A comparison in conventional mass measurements (SIM.M.M-S3) (original) (raw)
Interlaboratory mass comparison between laboratories belonging to CARIMET, SIM.M.M-S7
Metrologia, 2013
From October 2009 to November 2010 a star-shaped comparison in mass measurements has been carried out between CARIMET countries. The Bureau of Standards Jamaica (BSJ) acted as the pilot laboratory. Six travelling standards were circulated with the following nominal values: 2 kg, 1 kg, 200 g, 50 g, 1 g and 200 mg. These travelling standards complied with the accuracy requirements of OIML class E 2 [1]. The results of the inter-comparison are presented here. In general, the agreement between all participants is very good, except for the 50 g weight where one laboratory clearly made an outlier measurement. 1. 2. AIM OF THE PROGRAM The aim of this comparison is to give confidence on the technical capacity of the CARIMET members. On the other hand this comparison gives objective evidence about the technical competence of the laboratories, and it helps to find opportunities to improve the metrological assurance systems.
1 kg Comparison in Mass SIM/ANDIMET/SURAMET
2005
1. Abstract A mass comparison was carried out between the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Industrial (INTI, Argentina), Instituto Boliviano de Metrologia (IBMETRO, Bolivia), Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalizacion (INEN, Ecuador) y Laboratorio Custodio de los Patrones Nacionales de Masa at Cesmec Ltda. (CESMEC-LCPN-M, Chile), in order to estimate the degrees of equivalence for calibration of a mass artifact and the uncertainty associated to its measurement. This comparison was carried out in a nominal value of 1 kg. The results obtained by each laboratory are presented in this document for first time.
Metrologia, 2018
This report summarizes the results of AFRIMETS.M.M-S6 mass standards comparison conducted between eleven participating laboratories/countries. Two sets of five weights with nominal values 100 mg, 100 g, 500 g, 1 kg and 5 kg were used as the traveling standards. These nominal values were decided from the needs of participating laboratories submitted to the pilot laboratory through a questionnaire and agreed upon by all participants. The traveling standards were hand carried between laboratories starting from February 2014 and were received from the last participants in October 2014. The programme was coordinated by National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA), who provided the travelling standards and reference values for the comparison. The corrections to the BIPM as-maintained mass unit [5] have insignificant influence on the results of this comparison. Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Append...
2014
This report describes a key comparison of 1 kg stainless steel mass standards, CCM.M-K4, undertaken by the Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities (CCM) Working Group on the Dissemination of the kilogram (WGD-kg). The CCM.M-K4 comparison was launched during the 12th meeting of the CCM (2010). The aim of the present comparison is to verify the consistency of 1 kg stainless steel mass standards among members of the CCM. The previous CCM 1 kg stainless steel mass standards comparison was carried out in 1995-1997 as the CCM.M-K1 comparison. The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) was the pilot laboratory for this key comparison. There were sixteen participants in the CCM.M-K4 comparison, all are CCM members. The comparison was structured into four petals with two stainless steel travelling mass standards per petal. The measurements and the reported results were completed between one month and five months depending on the participants. One laboratory's res...
Development Of Competences Of National Reference Laboratory For Mass Measurement
Proceedings /5th International Symposium on Industrial Engineering - SIE2012, June 14-15, 2012., Belgrade, (Editors: Milanović D.D., Spasojević-Brkić V., Misita M.) pp 273-276, ISBN 978-86-7083-758-4, 2012
mass in B weighing This rese competen in acco EN ISO/I results instrumen effects of measurem Key wor Measurem comparis
Metrologia, 2016
In order to show equivalence in mass standards calibration among National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) of member countries of the "Comité international des poids et mesures" (CIPM), key comparisons (KC) of mass standards have been carried out under the auspices of the "Comité Consultatif pour la Masse et les Grandeurs Apparentées" (CCM). This key comparison of 5 kg, 100 g, 10 g, 5 g and 500 mg stainless steel mass standards was based on the decision of the CCM during the 12 th meeting held in 2010 at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). KRISS (Republic of Korea) and PTB (Germany) acted as pilot laboratory and co-pilot laboratory, respectively. The results were evaluated with the Monte Carlo method using measurement values based on participants' reference standards calculated following the recent BIPM amendments in 2015. Regarding participant results, VNIIM (100 g and 5 g) were not consistent with the key comparison reference values within their expanded uncertainties with the coverage factor, k = 2.
Mass and volume in analytical chemistry (IUPAC Technical Report)
Chemistry International, 2018
This technical report reviews measurements of mass and volume, including a review of the SI for mass, length, and amount of substance; principles of mass measurement; calibration of masses and glassware; gravimetry; volumetry; and titrimetry. Measurement uncertainty, metrological traceability and aspects of quality assurance are also treated.
Ensuring the validity of results by intermediate checks in the field of mass measurements
Journal of physics, 2018
In 2017, the third edition of ISO/IEC 17025 standard was completed. This version will cancel and replace the second edition from 2005, which has been technically revised. Even if, in the second version, maintaining confidence in the calibration status of standards through intermediate checks was not clearly explained in terms of a procedure (referring to this term only in subchapters 5.5.10, 5.6.3.3 and indirectly in 5.9.1), nor in the new version of the standard this subject is not detailed. It is up to each laboratory to carry out these checks according to defined procedures and schedules as well establishing the acceptance criterion. So, the questions arising about performing intermediate checks are: when, where, how? The paper presents different approaches regarding intermediate checks performed in the field of mass measurements: in the calibration/verification of weights, of mass comparators and NAWI (non automatic weighing instruments). In the case of NAWI, considering the laboratory's scope of accreditation, the evaluation method is presented in different ways.
2017
This report describes the results of a supplementary comparison of hydraulic high-pressure standards at three National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), National Metrology Institute of Japan, AIST (NMIJ/AIST), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA and National Institute for Standards (NIS), Egypt, which was carried out at NIST during the period May 2001 to September 2001 within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) in order to evaluate their degrees of equivalence at pressures in the range 40 MPa to 200 MPa for gauge mode. The pilot institute was NMIJ/AIST. Three working pressure standards from the institutes, in the form of piston-cylinder assemblies, were used for the comparison. The comparison and calculation methods used are discussed in this report. From the cross-float measurements, the differences between the working pressure standards of each institute were examined through an evaluation of the effective area of each piston-cylinder ass...