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

In the framework of the regional EURAMET.M.G-K2 comparison of absolute gravimeters, 17 gravimeters were compared in November 2015. Four gravimeters were from different NMIs and DIs, they were used to link the regional comparison to the CCM.G.K2 by means of linking converter. Combined least-squares adjustments with weighted constraint was used to determine KCRV. Several pilot solutions are presented and compared with the official solution to demonstrate influences of different approaches (e.g. definition of weights and the constraint) on results of the adjustment. In case of the official solution, all the gravimeters are in equivalence with declared uncertainties. == Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report [http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/M/G-K2/EURAMET.M.G-K2.pdf] . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ [http://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)

Field mapping of buried faults : a new approach applied in the Western Carpathians

Fault array in an area covered by Quaternary sediments and deprived of bedrock outcrops was investigated using fault trace mapping by geophysical methods and human feedback information from dowsing. The tectonics in the study area is dominated by a ENE-WSW fault zone affecting regional-scale structures. The fault network was approximated by dowsing-enhanced mapping and subsequently confirmed by field geophysical measurements using electromagnetic and radon emanometry methods. A resultant detailed map of structural discontinuities highlighted that combined dowsing and geophysical survey is an effective and reliable tool to identify buried faults. This approach with its low costs and fast field recognition is highly recommended for construction-work planning and for mineral resources exploration and exploitation

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

In the framework of the regional EURAMET.M.G-K2 comparison of absolute gravimeters, 17 gravimeters were compared in November 2015. Four gravimeters were from different NMIs and DIs, they were used to link the regional comparison to the CCM.G.K2 by means of linking converter. Combined least-squares adjustments with weighted constraint was used to determine KCRV. Several pilot solutions are presented and compared with the official solution to demonstrate influences of different approaches (e.g. definition of weights and the constraint) on results of the adjustment. In case of the official solution, all the gravimeters are in equivalence with declared uncertainties

Error propagation for the Molodensky G1 term

Molodensky G terms are used in the computation of the quasigeoid. We derive error propagation formulas that take into account uncertainties in both the free air gravity anomaly and a digital elevation model. These are applied to generate G1 terms and their errors on a 1? × 1? grid over Australia. We use these to produce Molodensky gravity anomaly and accompanying uncertainty grids. These uncertainties have average value of 2 mGal with maximum of 54 mGal. We further calculate a gravimetric quasigeoid model by the remove–compute–restore technique. These Molodensky gravity anomaly uncertainties lead to quasigeoid uncertainties with a mean of 4 mm and maximum of 80 mm when propagated through a deterministically modified Stokes’s integral over an integration cap radius of 0.5°

MicrobioRaman: an open-access web repository for microbiological Raman spectroscopy data

No abstract available