Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Updates on the Tsinghua Tabletop Kibble Balance

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance reports that its magnet, gravity measurement, weighing cell, and current source now meet the component-level targets needed to calibrate 10 g to 1 kg masses with uncertainty below 50 µg.

desk verdict Solid component progress on a tabletop Kibble balance, but the split-magnet gap repeatability is the unresolved risk that stands between the parts and the 50 µg promise. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12521 v1 pith:5LDOH4DZ submitted 2024-12-17 physics.ins-det

Shisong Li , Yongchao Ma , Kang Ma , Weibo Liu , Nanjia Li , Xiaohu Liu , Lisha Peng , Wei Zhao
show 2 more authors
Songling Huang Xinjie Yu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords KibblebalancemassrealizationtabletopinstrumentPlanckconstantpermanentmagnetsystemgravitationalaccelerationcapacitiveweighingcellcurrentsource
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports component-level progress on a compact, tabletop Kibble balance whose stated goal is to calibrate masses from 10 g to 1 kg with measurement uncertainty below 50 µg. It argues that the four hardest subsystems now meet their share of that target: a permanent magnet with $Bl \approx 400\,\mathrm{Tm}$ and a field-uniformity range increased by more than 50% through inner-yoke compensation, a local gravity value with 5.4 µGal expanded uncertainty, a capacitive weighing cell resolving 0.35 nm of displacement at 275 N/m stiffness, and a two-stage current source with nA/A-level stability in about 30 minutes. A sympathetic reader should care because a compact, open-hardware Kibble balance would make primary mass realization practicable beyond large national metrology laboratories, extending the revised SI kilogram definition into routine calibration work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-mode, two-phase (OMTP) Kibble balance measurement equation, Eq. (5): $m = ((U_+/v_+ + U_-/v_-)(I_+ - I_-))/(2g) - (\Delta f_+ - \Delta f_-)/g$. It links a mass to voltage, velocity, current, and gravity through a single magnetic geometric factor $Bl$ that is assumed identical in the weighing and velocity phases. The paper's key mechanical innovation is inner-yoke compensation: 0.4 mm-thick, 5 mm-high rectangular additions at the two ends of the inner yoke flatten the vertical magnetic profile and enlarge the uniform field region by over 50% at almost no manufacturing cost. The other carrying components are the split permanent magnet whose upper segment can be hand-opened and magnetically levitated, the capacitive-sensor weighing cell that allows a stiffer 275 N/m flexure hinge while retaining nanometre displacement resolution, and the two-stage current source that suppresses output drift to nA/A level.

