A comparison in conventional mass measurements SIM.M.M-S6

Main text The present document reports the results of a bilateral comparison in the calibration of mass standards that was carried out between CESMEC (Chile) and CENAMEP AIP (Panamá). This comparison was carried out in the following nominal values: 200 mg, 1 g, 50 g, 200 g, 1 kg, 2 kg, and 10 kg. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

Report on the AFRIMETS.M. F-S1 supplementary force comparison for 10 kN and 100 kN

Main text This bilateral comparison of Force Standard Machines (FSM) named AFRIMETS.M. F-S1 was carried out in the force range from 1 kN to 100 kN between Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) of Germany as the pilot laboratory and Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) of Kenya as the participant laboratory. KEBS had already participated in the APMP.M. F-K2 key comparison where measurements were made only at 50 kN and 100 kN force steps. Therefore, this bilateral comparison was planned to thoroughly compare the KEBS FSM and the PTB Deadweight Machines in wider force steps than those of the APMP.M. F-K2 key comparison and thus it had no corresponding key-comparisons values to be linked to at that time. PTB provided two force transducers for the supplementary comparison with 10 kN and 100 kN nominal capacities. The comparison method called "DKD" procedure was used. This procedure has already been used in several comparisons in Germany and other countries. The purpose to this comparison is to give support to the uncertainty claims for KEBS and will be used to determine the Calibration and Measurement Capability (CMC). In addition, this comparison will provide metrological proof of the application for a CMC entry in the BIPM Key Comparison Database (KCDB). This report describes the scheme and results of the comparison. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

National standards of the impulse electrical voltage of Russian Federation and Republic of Belarus: additional comparisons

The results of additional bilateral comparison of initial standards of the impulse electrical voltage unit were considered. As a result of comparison there were confirmed announced uncertainties and calibration and measurement capabilities of the participants of comparison. The comparison was carried out under guidance of COOMET (project 710/RU-a/16) оn the initiative of national metrology institutes (NMI): VNIIFTRI (Russia) and BelGIM (Republic of Belarus). The comparison involved national standards: the State primary standard unit of the impulse electrical voltage unit (GET 182-2010, VNIIFTRI) and the original standard of the impulse electrical voltage unit BelGIM. Step pulse generator TMG030010SN11-M1 was used as a traveling standard. The values of the impulse electrical voltage, reproduced by means of traveling standard, were measured by national standards.The purpose of comparison was to confirm confidence in the measurement results and calibration certificates, issued by the NMI in the field of impulse electrical voltage measurements. In the comparison VNIIFTRI acted as a pilot laboratory. Measurements of impulse electrical voltage by means of traveling standard were carried out in the following order: first – measurements of impulse electrical voltage on GET 182-2010, then – on the original standard of BelGIM and finally – again on GET 182-2010. Processing of the results of comparison according to χ2(i) criterion showed that χ2(i) criterion values (calculated on the basis of the measurement results) doesn’t exceed a critical value χ2, that is the objective confirmation of announced uncertainties, declared by the participants of comparison.