1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,prd,floatfix]{revtex4}

2: 

3: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

4: 

5: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

8: 

9: %%% HERE ARE OUR SHORTCUTS AND DEFINITIONS

10: 

11: \renewcommand{\rho}{\varrho}

12: \newcommand{\ud}{\mbox{d}}

13: \newcommand{\mone}{\multicolumn{1}{c}}

14: \newcommand{\mtwo}{\multicolumn{2}{c}}

15: \newcommand{\mfour}{\multicolumn{4}{c}}

16: \hyphenation{Bun-des-an-stalt}

17: 

18: 

19: \newcommand{\mum}{\ensuremath \mu\mbox{m}}

20: \newcommand{\mug}{\ensuremath \mu\mbox{g}}

21: \newcommand{\Gunit}{\ensuremath \mbox{m}^3 \;\mbox{kg}^{-1}\;\mbox{s}^{-2}}

22: 

23: \newcolumntype{q}{D{.}{.}{1}}

24: \newcolumntype{s}{D{.}{.}{2}}

25: \newcolumntype{t}{D{.}{.}{3}}

26: \newcolumntype{u}{D{.}{.}{4}}

27: \newcolumntype{v}{D{.}{.}{5}}

28: \newcolumntype{w}{D{.}{.}{6}}

29: \newcolumntype{x}{D{.}{.}{7}}

30: \newcolumntype{y}{D{.}{.}{9}}

31: 

32: 

33: 

34: 

35: %\documentclass[a4paper,16pt]{article}

36: 

37: %\input{header_IR}

38: 

39: \begin{document}

40: 

41: 

42: \title{A Measurement of Newton's Gravitational Constant}

43: \author{St. Schlamminger}

44: \altaffiliation[present address ]{Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA}

45: \author{E. Holzschuh}

46: \altaffiliation{deceased}

47: \author{W. K\"undig}

48: \altaffiliation{deceased} \altaffiliation{We dedicate this paper

49: to our colleague Walter K\"{u}ndig, without whose untiring and

50: persistent effort this ambitious experiment would neither have

51: been started nor brought to a successful conclusion. Walter

52: K\"{u}ndig, died unexpectedly and prematurely of a grave illness

53: in May 2005. He conceived the set-up of this experiment and worked

54: on aspects of the analysis until a few days before his death.}

55: 

56: 

57: 

58: \author{F. Nolting}

59: \altaffiliation{Paul Scherrer Institut,Villigen, Switzerland}

60: \author{R.E. Pixley}

61: \email[EMail address: ]{ralph.pixley@freesurf.ch}

62: \author{J. Schurr}

63: \altaffiliation[present address ]{Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany}

64: \author{U. Straumann}

65: \affiliation{Physik-Institut der Universit\"{a}t Z\"{u}rich, CH-8057 Z\"{u}rich, Switzerland}

66: 

67: 

68: 

69: %---------abstract------------

70: \begin{abstract}

71: A precision measurement of the gravitational constant $G$ has been

72: made using a beam balance. Special attention has been given to

73: determining the calibration, the effect of a possible nonlinearity

74: of the balance and the zero-point variation of the balance. The

75: equipment, the measurements and the analysis are described in

76: detail. The value obtained for $G$ is 6.674252(109)(54) $\times

77: 10^{-11}$\;$\Gunit$. The relative statistical and systematic

78: uncertainties of this result are 16.3$\times 10^{-6}$ and

79: 8.1~$\times 10^{-6}$, respectively.

80: \end{abstract}

81: 

82: 

83: \pacs{04.80.-y, 06.20.Jr}

84: 

85: \maketitle

86: 

87: 

88: 

89: 

90: %----------Introduction-----------

91: \section{Introduction}

92: The gravitational constant $G$ has proved to be a very difficult

93: quantity for experimenters to measure accurately. In 1998, the

94: Committee on Data Science and Technology (CODATA) recommended a

95: value of $6.673(10)\times 10^{-11}\; \Gunit$. Surprisingly,  the

96: uncertainty, 1,500 parts per million (ppm), had been increased by

97: a factor of 12 over the previously adjusted value of 1986. This

98: was due to the fact that no explanation had been found for the

99: large differences obtained in the presumably more accurate

100: measurements carried out since 1986. Obviously, the differences

101: were due to very large systematic errors. The most recent revision

102: \cite{Mo05} of the CODATA Task Group gives for the 2002

103: recommended value $G=6.6742(10)\times 10^{-11}\; \Gunit$. The

104: uncertainty (150 ppm) has been reduced by a factor of 10 from the

105: 1998 value, but the agreement among the measured values considered

106: in this compilation is still somewhat worse than quoted

107: uncertainties.

108: 

109: %-----------------fig 1 principle--------------------

110: \begin{figure}

111: \includegraphics[height=10cm]{prinz.eps}

112: \caption{Principle of the measurement. The FM's are shown in the

113: position together (Pos. T) and the position apart (Pos. A).}

114: \label{fig1}

115: \end{figure}

116: 

117: 

118: 

119: Initial interest in the gravitational constant at our institute

120: had been motivated by reports \cite{Fi86} suggesting the existence

121: of a ``fifth" force which was thought to be important at large

122: distances. This prompted  measurements at a Swiss storage lake in

123: which the water level varied by 44~m. The experiment involved

124: weighing two test masses (TM's) suspended next to the lake at

125: different heights. No evidence \cite{Co94,Hu95} was found for the

126: proposed ``fifth" force, but, considering the large distances

127: involved, a reasonably accurate value (750~ppm) was obtained for

128: $G$. It was realized that the same type of measurement could be

129: made in the laboratory with much better accuracy with the lake

130: being replaced by the well defined geometry of a vessel containing

131: a dense liquid such as mercury. Equipment for this purpose was

132: designed and constructed in which two 1.1~kg TM's were alternately

133: weighed in the presence of two moveable field masses (FM's) each

134: with a mass of 7.5~t. A first series  of measurements

135: \cite{Sa98,Sb98,No98,No99,Sa99} with this equipment resulted in a

136: value for $G$ with an uncertainty of 220~ppm due primarily to a

137: possible nonlinearity of the balance response function. A second

138: series of measurements was undertaken to eliminate this problem. A

139: brief report of this latter series of measurements has been given

140: in ref. \cite{Sa02} and a more detailed description in a thesis

141: \cite{Sb02}. Since terminating the measurements, the following

142: four years have been spent in improving the analysis and checking

143: for possible systematic errors.

144: 

145: Following a brief overview of the experiment, the measurement and

146: the analysis of the data are presented in  Secs.~\ref{sec3} entitled

147: Measurement of the Gravitational Signal and Sec.~\ref{sec4} entitled

148: Determination of the Mass-Integration Constant. In Sec.~\ref{sec5}, the

149: present result is discussed and compared with other recent

150: measurements of the gravitational constant.

151: 

152: 

153: 

154: 

155: %------------Sec 1, General Considerations----------------

156: \section{General Considerations} The design goal of this

157: experiment was that the uncertainty in the measured value of $G$

158: should be less than about 20~ppm. This is comparable to the quoted

159: accuracy of recent $G$ measurements made with a torsion balance.

160: It is, however, several orders of magnitude better than previous

161: measurements of the gravitational constant (made after 1898)

162: employing a beam balance \cite{Hu95,Mo88,Sp87}.

163: 

164: The experimental setup is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. Two nearly

165: identical 1.1~kg TM's hanging on long wires are alternately

166: weighed on a beam balance in the presence of the two movable FM's

167: weighing 7.5~t each. The position of the FM's relative to the TM's

168: influence the measured weights. The geometry is such that when the

169: FM are in the position labelled "together", the weight of the

170: upper TM is increased and that of the lower TM is decreased. The

171: opposite change in the TM weights occurs when the FM are in the

172: position labelled "apart". One measures the difference of TM

173: weights first with one position of the FM's and then with the

174: other. The difference between the TM weight differences for the

175: two FM positions is the gravitational signal.

176: 

177: The use of two TM's and two FM's has several advantages over a

178: single TM and a single movable FM. Comparing two nearly equivalent

179: TM's tends to cancel slow variations such as zero-point drift of

180: the balance and the effect of tidal variations. Using the

181: difference of the two TM weights doubles the signal. In addition,

182: it causes the influence of the FM motion on the counter weight of

183: the balance to be completely cancelled. Use of two FM's with equal

184: and opposite motion reduces the power required to that of

185: overcoming friction. This also simplified somewhat the mechanical

186: construction.

187: 

188: The geometry has been designed such that the TM being weighed is

189: positioned at (or near) an extremum  of the vertical force field

190: in both the vertical and horizontal directions for both positions

191: of the FM's. The extremum is a maximum for the vertical position

192: and a minimum for the horizontal position. This double extremum

193: greatly reduces the positional accuracy required in the present

194: experiment.

195: 

196: \begin{figure}

197: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{aufbau.eps}

198: \caption[A side view of the experiment.]{A side view of the

199: experiment. Legend: 1=measuring room enclosure, 2=thermally

200: insulated chamber, 3=balance, 4=concrete walls of the pit,

201: 5=granite plate, 6=steel girder, 7=vacuum pumps, 8=gear drive,

202: 9=motor, 10=working platform, 11=spindle, 12=steel girder of the

203: main support, 13=upper TM, 14=FM's, 15=lower TM, 16=vacuum tube.}

204: \label{fig2}

205: \end{figure}

206: 

207: The measurement took place at the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) in

208: Villigen. The apparatus was installed in a pit with thick concrete

209: walls which provided good thermal stability and isolation from

210: vibrations. The arrangement of the equipment is shown in

211: Fig.~\ref{fig2}. The system involving the FM's was supported by a

212: rigid steel structure mounted on the floor of the pit. Steel

213: girders fastened to the walls of the pit supported the balance,

214: the massive (200 kg) granite plate employed to reduce high

215: frequency vibrations and the vacuum system enclosing the balance

216: and the TM's. A vacuum of better than $10^{-4}$~Pa was produced by

217: a turbomolecular pump located at a distance of 2~m from the

218: balance.

219: 

220: The pit was divided into an upper and a lower room separated by a

221: working platform 3.5~m above the floor of the pit. All heat

222: producing electrical equipment was located in the upper measuring

223: room. Both rooms had their own separate temperature stabilizing

224: systems. The long term temperature stability in both rooms was

225: better than $0.1^\circ$~C. No one was allowed in either room

226: during the measurements in order to avoid perturbing effects.

227: 

228: 

229: The equipment was fully automated. Measurements lasting up to 7

230: weeks were essentially unattended. The experiment was controlled

231: from our Zurich office via the internet with data transfer

232: occurring once a day.