What would settle it

Perform a 1 kg mass calibration with the fully integrated balance and compare the result with an independent traceable mass value established by a separate primary realization method; a disagreement beyond the claimed 50 µg uncertainty would refute the central target. A more direct component check is to measure the magnetic profile at the coil radius of 80.5 mm while the magnet is closed, compare it with the 81.5 mm profile, then repeat after repeated open/close cycles with various screw torques: if a gap-induced ripple appears, the weighing-velocity equivalence assumed in Eq. (5) fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance has advanced from design to working subsystems, with each key ingredient of the Kibble measurement equation now demonstrated. Using the one-mode, two-phase (OMTP) scheme, the mass is determined from $m = ((U_+/v_+ + U_-/v_-)(I_+ - I_-))/(2g) - (\Delta f_+ - \Delta f_-)/g$, so the experiment's task is to make the magnetic geometric factor $Bl$, the currents $I_\pm$, the voltages $U_\pm$, the velocities $v_\pm$, the gravity $g$, and the residual forces $\Delta f_\pm$ consistent. The paper reports a magnet pair with $Bl \approx 400\,\mathrm{Tm}$ and a measured field profile whose uniform range grows by over 50% when thin rectangles are added to the inner yoke, a gravity value of $g_0 = (980\,139\,580.5 \pm 1.4)\,\mu\mathrm{Gal}$ with a final expanded uncertainty of 5.4 µGal, a weighing cell with 0.35 nm displacement resolution and 275 N/m stiffness, and a two-stage bipolar current source with nA/A-class short-term stability. The paper concludes that these components can be integrated into a compact instrument for mass realization from 10 g to 1 kg with uncertainty below 50 µg.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the magnetic field profile measured at the 81.5 mm mean radius is the same field the coil actually experiences at 80.5 mm during both weighing and velocity phases, with the magnet's split seam closed tightly enough to add no field ripple; if the gap changes the field seen in one phase but not the other, the mass equation is biased at the microgram level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the component results carry through integration, the assembled balance will calibrate masses from 10 g to 1 kg with uncertainty below 50 µg, making the kilogram definition accessible in a compact instrument.
  • The inner-yoke compensation, verified experimentally for the first time, can be applied to other permanent-magnet Kibble balances as a low-cost way to widen the usable field region.
  • The magnet's easy split-open operation reduces the maintenance burden of coil changes, supporting the project's open-hardware goal of letting other laboratories copy the design.
  • The capacitive weighing cell's combination of 0.35 nm resolution and 275 N/m stiffness points toward force comparators with several-kilogram dead-load capacity and microgram-level repeatability.
  • The two-stage current source demonstrates that nA/A-level stability can be reached in about 30 minutes with commercial instruments, meeting the velocity-phase stability requirement of the OMTP scheme.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not yet demonstrate the end-to-end 50 µg figure; that claim will stand or fall on integration, especially on whether the magnetic profile measured at 81.5 mm mean radius matches the field seen by the coil at 80.5 mm during closed operation.
  • A testable extension is to cycle the split magnet open and closed with different screw torques and coating thicknesses, then compare integrated $Bl$ from velocity runs with the weighing-phase value; the ripple seen with a 0.14 mm gap in the first magnet should reappear if gap control is the limiting factor.
  • If the inner-yoke compensation is shape-robust, the same 0.4 mm by 5 mm rectangle geometry could be tried on other compact magnet designs without full re-optimization, giving a quick uniformity boost to tabletop Kibble balances.
  • The gravity transfer method, with its referenceless polynomial tide fit, could be checked by a future absolute gravimeter campaign at the same site; a drift in $g_0$ beyond the quoted 5.4 µGal expanded uncertainty would propagate directly into mass readings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports progress over two years on the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance, a compact instrument targeting mass calibration from 10 g to 1 kg with an uncertainty below 50 µg. The paper summarizes component-level developments: a split permanent-magnet system using Sm2Co17 and NdFeB with inner-yoke compensation, claimed to increase the vertical field-uniformity range by over 50%; an absolute gravity determination at the site, g0 = (980 139 580.5 ± 1.4) µGal with a combined 5.4 µGal (k = 2) uncertainty; a capacitive-sensor weighing cell with 0.35 nm displacement resolution and 275 N/m stiffness; a two-stage bipolar current source with nA/A-level stability in about 30 minutes; and an interferometer design for velocity measurement. The measurement equations are the standard one-mode, two-phase Kibble balance relations. No end-to-end mass measurement is reported; the paper is explicitly an integration-status update.

