Final report on EUROMET comparison EUROMET.PR-S2 (Project No. 156): Responsivity of detectors for radiant power of lasers
Final report on EUROMET comparison EUROMET.PR-S2 (Project No. 156): Responsivity of detectors for radiant power of lasers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1088/0026-1394/47/1a/02003
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
S. Kück
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Kück
高功率激光辐射功率的EUROMET.PR-S2比对采用循环/星型组合比较法进行。共有9名参与者参加，其中5名来自欧洲(法国、德国(试点)、英国、罗马尼亚、瑞典的国家计量所)和4名欧洲以外的国家(澳大利亚、日本、南非和美利坚合众国的国家计量所)。因此，这种比较可以被认为是一个世界性的比较。测量时间为2005年1月至2007年9月。所有参与者都提供了他们测量的详细报告，包括完整的不确定度陈述。所有参与者报告的测量结果都用于相互比较，没有测量受到拒绝。第6节介绍的分析方法遵循CCPR比较报告编写指南，并已被所有参与者接受。在计算补充关键字比较参考值时，不必排除参与者，此处使用的带截止点的加权平均数得到了所有参与者的支持。为每个参与者计算的单边等价度(DoE)与他们在k=2水平上的不确定度约63%一致，在k=3水平内约81%一致。要查看本文的正文，请点击《最终报告》。请注意，此文本出现在BIPM关键字比较数据库kcdb.bipm.org/的附录B中。根据CIPM相互承认安排(MRA)的规定，最终报告已由EURAMET进行同行审查并批准发布。
The EUROMET.PR-S2 intercomparison of Radiant Power of High Power Lasers for five measurands was carried as a combined round-robin/star type comparison. In total nine participants took part, five from Europe (national metrology institutes of France, Germany (pilot), Great Britain, Romania, Sweden) and four outside Europe (national metrology institutes of Australia, Japan, South Africa and The United States of America). Therefore, this comparison can be considered as a worldwide one. The measurements took place from January 2005 to September 2007. All participants supplied detailed reports of their measurements including full uncertainty statements. All measurement results reported by the participants were used for the intercomparison and no measurement was subject to rejection. The analysis method introduced in section 6 follows the Guidelines for CCPR Comparison Report Preparation and has been accepted by all participants. For the calculation of the supplementary key comparison reference value no participant had to be excluded and the weighted mean with cut-off used here has been supported by all participants. The unilateral degrees of equivalence (DoE) calculated for each participant are approximately 63% consistent with their uncertainties at the k = 2 level and approximately 81% consistent within k = 3. 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 EURAMET, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).