233: 

234: \section{Measurement of the Gravitational Signal}

235: \label{sec3}

236: We begin this section with a description of the devices employed

237: in determining the gravitational signal. Following the

238: descriptions of these devices, the detailed schedule of the

239: various weighings and their analysis are given. Balance weighings

240: will be expressed in mass units rather than force units. The value

241: of local gravity was determined for us by E. E. Klingel\'{e} of

242: the geology department of the Swiss Federal Institute. The

243: measurement was made near the balance on Sept. 11, 1996 using a

244: commercial gravimeter (model G \#317 made by the company

245: LaCoste-Romberg). The value found was $9.807 233 5(6)\;\mbox{m}\mbox{s}^{-2}$.

246: This value was used to convert the balance readings into force

247: units.

248: 

249: %---------------sec 3.1--------------------

250: \subsection{The Balance}

251: \label{sec31} The beam balance was a modified commercial mass

252: comparator of the type AT1006 produced by the Mettler-Toledo

253: company. The mass being measured is compensated by a counter

254: weight and a small magnetic force between a permanent magnet and

255: the current flowing in a coil mounted on the balance arm. An

256: opto-electrical feedback system controlling the coil current

257: maintains the balance arm in essentially a fixed position

258: independent of the mass being weighed. The digitized coil current

259: is used as the output reading of the balance.

260: 

261: The balance arm is supported by two flexure strips which act as

262: the pivot. The pan of the balance is supported by a parallelogram

263: guide attached to the balance frame. This guide allows only

264: vertical motion of the pan to be coupled to the arm of the

265: balance. Horizontal forces produced by the load are transmitted to

266: the frame and have almost no influence on the arm.

267: 

268: As supplied by the manufacturer, the balance had a measuring range

269: of 24~g above the 1~kg offset  determined by the counter weight.

270: The original readout resolution was 1~\mug\ and the specified

271: reproducibility was 2~\mug. The balance was designed especially

272: for weighing a 1 kg standard mass such as is maintained in many

273: national metrology institutes.

274: 

275: In the present experiment, the balance was modified by removing

276: some nonessential parts of the balance pan which resulted in its

277: weighing range being centered on 1.1~kg instead of the 1~kg of a

278: standard mass. Therefore, 1.1~kg TM's were employed. In order to

279: obtain higher sensitivity required for measuring the approximately

280: 0.8~mg difference between TM weighings, the number of turns on the

281: coil was reduced by a factor of 6, thus reducing the range to 4~g

282: for the same maximum coil current. The balance was operated at an

283: output value near 0.6~g which gave a good signal-to-noise ratio

284: with low internal heating. For the present measurements, a mass

285: range of only 0.2~g was required. The full readout resolution of

286: the analog to digital converter (ADC) measuring the coil current

287: was employed which resulted in a readout-mass resolution of

288: 12.5~ng.

289: 

290: An 8th order low-pass, digital filter with various time constants

291: was available on the balance. Due to the many weighings required

292: by the procedure employed to cancel nonlinearity (see

293: Sec.~\ref{sec34}), it was advantageous to make the time taken for

294: each weighing as short as possible. Therefore, the shortest filter

295: time constant (approximately 7.8~s) was employed and output

296: readings were taken at the maximum repetition rate allowed by the

297: balance (about 0.38~s between readings).

298: 

299: Pendulum oscillations were excited by the TM exchanges. Small

300: oscillation amplitudes (less than 0.2~mm) of the TM's

301: corresponding to one and two times the frequency for pendulum

302: oscillations (approximately 0.26~Hz for the lower TM and 0.33~Hz

303: for the upper TM's) were observed. They were essentially undamped

304: with decay times of several days. The unwanted output amplitudes

305: of these pendulum oscillation were not strongly attenuated by the

306: filter (half-power frequency of 0.13~Hz) and therefore had to be

307: taken into account in determining the equilibrium value of a

308: weighing.

309: 

310: 

311: The equilibrium value of a weighing was determined in an on-line,

312: 5-parameter, linear least-squares fit made to 103 consecutive

313: readings of the balance starting 40~s after a load change. The

314: parameters of the fit were 2 sine amplitudes, 2 cosine amplitudes

315: and the average weight. The pendulum frequencies were known from

316: other measurements and were not parameters of the on-line fit. The

317: 40~s delay before beginning data taking was required in order to

318: allow the balance to reach its equilibrium value (except for

319: oscillations) after a load change. This procedure (including the

320: 40~s wait) is what we call a "weighing". A weighing thus required

321: about 80~s.

322: 

323: Data of a typical weighing and the fit function used to describe

324: their time distribution are shown in the upper part of

325: Fig.~\ref{fig3}. The residuals $\delta$ divided by a normalization

326: constant $\sigma$ are shown in the lower part of this figure. The

327: normalization constant has been chosen such that the rms value of

328: the residuals is 1. Since the balance readings are correlated due

329: to the action of the digital filter, the value of $\sigma$ does

330: not represent the uncertainty of the readings. It is seen that the

331: residuals show only rather wide peaks. These peaks are probably

332: due to very short random bursts of electronic noise which have

333: been widened by the digital filter. With the sensitivity of our

334: modified balance, they represent a sizable contribution to the

335: statistical variations of the weighings. They are of no importance

336: for the normal use of the AT1006 balance.

337: %--------------fig 3 (103 readings of a weighing)--------------

338: \begin{figure}

339: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pendulum_residual.ps}

340: \caption{Shown in the upper plot are the balance readings for a

341: typical weighing illustrating the oscillatory signal due to

342: pendulum oscillations. The output is the uncalibrated balance

343: reading corresponding to approximately 1.1 kg with a magnetic

344: compensation of 0.6 g. The amplitude of the oscillatory signal

345: corresponds to about 1.5 \mug. The lower plot shows the normalized

346: residuals. The normalization has been chosen such that their rms

347: value is 1.} \label{fig3}

348: \end{figure}

349: 

350: 

351: 

352: A direct calibration of the balance in the range of the 780 \mug\

353: gravitation signal can not be made with the accuracy required

354: in the present experiment ($< 20$~ppm) since calibration masses of

355: this size are not available with an absolute accuracy of better

356: than about 300~ppm. Instead, we have employed a method in which an

357: accurate, coarse grain calibration was made using two 0.1 g

358: calibration masses (CM's). The CM's were each known with an

359: absolute accuracy of 4~ppm. A number of auxiliary masses (AM's)

360: having approximate weights of either 783 $\mu g$ or $16\times

361: 783=12,528$~\mug\ were weighed along with each TM in steps of

362: 783~\mug\ covering the 0.2~g range of the CM. Although the AM's

363: were known with an absolute accuracy of only 800~ng (relative

364: uncertainty 1,000~ppm), the method allowed balance nonlinearity

365: effects to be almost entirely cancelled. Thus, the effective

366: calibration accuracy for the average of the TM difference

367: measurements was essentially that of the CM's. A detailed

368: description of this method is given in Sec.~\ref{sec310}.

369: 

370: 

371: 

372: In our measurements, the balance was operated in vacuum. The

373: balance proved to be extremely temperature sensitive which was

374: exacerbated by the lack of convection cooling in vacuum. The

375: measured zero-point drift was 5.5~mg/$^\circ \mbox{C}$. The sensitivity

376: of the balance changed by 220~ppm$/^\circ \mbox{C}$. To reduce these

377: effects, the air temperature of the room was stabilized to about

378: 0.1~$^\circ \mbox{C}$. A second stabilized region near the balance was

379: maintained at a constant temperature to 0.01~$^\circ \mbox{C}$. Inside

380: the vacuum, the balance was surrounded by a massive (45~kg) copper

381: box which resulted in a temperature stability of about 1~mK.

382: Although zero-point drift under constant load for a 1~mK

383: temperature change was only 5.5~\mug\ , the effects of self

384: heating of the balance due to load changes during the measurement

385: of the gravitational signal were much larger. Details of this

386: effect and how they were corrected are described in Sec.\ref{sec37}.

387: 

388: 

389: \subsection{The Test Masses}

390: \label{sec32} One series of measurements was made using copper

391: TM's and two with tantalum TM's. Various problems with the mass

392: handler occurred during the measurements with the tantalum TM's

393: which resulted in large systematic errors. Although the tantalum

394: results were consistent with the measurements with the copper

395: TM's, the large systematic errors resulted in large total errors.

396: The tantalum measurements were included in our first publication,

397: but we now believe that better accuracy is obtained overall with

398: the copper measurements alone. We therefore describe only the

399: measurements made with the copper TM's in the present work.

400: 

401: A drawing of a copper TM is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cotm}. The

402: 45~mm diameter, 77 mm high copper cylinders were plated with a

403: 10~\mum\ gold layer to avoid oxidation. The gold plating was made

404: without the use of nickel in order to avoid magnetic effects. Near

405: the top of each TM on opposite sides of the cylinder were two

406: short horizontal posts. The posts were made of Cu-Be (Berylco 25).

407: The tungsten wires used to attach the TM's to the balance were

408: looped around these posts in grooves provided for this purpose.

409: The wires had a diameter of 0.1~mm and lengths of 2.3~m for the

410: upper TM and 3.7~m for the lower. The loop was made by crimping

411: the tungsten wire together in a thin copper tube. A thin,

412: accurately machined, copper washer was placed in a cylindrical

413: indentation on the top surface of the lower TM in order to trim

414: its weight (including suspension) to within about 400~\mug\ of

415: that of the upper TM and suspension.

416: 

417: %-------------fig 4 schematic of TM------------------

418: \begin{figure}

419: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{nn_TM_drawing.eps}

420: \caption{Drawing of TM inside the vacuum tube. Dimensions are

421: given in mm. } \label{fig:cotm}

422: \end{figure}

423: 

424: Measurement of the TM's dimensions was made with an accuracy of

425: 5~\mum\ using the coordinate measuring machine (CMM) at PSI.  The

426: weight of the gold plating was determined from the specified

427: thickness of the layer. The weight of the tungsten wires was

428: determined from the dimensions and the density of tungsten. The

429: thin tubing used to crimp the tungsten wires was weighed directly.

430: The weight of the complete TM's was determined at the

431: Mettler-Toledo laboratory with an accuracy of 25~\mug\ (0.022~ppm)

432: before and after the gravitational measurement. It was found that

433: the mass of both TM's had increased by a negligible amount

434: (0.5~ppm) during the measurement.

435: 

436: An estimate of possible density gradients in the TM's was

437: determined by measuring the density of copper samples bordering

438: the material used for making the TM's. It was found that the

439: variation of the relative density gradients over the dimensions of

440: either TM was less than $2\times 10^{-4}$ in both the longitudinal

441: and the radial directions.

