Electrolytic conductivity at 0.5 S m⁻¹ and 5 mS m⁻¹

Abstract

Key Comparison CCQM-K36.2016 was a follow-up comparison for K36 and provided updated support for the corresponding calibration and measurement capability (CMC) entries in the BIPM CMC database. It aimed to demonstrate the capabilities of the participating NMIs to measure electrolytic conductivity of aqueous electrolyte solutions in the conductivity range 0.15 S m−1 to 1.5 S m−1 and in the conductivity range 1.5 mS m−1 to 15 mS m−1. To this end electrolytic conductivity of a potassium chloride solution (nominal conductivity 0.5 S m−1) and of a HCl solution (nominal conductivity 5 mS m−1) had to be measured. 17 NMIs participated in the comparison. The key comparison reference value (KCRV) of the KCl solution was (0.50999 +/-0.00032) S m−1 and the KCRV of the HCl solution was (4.9877 +/-0.012) mS m−1. Both values were estimated from the medians of the results considered eligible for KCRV calculation. They were given with their expanded uncertainties (95% coverage). The majority of the 0.5 S m-1 results were consistent with the KCRV. Two institutes showed a small inconsistency, one outlier was observed. The conductivity of the HCl solution showed a small, but steady linear drift of 0.00006843 mS m−1 per day during the measurement period and was corrected for KCRV calculation. Some institutes reported unstable measurement conditions for this solution. The results of seven participants have been inconsistent with the KCRV. 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 CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

New insights on the dissociative merging galaxy cluster Abell 2034

“…The next step to proceed is to reconstruct a mass distribution that creates the observed characteristics. For this purpose, we have used the LENSENT2 Bayesian code (Marshall et al 2002) based on the maximum entropy algorithm (Seitz et al 1998). Complementary, the ellipticity field also needs to be smoothed by a filter (Gaussian, in our case) since each galaxy ellipticity is a noisy probe of the shear field.…”

Mesh-free free-form lensing – I. Methodology and application to mass reconstruction

“…On the other hand, free-form 1 methods (see e.g. Broadhurst et al 1995;Bartelmann et al 1996;Abdelsalam et al 1998;Bridle et al 1998;Seitz et al 1998;Bradač et al 2005a;Cacciato et al 2006;Liesenborgs et al 2006;Diego et al 2007;Jee et al 2007;Coe et al 2008;Bradač et al 2009;Merten et al 2009;Williams & Saha 2011;Merten et al 2011Merten et al , 2015Diego et al 2015, for some recent examples) usually do not make this assumption and purely rely on the input data either based on weak lensing, strong lensing or a combination of the two. This is possible while using a reconstruction mesh and directly inverting the underlying equations describing lensing on this mesh.…”

Sparse Reconstruction of the Merging A520 Cluster System

“…C12 used an improved version of Kaiser-Squires inversion (Kaiser & Squires 1993) that accounts for the reduced shear (Seitz & Schneider 1995). On the other hand, J14 used an implementation (Jee et al 2007) of the entropy-regularized maximum likelihood method introduced by Seitz et al (1998). Our mass reconstruction technique is completely independent of these two methods.…”