Otto Jusko 1, Nicholas Brown 2, Rudolf Thalmann 3, Edgar Arizmendi Reyes 4, Steven Phillips 5, Cheon Il Eom 6, Shen Shaoxi 7, Toshiyuki Takatsuji 8 and Emilio Prieto 9
1
PTB, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Bundesallee 100, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
2
NMIA, Australian Government, National Measurement Institute, Bradfield Rd, West Lindfield, NSW 2070, Australia (formerly CSIRO, National Measurement Laboratory)
3
METAS, Swiss Federal Office of Metrology and Accreditation, Lindenweg 50, CH-3003 Bern–Wabern, Switzerland
4
CENAM, Laboratorio de Máquina de Medición por Coordenadas Laboratorio de Ángulo, Carretera a los Cués km 4,5 El Marques, Querétaro, 76900, Mexico
5
NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Precision Engineering Division, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA
6
KRISS, Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science, PO Box 102, Yusong, Taejon, 305-600, South Korea
7
NIM, No 18, Bei San Huan Dong Lu, Beijing 100013, China
8
NMIJ/AIST, Lengths and Dimensions Division, National Metrology Institute of Japan, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 1-1-1 Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8563, Japan
9
CEM, Centro Español de Metrologia, C/del Alfar, 2, 28760 Tres Cantos, Spain
Otto Jusko et al 2006 Metrologia 43 04006
The results of the CCL key comparison on the calibration of a step gauge and ball bars are reported (CCL-K5). Nine NMIs participated in the comparison. The measured artifacts were a step gauge of 1000 mm length and three ball bars: two made from steel (400 mm and 800 mm in length) and one from Super Invar (800 mm long). The Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV) for the step gauge was the mean of four laboratories, and the mean of all participants for the ball bars. The data for the step gauge have been analysed into constant and proportional components to reduce the quantity of data and separate out the random variation in measurements from proportional errors which generally have a different cause. All participating NMIs measured the step gauge and were generally in good agreement. Some results revealed problems with this measurement, and as such, helped to improve the measurement procedures of these NMIs for the future. Only a few NMIs delivered data for the ball bars and these results were in good agreement.
Main text. 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 kcdb.bipm.org/.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCL, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
Issue 1A ( 1 January 2006)
Otto Jusko et al 2006 Metrologia 43 04006
Kurt Weyand 2005 Metrologia 42 01006
W Sabuga et al 2005 Metrologia 42 07005
Kenichi Fujii et al 2006 Metrologia 43 07007
Jong S Paik et al 2007 Metrologia 44 07005
A Gosset and T Madec 2005 Metrologia 42 07003
H-J von Martens et al 2003 Metrologia 40 09001
R Thalmann 2002 Metrologia 39 165
Richard Barham 2003 Metrologia 40 09002
L O Becerra et al 2003 Metrologia 40 07004