442: 

443: \subsection{TM Exchanger}

444: \label{sec33} In weighing the TM's, it was necessary to remove the

445: suspension supporting one TM from the balance and replace it by

446: the other supporting the other TM. The exchange was accomplished

447: by a step-motor driven hydraulic systems to raise the suspension

448: of one TM while lowering the other. A piezo-electric transducer

449: mounted above the pan of the balance was used to keep the load on

450: the balance during the exchange as constant as possible. This was

451: done in order to avoid excessive heating due to the coil current

452: and to reduce anelastic effects in the flexure strips supporting

453: the balance arm. The output excursions were typically less than

454: 0.1~g. The exchange of the TM's required about 4~min.

455: 

456: The TM suspension rested on a thin metal arm designed to bend

457: through 0.6~mm when loaded with 1.1~kg. Therefore, the transfer of

458: TM's was accomplished with a vertical movement of typically 2~mm

459: (0.6~mm bending of the spring plus an additional 1.4~mm to avoid

460: electrostatic forces). The metal arm was attached to a

461: parallelogram guide (similar to that of the balance) to assure

462: only vertical motion.

463: 

464: Although the parallelogram reduced the error resulting from the

465: positioning of the load, it was nevertheless important to have the

466: TM load always suspended from the same point on the balance pan.

467: This was accomplished by means of a kinematic coupling

468: \cite{Sl88,Fu81}. The coupling consisted of three pointed titanium

469: pins attached to each TM suspension which would come to rest in

470: three titanium V grooves mounted on the balance pan. The

471: reproducibility of this positioning was 10~\mum. The pieces of the

472: coupling were coated with tungsten carbide to avoid electrical

473: charging and reduce friction.

474: 

475: 

476: 

477: 

478: \subsection{Auxiliary Masses}

479: \label{sec34} In order to correct for any nonlinearity of the

480: balance in the range of the signal, use was made of many auxiliary

481: masses (AM's) spanning the 200~mg range of the CM's in steps of

482: approximately 783~\mug. Although the AM's could not be measured

483: with sufficient accuracy to calibrate the balance absolutely, they

484: were accurate enough to correct the measured gravitational signal

485: for a possible nonlinearity of the balance. Each TM was weighed

486: along with various combinations of AM's. One essentially averaged

487: the nonlinearity over the 200 mg range of the CM's in 256 load

488: steps of 200~mg/256=783~\mug. A weighing of both 100~mg CM's was

489: then used to determine the absolute calibration of the balance

490: which is valid for the TM weighings averaged over this range. The

491: effect of any nonlinearity essentially cancels due to the

492: averaging process. The accuracy of the nonlinearity correction is

493: described in Sec.~\ref{sec310}.

494: 

495: The 256 load steps were accomplished using 15 AM's with a mass of

496: approximately 783~\mug\ called AM1's and 15 AM's with 16 times

497: this mass (12,528~\mug) called AM16's. They were made from short

498: pieces of stainless steel wire with diameters of 0.1 mm and

499: 0.3~mm. The wires were bent through about $70^\circ$ on both ends

500: leaving a straight middle section of about 6~mm. The mass of the

501: AM's were electrochemically etched to obtain as closely as

502: possible the desired masses. The RMS deviation was 1.5~\mug\ for

503: the AM1's and 2.3~\mug\  for the AM16's.

504: 

505: By weighing a TM together with various AM combinations, one

506: obtains the value of the TM weight simultaneously with the

507: linearity information. The only additional time required for this

508: procedure over that of weighing only the TM's is the time

509: necessary to change an AM combination (10 to 30~s).

510: 

511: 

512: 

513: \subsection{Mass Handler}

514: \label{sec35} The mass handler is the device which placed the AM's

515: and the CM's on the balance or removed them from the balance. The

516: mass handler was designed by the firm Metrotec AG. The operation

517: of this device is illustrated in the somewhat simplified drawing

518: of Fig.~\ref{fig:masshandler} showing how the AM1's and the CM1

519: are placed on the metal strip attached to the balance pan. Only 6

520: of the 14 steps are shown in this illustration for clarity. The

521: portion of the handler used for the AM'16 and the CM2 (not shown)

522: is similar except that the AM'16 are placed on a metal strip

523: located below the one used for the AM1's. All of the AM1's

524: pictured in Fig.~\ref{fig:masshandler} are lying on the steps of a

525: pair of parallel double staircases. The staircases are separated

526: by 6~mm which is the width of the AM's between the bent regions on

527: both ends. The spacing between the staircases is such that they

528: could pass on either side of the horizontal metal strip fastened

529: to the balance pan as the staircases were moved up or down. The

530: motion of each staircase pair was constrained to the vertical

531: direction by a parallelogram (similar to those of the balance)

532: fastened to the frame of the mass handler. The staircases for

533: AM1's and AM16's were moved by two separate step motors located

534: outside the vacuum system. The step motors were surrounded by mu

535: metal shielding to reduce the magnetic field in the neighborhood

536: of the balance. Moving the staircases down deposited one AM after

537: another onto the metal strip. Moving the staircases up removed the

538: AM's lying on the strip. The steps of the staircase had hand

539: filed, saddle shaped indentations to facilitate the positioning of

540: the AM's. The heights of the steps were 2~mm and the steps on the

541: left side of the double staircase were displaced in height by 1~mm

542: from those on the right. Thus, the AM1's were alternately placed

543: on the balance to the left and to the right of the center of the

544: main pan in order to minimize the torque which they produced on

545: the balance.

546: %----------------fig 5-------------------

547: \begin{figure}

548: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{masshandler.eps}

549: \caption{Simplified drawing of the mass handler illustrating the

550: principle of operation. Legend: 1=pivoted lever pair holding a CM,

551: 2=narrow strip to receive the CM, 3=double stair case pair holding

552: AM's, 4=narrow strip to receive AM's, 5=balance pan, 6 flat

553: spring, 7=frame, 8=stepmotor driven cogwheel, and 9=coil spring.

554: The pivoted-lever pair and the double-staircase pair are spaced

555: such that they can pass on either side of the narrow strips 2 and

556: 4 fastened to the balance pan. The two flat springs 6 form two

557: sides of a parallelogram which assures vertical motion of the

558: double stair case pair.} \label{fig:masshandler}

559: \end{figure}

560: 

561: Raising the staircase structure above the position shown in the

562: figure caused a rod to push against a pivoted lever holding CM1.

563: With this operation, CM1 was placed on the upper strip attached to

564: the balance. Reversing the operation allowed the spring to move

565: the lever in the opposite direction and remove CM1 from the

566: balance.

567: 

568: Due to the very small mass of the AM1's, difficulty was

569: occasionally  experienced with the AM1's sticking to one side of

570: the staircase or the other. The staircases were made of aluminum

571: and were coated with a conductive layer of tungsten carbide to

572: reduce the sticking probability. Sticking nevertheless did occur.

573: The sticking would cause an AM1 to rest partly on the staircase

574: and partly on the pan, thus giving a false balance reading. In

575: extreme cases, the AM1 would fall from the holder and therefore be

576: lost for the rest of the measurement. No problem was experienced

577: with the heavier AM16's and the CM's.

578: 

579: 

580: \subsection{Weighing Schedule}

581: \label{sec36} The experiment was planned so that the zero-point

582: (ZP) drift and the linearity of the balance could be determined

583: while weighing a TM. In principle one needs just 4 weighings

584: (upper and lower TM with FM's together and apart) to determine the

585: signal for each AM placed on the balance. Repeating these 4

586: weighings allows one to determine how much the zero point has

587: changed and thereby correct for the drift. Since there are 256 AM

588: values required to correct the nonlinearity of the balance, a

589: minimum of 2048 weighings is needed for a complete determination

590: of the signal corrected for ZP drift and linearity. One also

591: wishes to make a number of calibration measurements during the

592: series of measurements.

593: 

594: The order in which the measurements are performed influences

595: greatly the ZP drift correction of measurements. Changing AM's

596: requires only 6 to 30~s, while exchanging TM on the balance takes

597: about 230 s and moving the FM from one position to the other

598: requires about 600 s. These times are to be compared with the 80 s

599: required for a weighing and about 1 hr for a complete calibration

600: measurement (see Sec.~\ref{sec39}). One therefore wishes to

601: measure a number of AM values before exchanging TM, and repeat

602: these measurements for the other TM before changing the FM

603: positions or making a calibration.

604: 

605: The schedule of weighing adopted is based on several basic series

606: for the weighing of the different TM's with different FM

607: positions. The series are defined as follows:

608: \begin{enumerate}

609: \item An S4 series is defined as the weighing of four successive

610: AM values with a particular TM and with all weighing made for the

611: same FM positions. \item An S12 series involves three S4 series

612: all with the same four AM values and the same FM positions. The S4

613: series are measured first for one TM, then the other TM and

614: finally with the original TM. \item An S96 is eight S12 series,

615: all made with the same FM positions and with the AM values

616: incremented by four units between each S12 series. A TM exchange

617: is also made between each S12 series. An S96 series represents the

618: weighings with 32 successive AM values for both TM all with the

619: same FM positions. \item An S288 series is three S96 series, first

620: with one FM position, then the other and finally with the original

621: FM position. A calibration measurement is made at the beginning of

622: each S288 series. Thus, the S288 series represents the weighings

623: with 32 successive AM values for both TM's and both FM positions

624: and includes its own calibration. \item An S2304 series is made up

625: of eight S288 series with the AM values incremented by 32 between

626: each S288 series. An S2304 series completes the full 256 AM values

627: with weighings of both TM's and both FM positions.

628: \end{enumerate}

629: 

630: A total of eight valid S2304 series was made over a period of 43

631: days. Alternate S2304 series were intended to be made with

632: increasing and decreasing AM values. Unfortunately, the restart

633: after a malfunction of the temperature stabilization in the

634: measuring room was made with the wrong incrementing sign. This

635: resulted in five S2304 series being made with increasing AM values

636: and three with decreasing.

637: 

638: \subsection{Analysis of the Weighings}

639: \label{sec37} In ref.~\cite{Sa02,Sb02}, the so called ABA method

640: was used to analyze the data obtained from the balance and thereby

641: obtain the difference between the mass of the A and B TM. This

642: method assumes a linear time dependence of the weight that would

643: be obtained for the A TM at the time when the B TM was measured

644: based on the weights measured for A at an earlier and a later

645: time. However, a careful examination of the data showed that the

646: curvature of the ZP drift was quite large and was influenced by

647: the previous load history of the balance. This indicated that the

648: linear approximation was not a particularly good approximation. We

649: have therefore reanalyzed the data using a fitting procedure to

650: determine a continuous ZP function of time for each S96 series.

