4.4 Editorial Material

Final report on COOMET.T-S1. Comparison of type S thermocouples at the freezing points of zinc, aluminium and copper 2014-2015

Journal

METROLOGIA
Volume 52, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0026-1394/52/1A/03007

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regional comparison of type S thermocouples at the freezing points of zinc, aluminium and copper was initiated by COOMET TC1.1-10 (the technical committee of COOMET 'Thermometry and thermal physics'). Three NMI take part in COOMET regional comparison: D I Mendeleev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM) (Russian Federation), National Scientific Centre (Institute of Metrology) (NSC IM, Ukraine), Republic State Enterprise (Kazakhstan Institute of Metrology) (KazInMetr, Republic of Kazakhstan). VNIIM (Russia) was chosen as the coordinator-pilot of the regional comparison. A star type comparison was used. The participants: KazInMetr and NSC IM constructed the type S thermocouples and calibrated them in three fixed points: zinc, aluminum and copper points, using methods of ITS-90 fixed point realizations. The thermocouples have been sent to VNIIM together with the results of the calibration at three fixed points, with the values of the inhomogeneity at temperature 200 degrees C and the uncertainty evaluations of the results. For calibration of thermocouples the same VNIIM fixed points cells were used. Participating laboratories repeated the calibration of thermocouples after its returning in zinc, aluminum and copper points to determine the stability of its results. In result of the comparison was to evaluate the equivalence of the type S thermocouples calibration in fixed points by NMIs to confirm corresponding lines of international website for NMI's Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMC). This paper is the final report of the comparison including analysis of the uncertainty of measurement results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available