Significance. If the component results withstand scrutiny, they represent useful progress toward a compact, open-hardware Kibble balance. The paper's strengths include measured magnetic profiles (despite missing uncertainty bars), a gravity transfer with two independent analysis methods and stated uncertainties, an Allan-deviation characterization of the current source, and a clear description of the split-magnet concept with its attractive/repulsive force scheme. The open-hardware commitment is a practical contribution. The principal limitation is that the load-bearing reproducibility of the split magnet's flux integral across open/close cycles is not quantified, which is essential for the 5e-8-level Bl consistency required by Eq. (5). The paper is therefore best read as an honest progress report rather than a demonstration of the target uncertainty.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A and Eq. (5)] The split-magnet design is intended for routine opening and closing to insert or remove the coil, and the paper acknowledges in Section III-A that a 0.14 mm air gap in magnet THU-1 produced 'considerable ripple' above the splitting surface. For THU-2, however, no residual-gap measurement, no open/close repeatability data, and no uncertainty on the magnetic profile are reported. The mass equation (5) requires the flux integral Bl to be identical between the weighing phase (magnet fixed) and the velocity phase (magnet moving) at roughly the 5e-8 relative level for the 50 µg/1 kg target. A gap-induced change in Bl that differs between the two phases is not canceled by the symmetric current treatment in Eqs. (1)-(4) and enters directly as a mass bias. The claim that the split design provides a 'precision link' between the phases needs quantitative support, such as repeated Bl or flux-integral measurements over multiple open/close cycles and a gap-sensitivity uncertainty contribution.
  2. [Section III-A, Fig. 2(b)] The central quantitative claim that the inner-yoke compensation increases the uniform field range by over 50% is supported only by profiles plotted without error bars or repeatability trials. The difference between the compensated and uncompensated curves could be comparable to measurement scatter. Please provide the measurement uncertainty of the Hall-probe profiles, or repeated-profile data, and report the field range with a stated criterion, for example ΔB/B below 1e-4, rather than by visual inspection.
  3. [Section III-A] The measured magnetic profile is taken at mean radius ra = 81.5 mm, whereas the coil mean radius is 80.5 mm. Since the paper uses this profile as evidence of field flatness at the coil, the 1 mm radial offset needs to be justified, for example by showing the radial field gradient or by measuring at 80.5 mm. Without this, the component-level evidence for flatness at the operating radius is incomplete, even though the eventual U/v velocity measurement will use the true coil and can in principle bypass this particular limitation.
  4. [Section III-C, Fig. 4(b)] The comparison of the capacitor sensor and optical sensor is presented with normalized signals, but no noise bandwidth, measurement time, or repeatability is given, and no error bars appear. The conclusion that the capacitor sensor has 'significantly improved position measurement resolution' is the design rationale for the weighing cell, but the quantitative support is insufficient. The paper should report displacement noise density or Allan deviation for both sensors under the same conditions, and derive the force resolution using Eq. (6).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II] The word 'geometical' should be 'geometrical' in the text near Eq. (1).
  2. [Section III-D and Fig. 6(b)] The term 'Allen deviation' should be 'Allan deviation'.
  3. [Section III-E] The phrase 'The coil concern cube' appears to be a typo for 'corner cube'; please correct it.
  4. [Fig. 2(b)] The FEA curve labeled 'proposed design with air gap' should specify the gap width used, so that it can be compared directly with the THU-1 measurement at 0.14 mm.
  5. [Section III-C] The statement that higher displacement sensitivity 'can reduce the sensitivity requirement of the flexure hinge' is unclear; the phrase 'sensitivity requirement' should be defined or rephrased.
  6. [Section IV] The sentence 'The anticipation is the creation of a precision-oriented and robust mass-realization instrument in the near future' is awkwardly phrased and should be rewritten for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass equation is the standard OMTP Kibble relation and component results are externally benchmarked or measured in this paper.

full rationale

The paper's central measurement equation, Eq. (5), is the standard OMTP Kibble balance relation m = ((U+/v+ + U-/v-)(I+ - I-))/(2g) - (Delta f+ - Delta f-)/g, obtained by combining the weighing equations (1)-(2) with the velocity equations (3)-(4). No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: Bl is eliminated between phases, the current difference and induced voltages are measured quantities, and g is tied to an external NIM key comparison with a relative-gravimeter transfer detailed in [25] rather than assumed from the target result. The inner-yoke compensation was originally proposed in a same-group paper [24], but the present paper does not rely on that citation as proof: it presents independent FEA curves and measured magnetic profiles (Fig. 2b) showing the improvement, so the claim has content beyond the citation. The magnet construction is referenced to [23] and the current source to [27], but those are same-group component papers whose quantities (profile flatness, Allan-deviation stability) are measured against instruments such as a PJVS and a calibrated 100-ohm resistor, not derived from the target 50-microgram uncertainty. The split-gap magnetic-ripple sensitivity identified in Section III-A is a legitimate systematic-risk concern for the final uncertainty budget, but it is a question of measurement reproducibility, not circular reasoning: nothing in the derivation assumes the gap is negligible. The paper is a component-progress report rather than a closed end-to-end result, and its claims are supported by direct measurements and external references. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are used in the central mass equation; it is the standard OMTP relation. The component claims rely on the domain assumptions listed above. No invented physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The OMTP measurement equations (1)-(5) assume the magnetic factor Bl and inductance gradient dL/dz are identical in the weighing and velocity phases, and that residual forces are captured by delta f terms.
    Invoked in Section II where Eqs. (1)-(5) define the mass measurement; the background-flux and current-effect discussion acknowledges this is only approximate.
  • domain assumption The magnet is treated as a rigid body translating along a straight vertical line during velocity measurements, with the optical center insensitive to coil rotation.
    Section III-E describes the coil cube alignment and motorized stage, but the optical system is still under test.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field measured at mean radius 81.5 mm is representative of the effective Bl seen by the 1360-turn coil at mean radius 80.5 mm.
    Fig. 2(b) caption states the measurement radius; the mass equation (5) uses a coil-integrated Bl, so radial variation is assumed negligible.
  • domain assumption The CG6 relative gravimeter transfer from the NIM key comparison site to the Tsinghua site, with tide and environmental corrections, yields the absolute g value at the balance reference point.
    Section III-B reports g0 with 5.4 microGal expanded uncertainty; this relies on the validity of the reference tie and correction models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Updates on the Tsinghua Tabletop Kibble Balance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LDOH4DZ