651: The data and fit function for a typical S96 series starting with a

652: calibration measurement is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:zeropoint}. The

653: procedure used to determine the ZP data and fit are described in

654: the following. The criterion for a valid weighing is described in

655: Sec.~\ref{sec38}.

656: 

657: The data of Fig.~\ref{fig:zeropoint} show a slow rise during the

658: first hour after the calibration measurement followed by a

659: continuous decrease with a time constant of several hours. These

660: slow variations are attributed to thermal variations resulting

661: principally from the different loading of the balance during the

662: calibration measurement. Superposed on the slow variations are

663: rapid variations which are synchronous with the exchange of the

664: TM's. The rapid variations peak immediately after the TM exchange

665: and decrease thereafter with a typical slope of 0.3 ~\mug\ /hr.

666: The cause of the rapid variations is unknown.

667: 

668: The data employed in the ZP determination were the weighings of

669: the upper and lower TM's for the S96 series. The known AM load for

670: each weighing was first subtracted to obtain a net weight for

671: either TM plus the unknown zero-point function at the time of each

672: weighing.  A series of Legendre polynomials was used to describe

673: the slow variations of the zero-point function. A separate $P_0$

674: coefficient was employed for each TM. The rapid variations were

675: described by a sawtooth function starting at the time of each TM

676: exchange. The fit parameters were the coefficient of the Legendre

677: polynomials and the amplitude of the sawtooth function. The

678: sawtooth amplitude was assumed to be the same for all rapid peaks

679: of an S96 series. The sawtooth function was used principally to

680: reduce the $\chi^2$ of the fit and had almost no effect on the

681: results obtained when using the ZP function. All parameters are

682: linear parameters so that no iteration is required. The actual ZP

683: function is the sawtooth function and the polynomial series

684: exclusive of the time independent terms (i.e. the sum of the

685: coefficients times $P_n(0)$ for even $n$).

686: 

687: %------------fig 6 zero-point variation---------------

688: \begin{figure}

689: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{zp_residual.ps}

690: \caption{The zero-point variation as a function of time for a

691: typical S96 series including calibration is shown in the upper

692: part of this figure. The solid curve is the fit function starting

693: after the last dummy weighing. The fit function for this S96

694: series has 76 degrees of freedom. The normalized residuals

695: $\delta/\sigma$ are shown in the lower plot. The normalization of

696: the residuals has been chosen such that their rms value is 1.}

697: \label{fig:zeropoint}

698: \end{figure}

699: 

700: Such calculations were made for various numbers of Legendre

701: coefficients in the ZP function. It was found that the

702: gravitational signal was essentially constant for a maximum order

703: of Legendre polynomials between 8 and 36. In this range of

704: polynomials, the minimum calculated signal was 784.8976(91)~\mug\

705: for a maximum order equal to 22 and a maximum signal of

706: 784.9025(93)~\mug\ for a maximum order equal to 36 (i.e. a very

707: small difference). In all following results, we shall use the

708: signal 784.8994(91)~\mug\ obtained with a maximum polynomial order

709: of 15.

710: 

711: It has been implicitly assumed in the above ZP determination that

712: the AM load values were known with much better accuracy than the

713: reproducibility of the balance producing the data used in the ZP

714: fit. Although the AM values were sufficiently accurate for

715: determining the general shape of the ZP function, their relative

716: uncertainties were comparable to the uncertainties of the balance

717: data used in the fit. The $P_0$ mass parameters of the TM's

718: obtained from the fit were therefore not used for the TM

719: differences at the two FM positions which are needed in order to

720: determine the gravitational signal. Instead, the value of the ZP

721: function was subtracted from each weighing, and an ABA mass

722: difference was determined for each triplet of weighings having the

723: same AM load. Since the mass of the AM's do not occur in this TM

724: difference, they do not influence the calculation. The ABA

725: calculation is valid for this purpose since the ZP corrected

726: weighings have essentially no curvature. Such TM differences

727: determined for the apart-together positions of the FM's are then

728: used to calculate the gravitational signal.

729: 

730: 

731: 

732: The TM differences for the apart-together positions of the FM's as

733: a function of time are shown for a ZP corrected S288 series in

734: Fig.~\ref{fig:S288}. Individual data points are resolved in the

735: magnified insert of this figure. Each data point is the B member

736: of a TM difference obtained from an ABA triplet in which all

737: weighings have the same load value.

738: 

739: %--------------fig 7-------------------

740: \begin{figure}

741: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{S288.ps}

742: \caption{The measured weight difference in $\mu g$ between TM's

743: obtained from an S288 series. The magnified insert shows the

744: individual TM differences which are not resolved in the main part

745: of the figure.} \label{fig:S288}

746: \end{figure}

747: 

748: All of the TM differences (ZP corrected) for the entire experiment

749: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tmdiff}. The data labelled apart have

750: been shifted by 782~\mug\ in order to allow both data sets to be

751: presented in the same figure. A slow variation of 2.5~\mug\ in

752: both TM differences occurred during the 43 day measurement. Also

753: seen in this figure is a 0.7~\mug\ jump which occurred in the data

754: for both the apart and together positions of the FM's on day 222.

755: The slow variation is probably due to sorption-effect differences

756: of the upper and lower TM's. The jump was caused by the loss or

757: gain of a small particle such as a dust particle by one of the

758: TM's. In order to determine the gravitational signal, an ABA

759: difference was calculated for apart-together values having the

760: same AM load. The slow variation seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:tmdiff} is

761: sufficiently linear so that essentially no error results from the

762: use of the ABA method. The jump in the apart-together differences

763: caused no variation of the gravitational signal.

764: 

765: 

766: %------------fig 8 plot of TM difference vs time---------------

767: \begin{figure}

768: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{signal_both.ps}

769: \caption{The measured weight difference in $\mu g$ between TM's

770: for the FM's positions apart and together. The measured values for

771: the FM apart have been displaced 782 $\mu g$ in order to show both

772: types of data in the same figure. } \label{fig:tmdiff}

773: \end{figure}

774: 

775: In Fig.~\ref{fig:histo} is shown a plot of the binned difference

776: between the FM apart-together positions for all valid data (see

777: Sec.~\ref{sec38}. The differences were determined using the ABA

778: method applied to weighings made with the same AM loads. Also

779: shown in the figure is a Gaussian function fit to the data. The

780: data are seen to agree well with the Gaussian shape which is a

781: good test for the quality of experimental data. The

782: root-mean-square (RMS) width of the data is 1.03 time the width of

783: the Gaussian function. The true resolution for these weighings may

784: be somewhat different than shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:histo} due to

785: the fact that the data have not been corrected for nonlinearity of

786: the balance (see Sec.~\ref{sec310}) and for correlations due to

787: the common ZP function . Nevertheless, these effects would not be

788: expected to influence the general Gaussian form of the

789: distribution.

790: 

791: %------------------fig 9 gauss resolution------------

792: \begin{figure}

793: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{cu_bin.ps}

794: \caption{Binned data for the FM apart-together weight differences

795: (points) and a fitted Gaussian function (curve) shown as a

796: deviation from the mean difference. Poisson statistics were used

797: to determine the uncertainties.} \label{fig:histo}

798: \end{figure}

799: 

800: 

801: 

802: A plot of the signal obtained for the S2304 series with increasing

803: and decreasing load is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cycles}. The average

804: signal for increasing load is 784.9121(125)~\mug\ and the average

805: for decreasing load is 784.8850(133)~\mug. The common average for

806: both is 784.8994(91)~\mug. The averages for increasing load and

807: for decreasing load lie within the uncertainty of the combined

808: average. This shows that the direction of load incrementing did

809: not appreciably influence the result.

810: 

811: %------------fig 10 cycles plot---------------

812: \begin{figure}

813: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{cycles_new.ps}

814: \caption{The average signal for each of the eight S2304 series.

815: Series with increasing load are shown as circles. Series with

816: decreasing load are shown as squares. The dashed line is the

817: average of all eight series.} \label{fig:cycles}

818: \end{figure}

819: 

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: 

824: Although the weighings making up an S96 series are correlated due

825: to the common ZP function determined for each S96 series, the

826: results of each S96 series, in particular the TM parameter, are

827: independent. The 32 signal values obtained from the three S96

828: series making each S288 series are also independent. However,

829: since the nonlinearity correction (see Sec.~\ref{sec310}) being

830: employed is applicable only to an entire S2304 series (not to

831: individual S288 series), it is only the eight S2304 series which

832: should be compared with one another. This restricts the way in

833: which the average signal is to be calculated for the entire

834: measurement, namely the way in which the data are to be weighted.

835: 

836: We have investigated two weighting procedures. In the first, each

837: S2304 series average was weighted by the number of valid triplets

838: in that series. This assumes that the weighings measured in all

839: S2304 series have the same a priori accuracy. In the second

840: method, it was assumed that the accuracy for each weighing in a

841: series was the same but might be different for different series.

842: We believe the second method is the better method since it takes

843: into account changes that occur during the long, 43 day

844: measurement (e.g. the not completely compensated effects of

845: vibration, tidal forces and temperature). The averages obtained

846: with the two methods differ by approximately 6~ng with the second

847: method giving the smaller average signal. This is a rather large

848: effect. It is only slightly smaller than the statistical

849: uncertainty of 9 to 10~ng obtained for either method. In the rest

850: of this work, we shall discus only the results obtained with the

851: second method.

852: 

853: 

854: \subsection{Criterion for Valid Data}

855: \label{sec38}

856: Two tests were used to determine whether a measured weighing was

857: valid. An on-line test checked whether the $\chi^2$ value of the

858: fit to the pendulum oscillations was reasonable. A large value

859: caused a repeat of the weighing. After two repeats with large

860: $\chi^2$, the measurement for this AM value was aborted. An

861: aborted weighing usually indicated that the AM was resting on the

862: mass handler and on the balance pan in an unstable way.

863: 

864: A more frequent occurrence was that of an AM which rested on both

865: the mass handler and the balance was almost stable thereby giving

866: a reasonable $\chi^2$. In order to reject such weighings, an

867: off-line calculation was made to check whether the measured weight

868: was within 10~\mug\ of the expected weight. The statistical noise

869: of a valid weighing was typically about 0.15~\mug\ (see

870: Fig.~\ref{fig:histo} showing ABA difference involving 3

871: weighings). Excursions of more than 10~\mug\ were thus a clear

872: indication of a malfunction.

