2006
DOI: 10.1080/19315775.2006.11721305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainty Budgets for Comparison Calibrations of Thermocouples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The major contribution to the uncertainty is attributed by inhomogeneity of thermocouple it has been estimated from the immersion/withdrawal thermo-emf profile of thermocouples in fixed point cells, as described in detail before by the authors in other article [4]. The uncertainty due to purity of ingots was evaluated from the manufacturer's certificate stating that for 6/N purity, a repeatable plateau of 1.5 mK can be produced at freezing points [11]. The drift caused in the thermocouple is another component of uncertainty, which was estimated from the earlier fixed point measurements and included in the uncertainty budget.…”
Section: Uncertainty Componentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The major contribution to the uncertainty is attributed by inhomogeneity of thermocouple it has been estimated from the immersion/withdrawal thermo-emf profile of thermocouples in fixed point cells, as described in detail before by the authors in other article [4]. The uncertainty due to purity of ingots was evaluated from the manufacturer's certificate stating that for 6/N purity, a repeatable plateau of 1.5 mK can be produced at freezing points [11]. The drift caused in the thermocouple is another component of uncertainty, which was estimated from the earlier fixed point measurements and included in the uncertainty budget.…”
Section: Uncertainty Componentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4, was much better than literature values [5] would suggest. Reference [6] discusses this point further.…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Certainly, for reference thermocouples complying with the noble-metal letter-designated type definitions (types R, S and B) and the pure-element thermocouples (Au/Pt, Pt/Pd), for which the temperature-induced inhomogeneity effects are smallest and most reproducible, some assessment can be made relatively easily [6]. Uncertainty calculations presented in comparisons suggest it is common to apply a value based on a type B assessment of published data from other studies [7], or data from a representative sample of similar thermocouples [8], rather than data from the device under test (DUT). In many cases it appears likely that inhomogeneity is simply not included in the uncertainty assessment [8,9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The multi-component alloy compositions of these types endow the thermocouples with a complex metallurgy, which causes an equally complex set of reversible and irreversible changes in Seebeck coefficient [3], some of which will be manifest at temperatures as low as 100 °C [1]. If base-metal thermocouples are calibrated, the introduction of inhomogeneities by the calibration process usually induces such large departures from the as-supplied state as to make the calibration of base-metal thermocouples practically useless, except if the thermocouple is calibrated in situ or used as a representative sample [7]. In some cases, the calibration process induces sufficient change to push the thermocouple outside the limits-of-error tolerance band [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%