@misc{pith2026241212521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Updates on the Tsinghua Tabletop Kibble Balance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LDOH4DZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12521}
}
abstract

With the adoption of the revised International System of Units (SI), the Kibble balance has become a pivotal instrument for mass calibrations against the Planck constant, $h$. One of the major focuses in the Kibble balance community is prioritizing experiments that achieve both high accuracy and compactness. The Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance experiment seeks to develop a compact, high-precision, user-friendly, cost-effective, and open-hardware apparatus for mass realization, specifically within the kilogram range. This paper reports on the progress of the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance project over the past two years. Various aspects of the Tsinghua tabletop system, including electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and optical components, are summarized. Key achievements, such as the construction and characterization of the magnet system, determination of absolute gravitational acceleration, investigation of a capacitor-sensor-based weighing unit, and development of a high-precision current source, are presented to provide a comprehensive understanding of the experiment's status.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12521 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CAD model of the updated Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) the magnet system for the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) shows the measurement result of the gravitational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The schematic diagram illustrates the two measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) depicts the output fluctuation of the current source with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Resolution 1 of the 26th CGPM Conference, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    A measurement of the gyromagnetic ratio of the proton by the strong field method,

    B. P. Kibble, “A measurement of the gyromagnetic ratio of the proton by the strong field method,” in Atomic masses and fundamental constants 5 . Springer, 1976, pp. 545–551

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    Bridging classical and quantum mechanics,

    D. Haddad, F. Seifert, L. S. Chao, et al, “Bridging classical and quantum mechanics,” Metrologia, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. A83–A85, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A new 28Si single crystal: counting the atoms for the new kilogram definition,

    G. Bartl, P. Becker, B. Beckhoff,et al, “A new 28Si single crystal: counting the atoms for the new kilogram definition,”Metrologia, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 693–715, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017,

    D. Haddad, F. Seifert, L. S. Chao, et al , “Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017,” Metrologia, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 633–641, 2017

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    A summary of the Planck constant determinations using the NRC Kibble balance,

    B. M. Wood, C. A. Sanchez, R. G. Green, and J. O. Liard, “A summary of the Planck constant determinations using the NRC Kibble balance,” Metrologia, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 399–409, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Developing the next generation of NPL Kibble balances,

    I. A. Robinson, J. Berry, C. Bull, et al , “Developing the next generation of NPL Kibble balances,” in 2018 Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements (CPEM 2018). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    The BIPM Kibble balance for realizing the kilogram definition,

    H. Fang, F. Bielsa, S. Li, et al , “The BIPM Kibble balance for realizing the kilogram definition,” Metrologia, vol. 57, p. 045009, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    A determination of the Planck constant using the LNE Kibble balance in air,

    M. Thomas, D. Ziane, P. Pinot, et al , “A determination of the Planck constant using the LNE Kibble balance in air,” Metrologia, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 468–480, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Design of the new METAS watt balance experiment Mark II,

    H. Baumann, A. Eichenberger, F. Cosandier, et al , “Design of the new METAS watt balance experiment Mark II,”Metrologia, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 235–242, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    The first determination of the Planck constant with the joule balance NIM-2,

    Z. Li, Z. Zhang, Y. Lu, et al , “The first determination of the Planck constant with the joule balance NIM-2,” Metrologia, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 763–774, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Design of the KRISS watt balance,

    D. Kim, B.-C. Woo, K.-C. Lee, et al, “Design of the KRISS watt balance,” Metrologia, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. S96–S100, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Pre- liminary Planck constant measurements via UME oscillating magnet Kibble balance,