873: 

874: This off-line test is somewhat more restrictive than the off-line

875: test employed in our original analysis. In the original analysis,

876: a check was made only to see that the weight difference between

877: the TM's for equal AM loadings was reasonable. The more

878: restrictive test used in the present analysis resulted in the

879: rejection of the S2304 series at the time when the room

880: temperature stabilizer was just beginning to fail. It was also the

881: reason for not including the tantalum TM-measurements in the

882: present analysis. In the eight S2304 series accepted for the

883: determination of the gravitational constant, approximately 8\% of

884: the expected zero-point values could not be determined due to at

885: least one of the three weighings at each load value being rejected

886: by the test for valid weighings.

887: 

888: 

889: \subsection{Calibration Measurements}

890: \label{sec39} A coarse calibration of the balance  was made

891: periodically during the gravitational measurement (before each

892: S288 series) using two calibration masses each with a weight of

893: approximately 100~mg. A correction to the coarse calibration

894: constant due to the nonlinearity of the balance will be discussed

895: in Sec.~\ref{sec310}. The two CM's used for the coarse calibration

896: were short sections of stainless steel wire. The diameter of CM1

897: was 0.50(1)~mm and that of CM2 was 0.96(1)~mm. The surface area of

898: CM1 was approximately 1~cm$^2$ and that of CM2 was 0.5~cm$^2$. The

899: CM's were electrochemically etched to the desired mass and then

900: cleaned in an ethanol ultrasonic bath. The mass of each CM was

901: determined at METAS (Metrology and Accreditation Switzerland) in

902: air with an absolute accuracy of 0.4~\mug\  or a relative

903: uncertainty of 4~ppm. The absolute determinations of the CM masses

904: were made before and after the gravitational measurement with

905: copper TM's and after the second measurement with tantalum TM's.

906: Only the first measurement was used to evaluate the coarse

907: calibration constant employed in the measurement with copper TM's.

908: As will be discussed below, the second and third measurement were

909: used for the measurement with copper TM's only to check the

910: stability of the CM's.

911: 

912: A calibration measurement involved either TM and one of following

913: seven additional loads: (1) CM1 alone, (2) CM2 alone, (3) again

914: CM1 alone, (4) empty balance, (5) CM1+CM2, (6) empty balance and

915: (7) CM1+CM2 and nine so called dummy weighings. These measurements

916: were made with no AM's on the balance. After the seventh weighing,

917: a series of nine dummy weighings alternating between upper and

918: lower TM's were made with the AM load set to the value for the

919: next TM weighing. The dummy weighings were made in order to allow

920: the balance to recover from the large load variations experienced

921: during the calibration measurement and thereby come to an

922: approximate equilibrium value before the next TM weighing.

923: Calibrations were made alternately with the upper and lower TM's

924: as load. Calibration measurements were made about twice a day.

925: Including the dummy weighings, each calibration required about 50

926: min.

927: 

928: 

929: A three-parameter least squares fit was made to the calibration

930: weighings labelled 4,5,6 and 7 above. The fit thereby determined

931: best values for the balance ZP, the slope of the ZP and a

932: parameter representing the effective ZP corrected reading of the

933: balance for the load CM1+CM2. This third parameter is of

934: particular interest since the coarse calibration constant is

935: determined from the known mass of CM1+CM2 (measured by METAS)

936: divided by this parameter. Therefore, the results of the

937: least-squares fit to each set of calibration data gave a value for

938: the coarse calibration constant which then was used to convert the

939: balance output of the S288 series to approximate mass values. An

940: ABA analysis of the first three weighings of each set of

941: calibration data was also made in order to determine the

942: difference in mass between CM1 and CM2.

943: 

944: 

945: The absolute masses obtained for CM1 and CM2 as determined by

946: METAS are given in columns 2 and 3 of Table~\ref{tab:cm}. Also

947: shown in Table~\ref{tab:cm} (column 4) are the mass difference

948: between CM1 and CM2 as obtained from the METAS  measurement in air

949: and the average of our CM measurement in vacuum. The mass

950: differences between CM1 and CM2 measured in vacuum are

951: particularly useful in checking for any mass variation of the

952: CM's.

953: 

954: %-------------table 1 CM masses---------------

955: \begin{table}[h]

956: \caption{The mass of the CM's as measured by METAS and the CM1-CM2

957: mass differences measured in air at METAS and in vacuum during the

958: gravitational measurements at PSI. All values are given in $\mu

959: g$.}

960: \label{tab:cm}

961: \begin{ruledtabular}

962: \begin{tabular}{l l l l }

963: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Date} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{CM1} &

964: \multicolumn{1}{c}{CM2} &

965: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Difference} \\

966: \hline

967: Feb 6, 01 & 100,270.30(40) & 100,263.90(40) & 6.40(60)\\

968: Jul. - Sep., 01  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{in vacuum} & {5.853(19)}\\

969: 

970: Nov. 29, 01 & 100,270.20(35) &100,262.90(35) & 7.30(50)\\

971: {Jan. - Mar., 02}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{in vacuum} & {7.269(29)}\\

972: 

973: {Apr. - May, 02}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{in vacuum}  & {7.496(25)}\\

974: May  27, 02        & 100,270.01(35)&100,262.97(35) &7.04(50)\\

975: \end{tabular}

976: \end{ruledtabular}

977: \end{table}

978: 

979: 

980: 

981: It is seen that CM2 mass decreased by 1.00(53)~\mug\ between the

982: first and second METAS measurements while the mass of CM1 was

983: essentially the same in all three measurements. From the mass

984: difference values in air and vacuum it is clear that the change

985: occurred after the measurements with copper TM's ended in

986: Sept.~2001 and before the weighing at METAS in Nov.~2001 which

987: preceded  the start of the tantalum measurements. We ascribe this

988: change of CM2 to either the loss of a dust particle or perhaps a

989: piece of the wire itself. The loss of a piece of the wire was

990: possible since the wire used for the CM's had been cut with a wire

991: cutter and there could have been a small broken piece that was not

992: bound tightly to the wire. For this reason only the values given

993: for the first weighing of the CM's were used to determine the

994: coarse calibration constant used for the measurement with copper

995: TM's.

996: 

997: A plot of the relative change of the effective ZP corrected

998: balance reading corresponding to the load CM1+CM2 is shown in

999: Fig.~\ref{fig:cm}. It is seen that it changed by only a few ppm

1000: over the 43 days of the measurement. A linear fit made to these

1001: data results in a slope equal to -0.044(6)~ppm/day which is

1002: equivalent to a mass rate variation of -0.0088(12)~\mug\;cm$^{-2}$

1003: \;d$^{-1}$. The uncertainty was obtained by normalizing $\chi^2$

1004: of the fit to the degrees of freedom (DOF).

1005: 

1006: 

1007: 

1008: %--------------fig 11 balance for CM's------------------

1009: \begin{figure}[b]

1010: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{cal1_2.ps}

1011: \caption{The change of the effective balance reading for the load

1012: CM1+CM2 as a function of time relative to its value on the first

1013: day. No valid measurements were made between day 229 and 235.}

1014: \label{fig:cm}

1015: \end{figure}

1016: 

1017: The slow variation of the effective balance reading for the load

1018: CM1+CM2 seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cm} could be due either to a change

1019: of the balance sensitivity, to a decrease in the mass of CM1+CM2

1020: due to the removal of a contaminant layer from the CM's in vacuum

1021: or to a combination of both causes. A variation of the balance

1022: sensitivity would have essentially no effect on the analysis of

1023: the weighing for the gravitational measurement as the coarse

1024: calibration constant used for the analysis was determined from the

1025: balance parameter for each S288 series. However, a variation of

1026: the mass of CM1+CM2 would result in an error in the analysis since

1027: the mass would not be the value measured by METAS shown in

1028: Table~\ref{tab:cm}.

1029: 

1030: In order to investigate this problem, we have examined the

1031: difference between the balance readings for CM1 and CM2. This

1032: difference is proportional to the surface areas of CM1 and CM2

1033: which differ by approximately a factor of 2 (CM1 area=1~cm$^2$ and

1034: CM2 area=0.5~cm$^2$). The balance reading difference is only

1035: slightly dependent upon the coarse calibration constant so that it

1036: represents essentially the mass difference itself. In

1037: Fig~\ref{fig:cmdiff} is shown the measured mass difference as a

1038: function of time  during the gravitational measurement. Also shown

1039: is a linear function fit to these data. The slope parameter of the

1040: fit results in a rate of increase per area equal to

1041: 0.0021(18)~\mug\;cm$^{-2}$ \;d$^{-1}$. The uncertainty has been

1042: determined by normalizing $\chi^2$ to the DOF. The sign of the

1043: slope is such that the CM with the larger area has the larger rate

1044: of increase. A mass difference variation (CM1-CM2) would require a

1045: slope of -0.0088(12)~\mug\;cm$^{-2}$ \;d$^{-1}$. The measured

1046: slope of the effective balance reading for the load CM1+CM2

1047: clearly excludes such a large negative slope as assumed for a mass

1048: variation. We therefore conclude that the variation of this

1049: parameter is due primarily to the sensitivity variation of the

1050: balance.

1051: 

1052: 

1053: We note that Schwartz \cite{Sch94b} has also found a mass increase

1054: for stainless steel samples in a vacuum system involving a rotary

1055: pump, a turbomolecular pump and a liquid nitrogen cold trap. His

1056: samples were 1~kg masses with surface areas differing by a factor

1057: of 1.8. He measured the thickness of a contaminant layer using

1058: ellipsometry as well as the increase in weight of the sample

1059: during pumping periods of 1.2~d and 0.36~d. The rate of mass

1060: increase per area which he reports is approximately a factor of 5

1061: larger than the value we find. No explanation for this difference

1062: can be made without a detailed knowledge of the partial pressures

1063: of the various contaminant gases in the two systems and the

1064: surface properties of the samples employed.

