Advertisement

The Precise Determination of Loschmidt’s Number (Avogadro Constant) as a Step towards a Redefinition of the SI Unit of Mass

  • Peter Becker

Abstract

The paper summarises the activities of several national metrological institutes in replacing the kilogram artefact by the mass of a certain number of silicon atoms. Defining the unit of mass by such an atomic procedure requires a very accurate determination of the Avogadro constant, N A, with a relative uncertainty of better than 5 × 10−8. At present the most limiting factors are the purity of the silicon material, the measurement of isotopic abundances and the content of impurities and vacancies varying from sample to sample, and the realization of exact density standards. Recently, several improvements in molar mass and density determination have been made, so a further reduction of the relative uncertainty, approaching 10−7, may be expected in the near future. Beyond this point, new experimental methods are needed.

Keywords

Relative Uncertainty Silicon Isotope Avogadro Constant Silicon Lattice Regular Lattice Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.C. Maxwell, Report Brit. Association Adv. Science XL, 1870, Math. Phys. Sec, 215.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.R. Cohen, B.N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1121 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. DiFilippo, V. Natarajan, K.R. Boyce, D.E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1481 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conference issue: International Workshop on the Avogadro Constant and the Representation of the Silicon Mole, Metrologia 31, 156 (1994).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. Bonse, M. Hart, Appl. Phys. Lett. 6, 155 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.D. Deslattes, A. Henins, H.A. Bowman, R.M. Schoonover, C.L. Caroll, I.L. Barnes, L.A. Machlan, L.J. Moore, W.R. Schields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 463 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Seyfried, P. Becker, A. Kosdon, F. Lüdicke, F. Spieweck, J. Stümpel, H. Wagenbreth, D. Windisch, P. De Bievre, H.H. Ku, G. Lenaers, TJ. Murphy, H.S. Peiser, S. Valkiers, Z. Phys. B 87, 289 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Basile, A. Bergamin, G. Cavagnero, G. Mana, E. Vittone, G. Zosi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3133 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Fujimoto, K. Nakayama, M. Tanaka, G. Misawa, subm. to Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. (1995).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Windisch, P. Becker, Phil. Mag. A 58, 435 (1988).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Zulehner, B. Neuer, G. Rau, in: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Vol. A23, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, 1993, pp. 721-748.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Zulehner, private communication.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Ikari, K. Kawakami, H. Haga, A. Uedono, L. Wei, T. Kawano, S. Tanigawa, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 33, 5585 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Frank, U. Gösele, H. Mehrer, A. Seeger, in: Diffusion in Crystalline Solids, Ed. Murch, G.E., Nowick, A.S., Academic Press, New York 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Becker, PTB-Report APh-28, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Scheffler, J. Dabrowski, Phil. Mag. A 58, 107 (1988).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Becker, U. Kuetgens, J. Stümpel, S. Biernacki, M. Scheffler, PTB-Mitt. 105, 95 (1995).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. DeBièvre, in: Separation Technology, Ed. Vansant, E.F., Elsevier 1994, p. 919.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Richter, G. Dube, U. Keyser, P. Spitzer, PTB-Mitt. 104, 312 (1994).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.J. Leistner, W.J. Giardini, Metrologia 31, 231 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Becker, unpublished laboratory report.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Fujii, M. Tanaka, Y. Nezu, A. Sakuma, A.J. Leistner, W.J. Giardini, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 44, 542 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Sacconi, A. Peuto, W. Pasin, R. Panciera, G. Lenaers, S. Valkiers, M. Van den Berg, P. DeBievre, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 38, 200 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Kozdon, H. Wagenbreth, D. Hoburg, PTB-Report W-43, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. DeBievre, S. Valkiers, H.S. Peiser, P. Becker, F. Lüdicke, F. Spieweck, J. Stümpel, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 44, 530 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Basile, P. Becker, A. Bergamin, H. Bettin, G. Cavagnero, P. DeBievre, U. Kuetgens, G. Mana, M. Mosca, B. Pajot, R. Panciera, W. Pasin, S. Pettorrosca, A. Peuto, A. Sacconi, J. Stümpel, S. Valkiers, E. Vittone, G. Zosi, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 44, 538 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. DeBièvre, M. Tanaka, private communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Becker
    • 1
  1. 1.Physikalisch-Technische BundesanstaltBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations