan-and-go system. Where items need to be weighed, we place the produce on a weigh station, which prints a ticket which is then scanned.

    There was a time when things went wrong at the scan-and-go checkout. An assistant came to our aid and took us over to a regular checkout not in use. She logged into it so that she could check out our items in the traditional manner. The logging in process was quite involved and included the placement of a cast iron weight on the weighing platform and to check that the weight was correctly recorded. This check was logged.

    So stores do seem to have procedures in place to ensure that weighing devices are precise. No doubt, when Trading Standards visit, they not only spot check weighing devices but check that the logging procedures are in order.

    Like

  2. Speaking of kilograms, someone on the USMA mailing list shared this newsletter from Canada about giving medical staff weights in “kilograms”:

    https://www.safemedicationuse.ca/newsletter/downloads/201705NewsletterV8N4-WeightKg.pdf

    Can folks share what the current practices are for the NHS in the various devolved countries in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland)?

    And if anyone knows about Ireland (Republic) as well, that would be interesting as well.

    Ezra aka punditgi

    Like

  3. Not good!

    Fortunately I rarely visit medical facilities, but when I have ‘they’ still convert my metric into FFU’s.

    Even in a recent national “health of the nation” survey and check-up my metric waist measurement was dualed into inches much to my annoyance. Why my waist and not my height or weight? It seems selective “UK Customary” units will be around for a few more generations yet.

    Very sad but true.

    Like

  4. Here is a Canadian video giving a bit of history about the bumps in the road that Canada faced when converting from Imperial to metric units:

    I hope that the silver lining from Trump’s craziness about Canada results in much closer relations between Canada and the EU and the further adoption of metric units in Canada as a way of reinforcing that closer relationship and also as a way of further distinguishing themselves from the USA.

    Ezra aka punditgi

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m just wondering how much farther Canada can go with metrication. I’m sure in the markets there should be a survey of package sizes to see how many packages are rounded metric and the laws can be updated to assure packaging is more metric friendly. With prescribed sizes in rounded litres and grams, this can help Canadians feel more comfortable with metric sizing. Also, the laws need to be changed not so much as to make non-metric units illegal but to remove their legal status entirely. The meanings of non-metric units could be left up to the market, so that if a customer asks for a pound there would be uncertainty as to what they would get. In metric countries words like pounds have an agreed 500 g value, but it doesn’t have to be this value. If every shop made up their own equivalent as to what to provide when a pound is asked for, the confusion that would result would or should be an incentive to ask for metric sizes only.

    Even though a lot of industries are metric behind the scenes, especially those that are multi-national, many are not and it may be difficult for them to be so. It is more than just metricating some products to meet EU demands, it is a matter of adopting ISO and IEC standards which are more rounded metric based. Canadian standards are mostly copies of American standards, which are mostly FFU based. American based standards can be metricated to some degree, but for most of them, the conversion is soft. For example, Canadians use the American Wire Gauge (AWG) which is inch based as opposed the international IEC standards which is square millimetre based. Products sold in Europe that specify wire size require the wire to conform to IEC standards and AWG is illegal and can not be used. Canada can not just substitute IEC with AWG in products sold to Europe.

    Of course Canada can adopt AWG for domestic use and IEC for exports, but that is a costly and confusing way to go. It requires dual warehouses to keep separate products destined for the international market and the domestic market.

    So, it is more than just switching units, it is switching industrial based standards. Canadians, however, can do some little things like measuring things in their daily lives in metres and grams as a means to gain a greater feel for them, but that takes effort and how many Canadians despite the ill feelings with the US are willing to make an effort to become more comfortable with metric units?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. @Daniel

    Excellent post! Many thanks for your insights and information.

    Ezra aka punditgi

    Like

  7. Here is an interesting video who is (or was) a commercial airline pilot explaining the measuring unit muddle as it exists in modern aviation:

    Too bad it will take a long time to completely convert aviation to SI.

    Ezra aka punditgi

    Like

  8. The video looked familiar and I think I saw it already. I watched enough of it again to conclude again that the presenter is an opposer to metrication. He doesn’t even get the word right and calls it metrification. We all know there is no “if” in metrication.

    One strange comment made was his claim that if someone told him the dimensions of their TV and monitor to him in millimetres he would not understand how big it was. Hmmm, how can this be? If I have a table that has a top dimension of say 1200 mm x 800 mm and can visualise this table, when someone tells me they have TV set with a diagonal of say 80 cm of even 130 cm, I can compare it to my table to understand how big it is.

    We comprehend measurements by comparison, by comparing objects of known dimensions with objects of unknown dimensions. How does a person claim to know the screen dimensions in inches when their entire life is an exposure to metric dimensions?

    Either this person is lying and pretending not to know metric lengths, etc or this person is deliberately using this excuse to fight metrication. Calling FFU as freedom units is a clue to his intentions. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Like

  9. The Toronto Star newspaper suggests that Canada should do away with their metric muddle and finish metrication in response to Trump’s war on Canada:

    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/should-donald-trumps-tariffs-mark-the-end-of-canadas-split-metric-imperial-system-some-say/article_77d48cf2-7682-4abf-ac6b-2a9b701fe33c.html

    Here is a quote in the article from a business professor (Werner Antweiler) at a Canadian university :

    “It is an opportune time to rethink to what extent we cater to the American market,” Antweiler said. “In Canada, we should start relegating U.S. measures to the margin. So when I go to a coffee shop or any other store, it should be metric first.”

    “We should make sure we don’t pretend to be American.”

    Ezra aka punditgi

    Like

  10. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) presented a retrospective look at metrication in Canada:

    This whole story should ring bells with you folks in the UK. Canada even had its own metric martyr!

    The good news from the silver lining department is that the bullying of Canada by Trump and the new high tariffs are pushing Canada to create a stronger internal Canada-only economy and stronger ties with the EU and Asia along with a strong desire to differentiate themselves from the USA, which has always been a challenge for English-speaking Canada. French-Canadians have always had an easier time of this and with their long-standing connections to France they should be just fine going all the way with metric. Vive le Canada! 🙂

    Ezra aka punditgi

    Like

Leave a comment