1065: 

1066: 

1067: 

1068: 

1069: %--------------fig 12 CM_diff for copper------------------

1070: \begin{figure}

1071: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{cm1cm2.ps}

1072: \caption{The mass difference of the CM's  as a function of time

1073: and the linear fit function.} \label{fig:cmdiff}

1074: \end{figure}

1075: 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: There still remains the possibility that a rapid removal of an

1079: adsorbed layer such as water might have occurred between the

1080: absolute determination of the CM masses in air at METAS and the

1081: gravitational measurement in vacuum (i.e. during the pump down of

1082: the system). Schwartz \cite{Sch94a} has measured the mass

1083: variation per unit area of 1~kg stainless steel objects in air

1084: with relative humidity between 3\% and 77\%. He \cite{Sch94b} also

1085: has measured the additional mass variation per area  due to

1086: pumping the system from atmospheric pressure at 3\% relative

1087: humidity down to $5\times 10^{-3}$~Pa. His samples were first

1088: cleaned by wiping them with a linen cloth soaked in ethanol and

1089: diethylether and then ultrasonic cleaning in ethanol. After

1090: cleaning, they were dried in a vacuum oven at 50~$^\circ$C. For

1091: these cleaned samples, the weight change found for 3\% to 50\%

1092: humidity variation was 11.5~ng \;cm$^{-2}$ with an additional

1093: change of 29~ng \;cm$^{-2}$ in going from 3\% relative humidity in

1094: air to vacuum (total change of 40.5~ng cm$^{-2}$). Similar

1095: measurements with "uncleaned" samples gave a total change of

1096: 80~ng\;cm$^{-2}$. The variation due to the cleanliness of the

1097: samples was much larger than the difference found for the two

1098: types of stainless steel investigated and the effect of improving

1099: the surface smoothness (average peak-to-valley height equal to

1100: 0.1~\mum\  and 0.024~\mum). Since the cleaning procedure used for

1101: our CM's and their smoothness were different than the samples used

1102: by Schwartz, we have employed the average of Schwartz's "cleaned"

1103: and "uncleaned" objects for estimating the mass change of our

1104: CM's. Based on these data, the relative mass difference found for

1105: both CM's together as measured in air having 50\% humidity and in

1106: vacuum was 0.5~ppm. We assign a relative systematic uncertainty of

1107: this correction equal to the correction itself.

1108: 

1109: 

1110: 

1111: 

1112: 

1113: 

1114: 

1115: 

1116: 

1117: 

1118: %------------correction for nonlinearity(might be better as an appendix)------------

1119: \subsection{Nonlinearity Correction}

1120: \label{sec310}

1121: By nonlinearity of the balance, one is referring to the variation

1122: of the balance response function with load, that is, the degree to

1123: which the balance output is not a linear function of the load. The

1124: nonlinearity of a mass comparator similar to the one employed in

1125: the present work has been investigated \cite{Re00} by the firm

1126: Mettler-Toledo. It was found that besides nonlinearity effects in

1127: 10~g load intervals, there was also a fine structure of the

1128: nonlinearity in the 0.1~mg load interval which would be important

1129: for the accuracy of the present measurement. It is the

1130: nonlinearity of our mass comparator in the particular load

1131: interval less than 0.2~g involved in the present experiment that

1132: we wish to determine.

1133: 

1134: One expects the nonlinearity of the balance used in this

1135: experiment to be small; however, it should be realized that a 200

1136: mg test mass (two 100~mg CM's) required for having an accurately

1137: known test mass for calibration purposes is over 250 times the

1138: size of the gravitational signal that one wishes to determine. In

1139: addition, the statistical accuracy of the measured gravitational

1140: signal is some 30 times better than the specified accuracy

1141: (2~\mug) of the unmodified commercial balance. One therefore has

1142: no reason to expect the nonlinearity of the balance to be

1143: negligible with this precision. In Sec.~\ref{sec31} we have

1144: presented the general idea that the measurements with 256 AM

1145: values tends to average out the effect of any nonlinearity. We

1146: wish now to give a more detailed analysis of this problem.

1147: 

1148: %-------------fig 13 confidence level as function of load------------

1149: \begin{figure}

1150: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{confidence_cu.ps}

1151: \caption{The $\chi^2$ probability as a function of the number of

1152: parameters.} \label{fig:chivsl}

1153: \end{figure}

1154: 

1155: The correction for nonlinearity makes use of an arbitrary response

1156: as a function of the load. Since the two TM's are essentially

1157: equal ($<400$~\mug\  difference), the variation of the response

1158: function can be thought of as being a function of the additional

1159: load due to the AM's. Although a power series or any polynomial

1160: series would suffice for this function, we have for convenience

1161: used a series of Legendre polynomials

1162: \begin{displaymath}

1163:   f(u)=\sum_{\ell=0}^{Lmax} a_\ell P_{\ell} (2 u/u_{max}-1).

1164: \end{displaymath}

1165: The coefficients of $P_\ell$ are chosen subject to the two

1166: conditions that (1) $f(u)=0$ for no load and (2) $f(u)=C$ for

1167: $u=C$ where $C$ is the weight of the two CM's together. These two

1168: conditions represent the sensitivity of the balance over the 0.2~g

1169: range of the calibration (i.e. the coarse calibration). The value

1170: of the maximum load $u_{max}$ in the present measurements was very

1171: nearly $C$. Substituting the above conditions into the response

1172: function, one obtains for the lowest two coefficients the

1173: expressions

1174: \begin{displaymath}

1175:   a_0=C/2-\sum_{even \; \ell=2}^{Lmax} a_\ell

1176: \end{displaymath}

1177: and

1178: \begin{displaymath}

1179:   a_1=C/2-\sum_{odd \; \ell=3}^{Lmax} a_\ell.

1180: \end{displaymath}

1181: 

1182: One can then minimize

1183: \begin{displaymath}

1184:    \chi^2=\sum_{n=1}^N \left [f(u_n+s)

1185:    -f(u_n)-y_n\right]^2 \sigma_n^{-2}

1186: \end{displaymath}

1187: and thereby determine best values for the parameters $s$ and

1188: $a_\ell$ for $\ell=1$ to $Lmax$. The $y_n$ are the measured

1189: balance signal for the load values $u_n$, $s$ is the load

1190: independent signal and $N$ is the number of different loads with

1191: valid measurements. The error $\sigma_n$ for the load value $u_n$

1192: is the load-independent intrinsic noise of the balance $\sigma_0$

1193: for a single weighing divided by the square root of the number of

1194: weighings for the load $u_n$. The value of $Lmax$ must be chosen

1195: large enough to describe the response function accurately. All of

1196: the parameters in the fit are linear parameters with the exception

1197: of $s$. Thus, there is no difficulty in extending the fit to a

1198: large number of parameters since only the nonlinear parameter must

1199: be determined by a search method.

1200: 

1201: 

1202: 

1203: In order to determine $Lmax$, we calculate the $\chi^2$

1204: probability \cite{Ba89} (often referred to as confidence level) as

1205: a function of $Lmax$. This requires an approximate value for the

1206: intrinsic noise of the balance $\sigma_0$. The value of $\sigma_0$

1207: sets the scale of the $\chi^2$ probability but does not change the

1208: general shape of the function. One can obtain a reasonable

1209: approximation for $\sigma_0$ by setting $\chi^2$ equal to the DOF

1210: obtained for a large number of parameter. We have arbitrarily  set

1211: $\chi^2$ equal to the DOF for 61 parameters. The $\chi^2$

1212: probability as a function of the maximum number of parameters is

1213: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chivsl}. It is seen that the $\chi^2$

1214: probability reaches a plateau near this maximum number of

1215: parameters.

1216: 

1217: 

1218: Starting from a low value of $10^{-4}$ for one parameter, the

1219: $\chi^2$ probability rises rapidly to a value of 0.05 for three

1220: parameters. It remains approximately constant at this value up to

1221: 57 parameters where it rises sharply to reach a plateau of

1222: approximately 0.5 at 60 parameters and above. The fit parameter

1223: representing the signal corrected for nonlinearity of the balance

1224: was essentially constant over the entire range of parameters with

1225: a variation of less than $\pm 1.3$~ng. The signal for one

1226: parameter representing complete linearity was 784.8994~\mug. The

1227: signal of the plateau region from 60 to 67 parameters was

1228: 784.9005~\mug\ with a statistical uncertainty of 5.5~ng. In this

1229: region the signal varied by less than 0.2~ng. We therefore take

1230: the nonlinearity correction of the measured signal to be

1231: 1.1(5.5)~ng (i.e. the difference between the signal using one

1232: parameter as would be obtained with no correction and the average

1233: value obtained for 60 to 67 parameters).

1234: 

1235: 

1236: %----------------fig 14 linearity data and fit-------------

1237: \begin{figure}

1238: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{response_residual.ps}

1239: \caption{Signal and fit function employing 60 parameters as a

1240: function of load. The data are shown as a stepped line. The fit is

1241: the smooth curve. The lower plot shows the normalized residuals.

1242: Residuals were divided by the relative uncertainty of each point.

1243: The normalization has been chosen such that the rms value of the

1244: residuals is 1.} \label{fig:sigfit}

1245: \end{figure}

1246: 

1247: The nonlinear signal and fit as a function of load determined for

1248: 60 parameter is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sigfit}. The function shows

1249: many narrow peaks with widths of 3 to 10 load steps and with

1250: amplitudes of roughly 0.1~\mug.  In principle one could use this

1251: response function to correct the individual weighings with various

1252: loads; however, we prefer to use the signal as corrected for

1253: nonlinearity over the entire range of measurements as described

1254: above. The variation of the response function indicates that a

1255: measurement made at an arbitrary load  value could be in error by

1256: as much as $\pm 130$~ng assuming the response to be linear. This

1257: is to be compared with the assumed uncertainty in ref.~\cite{Sb98}

1258: due to nonlinearity of $\pm 200$~ng.

1259: 

1260: 

1261: 

1262: 

1263: 

1264: 

1265: %-------------Section Correction of TM Sorption Effect----------

1266: \subsection{Correction of the TM-Sorption Effect}

1267: \label{sec311}

1268: Moving the FM's changed slightly the temperature of the vacuum

1269: tube surrounding the TM's. These temperature variations were due

1270: to changes in the air circulation in the region of the vacuum tube

1271: as obstructed by the FM's. An increase of the wall temperature of

1272: the tube caused adsorbed gases to be released which were then

1273: condensed onto the TM. Since the temperature variation was

1274: different in the regions near the upper and lower TM's, this

1275: resulted in a variation of the weight difference between the upper

1276: and lower TM's (i.e. a "false" gravitational signal).

1277: 

1278: %-----------fig 15 temperature at position of TM's----------

1279: \begin{figure}

1280: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{temps.ps}

1281: \caption{Temperatures of the vacuum tube measured at the position

1282: of the TM's. The upper curve is the temperature at the position of

1283: the upper TM. The square wave in the middle section of the plot

1284: indicates the FM motion. The data (crosses) for the lower TM and

1285: fit function (solid line) are shown in the lowest section of the

1286: figure.} \label{fig:temp}

1287: \end{figure}

1288: 

1289: 

1290: The temperature variation at the positions of the upper and lower

1291: TM's during one day of the gravitational measurement is shown in

1292: Fig.~\ref{fig:temp} along with a curve representing the FM motion.

