Regional comparison of absolute gravimeters, EURAMET.M.G-K2 key comparison

Newell, David B.; Westrum, Derek van; Francis, Olivier; Kanney, J.; Liard, J.; Ramírez, Alexis Eduardo Ocampo; Lucero, Briana; Ellis, Brian; Greco, Filippo; Pistorio, Antonio; Reudink, René; Iacovone, Domenico; Baccaro, Francesco; Silliker, J.; Wheeler, R. D.; Falk, Reinhard; Ruelke, A.

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/54/1a/07012

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For that purpose, gravity must be known, hence measured, at the 10 −8 level in laboratories housing a Kibble balance (Merlet et al, ). Used as standards, absolute gravimeters must participate regularly in intercomparison campaigns to look for possible biases (Francis et al, ; Jiang et al, ; Pálinkáš et al, ; Vitushkin et al, ).…”

Section: Monitoring Geophysical Phenomenamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For completeness let us mention other satellites such as the Laser Geodynamic Satellite (LAGEOS) (Seeber, 2003), the Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) (Reigber et al, 2002), and the Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) (Pail et al, 2011). These missions were appropriate to the measurements of the mean, static gravity field.…”

Section: General Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements

Camp

Viron

Watlet

et al. 2017

Reviews of Geophysics

183

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a context of global change and increasing anthropic pressure on the environment, monitoring the Earth system and its evolution has become one of the key missions of geosciences. Geodesy is the geoscience that measures the geometric shape of the Earth, its orientation in space, and gravity field. Time‐variable gravity, because of its high accuracy, can be used to build an enhanced picture and understanding of the changing Earth. Ground‐based gravimetry can determine the change in gravity related to the Earth rotation fluctuation, to celestial body and Earth attractions, to the mass in the direct vicinity of the instruments, and to vertical displacement of the instrument itself on the ground. In this paper, we review the geophysical questions that can be addressed by ground gravimeters used to monitor time‐variable gravity. This is done in relation to the instrumental characteristics, noise sources, and good practices. We also discuss the next challenges to be met by ground gravimetry, the place that terrestrial gravimetry should hold in the Earth observation system, and perspectives and recommendations about the future of ground gravity instrumentation.

show abstract

Section: Monitoring Geophysical Phenomenamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements

Camp

Viron

Watlet

et al. 2017

Reviews of Geophysics

183

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The linking converter of SIM.M.G-K1 to CCM.G-K2 is through the DoE of -0.4 µGal ± 2.65 µGal (k=1) determined for the DI gravimeter FG5X-216 during CCM.G-K2 [1] through EURAMET.M.G-K2 [2]. The final result of FG5X-216 for SIM.M.G.K1 with d set to zero and the datum of FG5-218 on pier AT removed is -1.15 µGal ± 1.09 µGal.…”

Section: Linking Convertermentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional comparison of absolute gravimeters SIM.M.G-K1 key comparison

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twelve absolute gravimeters were compared during the regional Key Comparison SIM.M.G-K1 of absolute gravimeters. The four gravimeters were from different NMIs and DIs. The comparison was linked to the CCM.G-K2 through EURAMET.M.G-K2 via the DI gravimeter FG5X-216. Overall, the results and uncertainties indicate an excellent agreement among the gravimeters, with a standard deviation of the gravimeters' DoEs better than 1.3 μGal. In the case of the official solution, all the gravimeters are in equivalence well within the declared uncertainties. 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 CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

show abstract

“…The participants were responsible for processing their gravity data. They submitted the final g-values and the combined uncertainties for all the measured sites preferably at the instrument's reference height [8,9] (distance between a bench mark and the effective position of free-fall [10], the reference height is instrument dependent: around 1.21 m, 1.27 m and 0.68 m for the FG5s, FG5Xs, A-10s, respectively), where g is in variant of the VGG used in the equation of motion.…”

Section: Methods Of Measurement and Range Of Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The results of CCM.G-K2.2017 key comparison

Wu¹,

Feng²,

Li³

et al. 2020

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CCM.G-K2.2017 comparison was organised for the purpose of determination of the degree of equivalence of the national standards for free-fall acceleration measurement. The comparison was held in the Changping Campus of National Institute of Metrology China (NIM), from October to November in 2017. This is the first time that such a comparison is organized outside of the Europe continent and establishes a new global comparison sites in China [1, 2]. This comparison is also the largest ever organized with the participation of 13 instruments. Dr. Shuqing Wu, Dr. Jinyang Feng and Mrs. Chunjian Li from the NIM were in charge of the local organization of the comparison and of the elaboration of the results. NIM was the Pilot Laboratory under the leadership of Dr. Shuqing Wu. The comparison steering committee (SC) is composed of Prof. Olivier Francis (LU), Dr. Vojtech Pálinkáš (VÚGTK/RIGTC), Dr. Derek van Westrum (NOAA-NGS), Dr. Reinhard Falk (BKG) and Dr. Shuqing Wu (NIM). The SC is supported and consulted by the CCM-WGG Chair, Prof. Alessandro Germak (INRIM). The comparison was organized in accordance with the CIPM MRA-D-05 of the Consultative Committee on Mass and Related Quantities (CCM).

show abstract

Regional comparison of absolute gravimeters, EURAMET.M.G-K2 key comparison

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements

Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements

Regional comparison of absolute gravimeters SIM.M.G-K1 key comparison

The results of CCM.G-K2.2017 key comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About