Self-attraction effect and correction on three absolute gravimeters

The perturbations of the gravitational field due to the mass distribution of an absolute gravimeter have been studied. The so called Self Attraction Effect (SAE) is crucial for the measurement accuracy, especially for the International Comparisons, and for the uncertainty budget evaluation. Three instruments have been analysed: MPG-2, FG5-238 and IMPG-02. The SAE has been calculated using a numerical method based on FEM simulation. The observed effect has been treated as an additional vertical gravity gradient. The correction (SAC) to be applied to the computed g value has been associated with the specific height level, where the measurement result is typically reported. The magnitude of the obtained corrections is of order 1E-8 m/s2.Comment: 14 pages, 8 figures, submitted to Metrologi

Understanding How Social Entrepreneurs Fit into the Tourism Discourse

This chapter discusses how social entrepreneurs fit into the existing tourism discourse. It examines four areas of literature in particular, tourism entrepreneurs, sustainability, destination development and intrapreneurship, and analyzes how introducing the concept of social entrepreneurs into these discussions is useful, and contributes to our understanding. Furthermore the paper illustrates that as social entrepreneurs are relevant to a broad range of issues in the tourism literature this should prevent the development of research silos where social entrepreneurship scholars seek out their own vein of research. The nexus of common ground and interests, as displayed in this chapter, should enhance the development of research, thought and understanding of social entrepreneurs within the field as a whole The key argument is that research on social entrepreneurs is not just relevant for those interested in entrepreneurs it also effects our thinking on issues such as destination development, relationships between stakeholders, tourism policy and sustainability. The chapter concludes with a wide range of questions for further research

Indentation Hardness Measurements at Macro-, Micro-, and Nanoscale: A Critical Overview

The Brinell, Vickers, Meyer, Rockwell, Shore, IHRD, Knoop, Buchholz, and nanoindentation methods used to measure the indentation hardness of materials at different scales are compared, and main issues and misconceptions in the understanding of these methods are comprehensively reviewed and discussed. Basic equations and parameters employed to calculate hardness are clearly explained, and the different international standards for each method are summarized. The limits for each scale are explored, and the different forms to calculate hardness in each method are compared and established. The influence of elasticity and plasticity of the material in each measurement method is reviewed, and the impact of the surface deformation around the indenter on hardness values is examined. The difficulties for practical conversions of hardness values measured by different methods are explained. Finally, main issues in the hardness interpretation at different scales are carefully discussed, like the influence of grain size in polycrystalline materials, indentation size effects at micro-and nanoscale, and the effect of the substrate when calculating thin films hardness. The paper improves the understanding of what hardness means and what hardness measurements imply at different scales.Funding Agencies|Swedish Government Strategic Research Area in Materials Science on Functional Materials at Linkoping University ((Faculty Grant SFO Mat LiU) [2009 00971]</p

Final report on force key comparison CCM.F-K2.a and CCM.F-K2.b (50 kN and 100 kN)

The CCM Force Working Group met in October 1998 in Sydney and made decisions about CIPM Key Comparisons for the unit of force. These were to cover four force ranges, with four different pilot laboratories: i) 5 kN – 10 kN Pilot: MIKES-Raute, Finland ii) 50 kN – 100 kN Pilot: NPL, United Kingdom iii) 500 kN – 1 MN Pilot: PTB, Germany iv) 2 MN – 4 MN Pilot: NIST, USA This report gives the results for Key Comparison ii), piloted by NPL and officially designated CCM.F-K2.a (Scheme A) and CCM.F-K2.b (Scheme B) by CIPM (see Section 4 for details of Scheme A and Scheme B)

Relative Gravity Measurement Campaign during the 7th International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (2005)

Since the 1st International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG) and accompanying Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC) held at the BIPM in 1981, repeated ICAG-RGCs have been organized every four years. A total of 19 absolute gravimeters (AG) and 15 relative gravimeters (RG) participated in the 7th ICAG-RGC, which took place in 2005. Co-located absolute and relative gravity measurements as well as precision levelling measurements were carried out. The final version of the absolute g values of the 7th ICAG has been officially released recently. This paper is the final report of the 7th RGC and replaces the preliminary results published earlier. It covers the organization of the RGC and the data processing, analyses RG behaviour, computes g, delta g and O(AG) (offset of AG) and discusses their uncertainties. In preparation for the BIPM key comparison ICAG-2009, a standard data- processing procedure has been developed and installed in the BIPM ICAG-RGC software package, GraviSoft. This was used for the final data processing