1293: The peak-to-peak temperature variation was approximately

1294: $0.04^\circ \mbox{C}$ at the upper position and $0.01^\circ

1295: \mbox{C}$ at the lower position. The shape of the temperature

1296: variation at the upper position was used as a fit function

1297: (employing an offset and an amplitude parameter) to obtain a

1298: better determination of the temperature variation at the lower

1299: position. There were 32 one-day measurements of the temperature

1300: variations during the gravitational measurement. The average

1301: amplitude at the lower position determined from these 32

1302: measurements was $0.0138(2)^\circ \mbox{C}$.

1303: 

1304: The signal produced by these temperature variations was small and

1305: therefore not directly measurable with the balance in a reasonable

1306: length of time. The procedure that was employed to determine this

1307: temperature dependent signal was to use four electrical heater

1308: bands to produce a variation of the temperature distribution along

1309: the vacuum tube that was a factor of approximately seven larger

1310: than the variation resulting from the motion of the FM's. The

1311: bands were positioned 30 cm above and below the positions of the

1312: upper and lower TM's. The heater windings were bifilar to avoid

1313: magnetic effects. The heater power (less than 3~W total) was

1314: turned off and on with the same 8-hour period as the FM motion and

1315: produced essentially no change in the average temperature of the

1316: vacuum tube in the day-long measurement. The FM's were not moved

1317: during the measurements with heaters. The signal (TM weight

1318: difference as determined with the balance) obtained during a one

1319: day measurement with heaters is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sorption}.

1320: The shape of the fit function (employing an offset and an

1321: amplitude parameter) shown in this figure was obtained from the

1322: variation of the temperature difference at the upper and lower

1323: positions of the TM's. The signal obtained from the fitting

1324: procedure was 0.114(40)~\mug.

1325: 

1326: %---------------fig 16 sorption fit-----------

1327: \begin{figure}

1328: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{signal_run3.ps}

1329: \caption{Weight difference between TM's as a function of time for

1330: a temperature variation roughly 10 times that of the gravitational

1331: measurement. The solid curve is the best fit of the temperature

1332: variation difference at upper and lower TM positions. For the

1333: purpose of this plot, an arbitrary offset of the weight difference

1334: between upper and lower TM has been employed.}

1335: \label{fig:sorption}

1336: \end{figure}

1337: 

1338: In order to scale the heater produced signal to that resulting

1339: from the FM motion during the gravitational measurement, we make

1340: the simplifying assumption that the signal variation  is

1341: proportional to the temperature variation  at the upper TM

1342: position minus the temperature variation  at the lower TM

1343: position. The term variation in this statement refers to the

1344: variation about its mean value. One uses the temperature

1345: difference since the signal is defined as the difference between

1346: TM weighings.

1347: 

1348: With just four heater bands it was not possible to obtain a

1349: variation of the  temperature distribution along the vacuum tube

1350: that was exactly a constant factor times that of the FM motion.

1351: For the best adjustment that we were able to obtain, the ratio of

1352: the heater produced temperature variation to the FM produced

1353: variation was 7.1 at the upper position and 9.2 at the lower. The

1354: ratio for the variation of the temperature difference at the upper

1355: and lower positions relative to the gravitational values was 6.8.

1356: These ratios are based on the peak-to-peak amplitudes obtained for

1357: the fitted functions. The scaling factor for the temperature

1358: difference ratio is the reciprocal of the temperature difference

1359: ratio or 0.147. This results in a scaled signal of 0.0168(58)~\mug\

1360: where the uncertainty is the statistical uncertainties of the

1361: measured signal and the scaling factor. The scaled signal ("false"

1362: signal) is to be subtracted from the total signal measured in the

1363: gravitational experiment.

1364: 

1365: In order to check our assumption regarding the scaling factor, we

1366: have made four additional one-day measurements in which the

1367: temperature variations were very different from that produced by

1368: the FM motion. The object of these measurements was to determine

1369: whether the scaled signals obtained with the heaters were

1370: consistent with one another when calculated with the assumed

1371: scaling factors. The most extreme distribution involved a

1372: temperature variation of the lower TM which was even larger

1373: (factor of 4) than that of the upper TM. The signals obtained in

1374: all of the test measurements were consistent with each other

1375: within their statistical uncertainties (relative uncertainties of

1376: approximately 30~\%). We therefore conclude that the assumption

1377: used for scaling the signals was sufficiently accurate for the

1378: present purpose. Nevertheless, we assign a systematic uncertainty

1379: to the scaled signal equal to its statistical uncertainty of

1380: 5.8~ng (relative systematic uncertainty of the "false" signal is

1381: 35~\%).

1382: 

1383: %---------section Magnetic Forces----------------

1384: \subsection{Magnetic Forces on the Test Masses}

1385: In the absence of a permanent magnetization, the $z$ component of

1386: force on the TM due to a magnetic field can be calculated from

1387: \begin{displaymath}

1388:   F_z=-\mu_0 \chi_m V H \frac{\partial H}{\partial z}

1389: \end{displaymath}

1390: where $V$ denotes the volume of the TM, $\chi_m$ is its magnetic

1391: susceptibility and $H$ is the magnetic field intensity. The

1392: magnetic properties of the TM's were measured by METAS. No

1393: permanent magnetization was found ($<0.08$~A/m). The magnetic

1394: susceptibility was $4\times 10^{-6}$ for the copper TM's. The

1395: magnetic field intensity for both positions of the FM's was

1396: measured at cm intervals along the axis of the vacuum tube at the

1397: positions occupied by the TM's using a flux gate magnetometer. The

1398: difference of $F_z$ for the FM positions obtained from these data

1399: was 0.01~ng  which is a negligible correction to the measured

1400: gravitational signal.

1401: 

1402: %--------section tilt of balance-------------

1403: \subsection{Tilt Angle of Balance}

1404: Since the weight of the TM's and the weight of the CM's both

1405: produce forces on the balance arm in the vertical direction, a

1406: small angle between the balance weighing direction and the

1407: vertical produces no error in the weighing of the TM's. However,

1408: if the balance weighing direction is correlated with the motion of

1409: the FM's, a systematic error in the measured gravitational signal

1410: will result. Sensitive angle monitors were mounted on the base of

1411: the balance. No angle variation correlated with the motion of the

1412: FM's was found with a sensitivity of 100~nrad. Since the

1413: sensitivity of the balance varies with the cosine of the angle

1414: (near 0 rad), this limit is completely negligible. For a balance

1415: misalignment of 0.01~rad relative to vertical and a correlated

1416: variation of 100~nrad with respect to this angle due to the FM

1417: motion, the relative signal variation is approximately 0.001~ppm.

1418: 

1419: 

1420: %-------------------Mass Integration------------------------

1421: \section{Determination of the Mass-Integration Constant}

1422: 

1423: \label{sec4}

1424: One must relate the gravitational constant to the measured

1425: gravitation signal. This involves integrating an inverse square

1426: force over the mass distribution of the TM's and FM's. The

1427: gravitational force $F_z$  in the z (vertical) direction on a

1428: single TM produced by both FM's is given by

1429: \begin{equation}

1430:   F_z=G  \int\int \frac {\bf{e_z} \cdot(\bf{r_2-r_1}) \; \it{dm_1

1431:   dm_2}}{|\bf{r_2-r_1}|^{\it3}}

1432: \end{equation}

1433: where $\bf{e_z}$ is a unit vector in the $z$ direction, $\bf{r_1}$

1434: and $\bf{r_2}$ are vectors from the origin to the mass elements

1435: $dm_1$ of the TM and $dm_2$ of the FM's and $G$ is the

1436: gravitational constant to be determined. The mass-integration

1437: constant is the double integral in Eq. (1) multiplying $G$.

1438: Actually, the mass-integration constant for the present experiment

1439: is composed of four different mass-integration constants, namely

1440: those for the upper TM and lower TM with the FM's together and

1441: apart. We shall use as mass-integration constant the actual

1442: constant multiplied by the 1986 CODATA value of $G$

1443: ($6.67259~\Gunit\) and give the result in dimensions of grams

1444: "force" (i.e. the same dimensions as used for the weighings).

1445: 

1446: The objects contributing most to $F_z$ (TM's, FM tanks and the

1447: mercury) have very nearly axial symmetry which greatly simplifies

1448: the integration. Parts which do not have axial symmetry were

1449: represented by single point masses for small parts and multiple

1450: point masses for larger parts. For axial symmetric objects, we

1451: employ the standard method of electrostatics for determining the

1452: off-axis potential in terms of the potential and its derivatives

1453: on axis (see e.g.\cite{Gl56}). The force on a cylindrical TM in

1454: the $z$ direction produced by an axially symmetric FM can be

1455: conveniently expressed as (see Eq.~\ref{eq:massint_main},

1456: Sec.~\ref{sec7})

1457: 

1458: \begin{align}

1459: &F_z = 2 M_{TM} \times \notag

1460: \\

1461: &\sum_{n=0}^\infty V_0^{(2n+1)}

1462:   \sum_{i=0}^n \frac{1}{\left( -4 \right)^i}

1463: \frac{1}{i!\left(i+1\right)!} \frac{1}{\left( 2 n- 2 i  +1

1464: \right)!} b^{ 2 n -2 i } r^{2i} \

1465: \end{align}

1466: where $M_{TM}$ is the mass of a cylindrical TM with radius r and

1467: height b, and $V_0^{(2n+1)}$ is the $2n+1$st derivative of the

1468: gravitational potential with respect to $z$ evaluated at the

1469: center of mass of the TM ($r=0$, $z=z_0$).

1470: 

1471: The potential $V(r=0,z)$ of the various FM components having axial

1472: symmetry was determined analytically for three types of axially

1473: symmetric bodies, namely a hollow ring with rectangular cross

1474: section, one with triangular cross section and one with circular

1475: cross section. This allows one to calculate the gravitation

1476: potential of the tank walls and the mercury content of the tank as

1477: a sum of such bodies. For example, the region between measured

1478: heights on the top plate and $z=0$ at two values of the radius was

1479: represented by a cylindrical shell composed of a right triangular

1480: torus and a rectangular torus (i.e. a linear interpolation between

1481: the points describing the cross section of the rings). O-rings

1482: were calculated employing the equation for rings with circular

1483: cross sections. A total of nearly 1200 objects (point masses and

1484: rings of various shapes) were required to describe the two FM's.

1485: 

1486: The derivatives of the potential were evaluated using a numerical

1487: method called ``automatic differentiation" (see e.g. \cite{Ra81}).

1488: For the geometry of the present experiment, the terms in the

1489: summation over $n$ decrease rapidly so that 8 terms were

1490: sufficient for an accuracy of 0.02~ppm in the mass-integration

1491: constant.

