Abstract
This work is a follow-up to a previous study that was aimed at reducing the uncertainty of the air density correction used to correct mass comparisons for the effects of air buoyancy. To clarify the difference observed previously in moist air between two absolute methods (CIPM-81/91 formula and air buoyancy artefacts determination), additional measurements were carried out in moist air, dry nitrogen and vacuum. The results obtained by the two methods for nitrogen density were in good agreement while the discrepancy was confirmed for the moist air density. A comparison of a 1 kg stainless steel mass against a 1 kg Pt/Ir mass standard was carried out to compare the accuracy of these two methods. The results of this comparison made in moist air, dry nitrogen and vacuum by using buoyancy artefacts gave an agreement within 1 µg. Our particular results confirmed the good accuracy of the air buoyancy artefacts method and reinforced the hypotheses that the accuracy of the air density using the CIPM formula is limited by the estimation of its composition.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