    H. Ahmedov, N. B. A¸ skın, B. Korutlu, and R. Orhan, “Pre- liminary Planck constant measurements via UME oscillating magnet Kibble balance,” Metrologia, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 326–333, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    A magnet system for the MSL watt balance,

    C. M. Sutton and M. T. Clarkson, “A magnet system for the MSL watt balance,” Metrologia, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. S101–S106, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    The Planck- Balance—using a fixed value of the Planck constant to calibrate E1/E2-weights,

    C. Rothleitner, J. Schleichert, N. Rogge, et al , “The Planck- Balance—using a fixed value of the Planck constant to calibrate E1/E2-weights,” Meas. Sci. Technol., vol. 29, no. 7, p. 074003, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    The performance of the KIBB-g1 tabletop Kibble balance at NIST,

    L. Chao, F. Seifert, D. Haddad, et al , “The performance of the KIBB-g1 tabletop Kibble balance at NIST,” Metrologia, vol. 57, no. 3, p. 035014, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Design of the Tsinghua openhardware tabletop Kibble balance,

    S. Li, W. Zhao, S. Huang, and X. Yu, “Design of the Tsinghua openhardware tabletop Kibble balance,” in 2022 Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements (CPEM 2022), pp. 1– 2, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Magnetic uncertainties for com- pact Kibble balances: An investigation,

    S. Li and S. Schlamminger, “Magnetic uncertainties for com- pact Kibble balances: An investigation,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 71, pp: 1-9, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Design of the Tsinghua Tabletop Kibble Balance,

    S. Li, W. Zhao, S. Huang, and X. Yu, “Design of the Tsinghua Tabletop Kibble Balance,” in IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 72, Art no. 1005208, pp. 1-8, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Recent update on the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,

    S. Li, Y. Ma, K. Ma, et al , “Recent update on the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,” in 2024 Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements (CPEM 2024) , pp. 1–2, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Coil-current effect in Kibble balances: analysis, measurement, and optimization,

    S. Li, F. Bielsa, M. Stock, et al , “Coil-current effect in Kibble balances: analysis, measurement, and optimization,” Metrolo- gia, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 75–83, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    The irony of the magnet system for Kibble balances—a review,

    S. Li and S. Schlamminger, “The irony of the magnet system for Kibble balances—a review,” Metrologia, vol. 59, no. 2, p. 022001, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    A compact magnet system for the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,

    Y. Ma, N. Li, W. Liu, et al, “A compact magnet system for the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,” accepted for publication in IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A simple improvement for permanent magnet systems for Kibble balances: More flat field at almost no cost,

    S. Li, S. Schlamminger, and Q. Wang, “A simple improvement for permanent magnet systems for Kibble balances: More flat field at almost no cost,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 7752-7760, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    A determination of the local gravi- tational acceleration for the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,

    W. Liu, N. Li, Y. Ma, et al, “A determination of the local gravi- tational acceleration for the Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 73, Art no. 1006410, pp. 1-10, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    The results of CCM. G-K2. 2017 key comparison,

    S. Wu, J. Feng, C. Li, et al , “The results of CCM. G-K2. 2017 key comparison,” Metrologia, vol. 57, no. 1A, 2020

    2017

  19. [27]

    A bi-polar current source with high short-term stability for Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,

    K. Ma, X. Liu, W. Zhao, et al , “A bi-polar current source with high short-term stability for Tsinghua tabletop Kibble balance,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 73, Art no. 1504109, pp. 1-9, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    A new interferomet- ric system for the BIPM Kibble balance,

    F. Bielsa, H. Fang, A. Kiss, and M. Stock, “A new interferomet- ric system for the BIPM Kibble balance,”IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 70, pp. 1–6, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    First measurements of the flux integral with the NIST-4 watt balance,

    D. Haddad, F. Seifert, L. Chao, et al , “First measurements of the flux integral with the NIST-4 watt balance,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1642–1649, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Vacuum compatible vertical-laser alignment method based on an oil mirror and air- spaced doublets,

    T. Zeng, Y. Bai, Z. Li, and Y. Wang, “Vacuum compatible vertical-laser alignment method based on an oil mirror and air- spaced doublets,” Applied Optics , vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 601–611, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.