1492: 

1493: 

1494: \subsection{Positions of TM's and FM's}

1495: \label{sec41} In order to carry out the mass integration, one

1496: needs accurate weight and dimension measurements of the TM's and

1497: FM's as well as distances defining their relative positions. The

1498: dimension and weight measurements for TM's  were described in

1499: Sec.~\ref{sec32}. The measurement of the TM positions shown in

1500: Fig.~\ref{fig:geom} will now be addressed.

1501: 

1502: %-----------------fig 18 vertical positions--------------

1503: \begin{figure}[htb]

1504: \includegraphics[width=8.5 cm]{geom.eps}

1505: 

1506:  \caption[Geometry.]{Drawing showing the measured

1507: vertical distances to TM and FM surfaces for the two FM positions

1508: (T=Together and A=Apart).} \label{fig:geom}

1509: \end{figure}

1510: 

1511: A special tool was made to adjust the length of the tungsten wires

1512: under tension. Each wire made a single loop around the post on

1513: either side of the TM and a thin tube was crimped onto the wires

1514: to hold them together thereby forming the loop (see

1515: Fig.~\ref{fig:cotm}). The position of the TM could only be

1516: measured with the vacuum tube vented. The vacuum tube was removed

1517: below a flange located at a point just above the upper TM. The TM

1518: hanging from the balance was then viewed through the telescope of

1519: an optical measuring device to determine its position.

1520: 

1521: The vertical position of the TM's and FM's was measured relative

1522: to a surveyor's rod which was adjusted to be vertical. The bottom

1523: of the surveyor's rod was positioned to just touch a special

1524: marker mounted on the floor of the pit. The surveyor's rod had

1525: accurate markings every cm along its length. A precision levelling

1526: device in which the optical axis of the telescope could be

1527: displaced by somewhat more than a cm was then used to compare the

1528: position of the upper surface of a TM with a mark on the

1529: surveyor's rod. Similar measurements were made for the FM's. These

1530: measurements were made before and after each of the three

1531: gravitational measurement(Cu, Ta 1 and Ta 2 TM's). Although the

1532: measuring device including the surveyor's rod was removed from the

1533: pit after each of these measurements, the reproducibility of each

1534: position measurement was found to be better than 35 $\mu m$. The

1535: accuracy of the average of the two sets of position measurement

1536: for each type of TM including systematic uncertainty was 35~\mum.

1537: 

1538: A small vertical displacement of the TM's occurred when the system

1539: was evacuated. This was measured during the evacuation of the

1540: system by observing the TM's through the windows on the side of

1541: the vacuum tube using the levelling device that was also used for

1542: measuring the TM position in air. The vertical displacement was

1543: measured several times and found to be 0.10(3)~mm. This

1544: displacement is shown as $\varepsilon$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:geom}).

1545: 

1546: The angle of the TM axis relative to the vertical direction was

1547: also determined with the same precision levelling instruments by

1548: measuring the height on the top surface of the TM at two opposite

1549: points near the outer radius of the TM. This was done for each TM

1550: from a viewing direction almost perpendicular to the plane of the

1551: supporting wires. The angle of the axis relative to the vertical

1552: was found to be less than $1^\circ$ for both TM's.

1553: 

1554: The horizontal positions of the TM's were determined using a

1555: theodolite. The left and right sides of the TM were viewed through

1556: the telescope of the theodolite relative to an arbitrary zero

1557: angle. The horizontal position of the central tube was determined

1558: relative to the same zero angle. These measurements were made for

1559: each TM and FM from two nearly perpendicular viewing angles. The

1560: measurements were made before and after each gravitational

1561: measurement. The radial positions of the upper and lower TM's

1562: relative to the common axis of the FM's were found to be 0.45~mm

1563: and 0.50~mm, respectively. The overall accuracy of the radial

1564: positions of the TM's from these measurements was 0.1~mm. This

1565: uncertainty results in only a small uncertainty in the value of G

1566: determined in this experiment due to the extremum of the force

1567: field in the radial direction. No problem was experience with

1568: pendulum oscillation during these measurements as the amplitudes

1569: were strongly damped in air.

1570: 

1571: \subsection{Dimensions and Weight of the FM's}

1572: \label{sec42} The individual parts of the FM's were weighed at

1573: METAS with an accuracy of 1~g. The weights were corrected for

1574: buoyancy to obtain the masses.

1575: 

1576: The narrow confines of the pit made measurement of the FM's

1577: deformed by the mercury load difficult. Although measurements of

1578: the individual pieces before assembly were in principle more

1579: accurate, the loading and temperature difference between dimension

1580: measurements and gravitational measurement reduced the accuracy of

1581: these measurements. In addition, it is known that long term

1582: loading can release tensions in the material which result in

1583: inelastic deformation of the material. Therefore, the measurements

1584: made with mercury load were always used in the analysis when

1585: available.

1586: 

1587: The uncertainty in the height of the central piece proved to be

1588: very important in determining  the uncertainty of the

1589: mass-integration constant. Due to the various types of

1590: measurements for this dimension with different systematic effects,

1591: we decided that the best value would be an equally weighted

1592: average of the four available measurements with the uncertainty

1593: being determined from the rms (root-mean-square) deviation from

1594: the mean. The measurements employed were the following: (1) a

1595: Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) measurement before the tanks

1596: were assembled, (2) a Laser Tracker (LT) measurement with mercury

1597: loading during the experiment, (3) a LT measurement in the machine

1598: shop with no loading after completion of the experiment and (4) a

1599: CMM measurement after the tanks had been disassembled at the end

1600: of the experiment. The two CMM measurements were independent in

1601: that they were made with different CMM devices and with different

1602: temperature sensors. The uncertainty in the height as determined

1603: from the rms deviation was 19~\mum\ for the upper tank and 9~\mum\

1604: for the lower tank.

1605: 

1606: %----------------fig 19 cut away view of tank-----------------

1607: \begin{figure}[htb]

1608: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{tank.eps}

1609: \center{figure} \caption[Drawing of the field mass.]{Drawing of

1610: the field mass. All dimensions are given in mm.} \label{fig:tank}

1611: \end{figure}

1612: 

1613: A cut-away drawing of a FM tank is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:tank}. All pieces

1614: were made from stainless steel type No.~1.4301 which is resistant

1615: to mercury and has a low magnetic susceptibility. The pieces were

1616: sealed to one another with mercury resistant Perbunan O-rings. The

1617: top and bottom plates were fastened to the central piece with 12

1618: screws. The top and bottom plates were screwed to the outer casing

1619: with 24 screws.

1620: 

1621: Due to the nearness of the central piece to the TM's, especially

1622: close tolerances were specified for this piece. The central piece

1623: was annealed before machining to remove tensions which could

1624: deform the piece during machining. A surface roughness value of

1625: $<1$ $\mu m$ was obtained by grinding the surface after machining.

1626: The roughness value is defined as the average height of the peaks

1627: times the area of peaks relative to the total area of the surface.

1628: 

1629: The top and bottom plates were less critical than the central

1630: piece. A surface roughness value of 6 to 10~\mum\ was specified

1631: for the machining of the inner surface of these pieces. The inner

1632: surface of the casing was even less critical and a surface

1633: roughness value of 15~\mum\ was specified for it.

1634: 

1635: 

1636: Since the mercury was filled into the tanks under vacuum

1637: conditions, it filled more or less the exact surface profile (i.e.

1638: the region between the grooves caused by machining). The mercury

1639: in the filled tank was under positive pressure on all surfaces

1640: including the top plate. The over pressure ranged from about 0.1

1641: bar on the top plates (due to the height of mercury in the

1642: compensation vessel shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tank}) and 1 bar on the

1643: bottom plates. The bulging of the central cylinder and the outer

1644: casing due to the mercury pressure was calculated using the

1645: equations for thin cylindrical shells \cite{Ti87}. The inward

1646: bulging of the central tube was found to have a maximum value of

1647: 0.17~\mum\ which is completely negligible for the present

1648: experiment. The maximum outward bulging of the outer casing was

1649: approximately 4~\mum\ and resulted in a small (8~ppm) correction

1650: of the volume. The loading of the tanks produced a 2~\mum\

1651: elongation of the outer casing corresponding to a relative volume

1652: increase of 1~ppm.

1653: 

1654: Before the tanks were assembled, measurements of the individual

1655: pieces were made with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM).  The

1656: inner diameters of the central tube were checked with a special

1657: dial gauge and found to agree with the CMM values. The wall

1658: thickness of the outer casing, top and bottom plates were measured

1659: with a wide jaw micrometer having a dial gauge readout.

1660: 

1661: %---------------figs 17 LT measurement----------

1662: \begin{figure}

1663: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{de2_real.ps}

1664: \caption{Data and fit for the upper surface of the lower tank as a

1665: function of radius.  The solid curve is the fit function based on

1666: the theory of circular plates. The offset has been chosen such

1667: that the z-value is 0~mm at a radius of 60~mm.}

1668: \label{fig:lt}

1669: \end{figure}

1670: 

1671: After the tanks were filled with mercury, measurements of the

1672: outer surface of the top and bottom plates were made with a

1673: laser-tracker (LT). It was not possible to measure the outer

1674: surface of the casing due to the close confines of the pit. The LT

1675: measurements were made in the dynamic mode in which the retro

1676: reflector is moved on the surface and readings are taken as fast

1677: as possible (1000 per s). An example of these data for the top

1678: surface of the lower tank is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lt}. The data

1679: for the other plates are similar. The force due to the mercury

1680: loading which tended to stretch the central tube, and to a lesser

1681: extent the outer casing, could be determined from these data using

1682: equations based on thin axial symmetric plates and shells

1683: \cite{Ti87}. The force on the central tube was calculated to be

1684: ($17\pm 8$~kN) which resulted in an elongation of 15~\mum.

1685: 

1686: Finally, after the mercury had been removed from the tanks,

1687: additional LT measurements were made of the outside height of the

1688: central tube in order to clear up a discrepancy of this dimension

1689: as measured with the CMM and LT.

1690: 

1691: The form of the central tube and outer casing as determined by the

1692: analysis of the measurements was very nearly circular; however,

1693: the deviation from perfect roundness was larger than the expected

1694: accuracy of the measurements. For the purpose of determining the

1695: actual accuracy of the measurements, a least-squares fit was made

1696: to the data employing a number of Fourier terms. The uncertainty

1697: of the measured data was then determined by setting the $\chi^2$

1698: of this fit equal to the DOF.

1699: 

1700: For the purpose of determining the uncertainty of the volume and

1701: the mass-integration constant, we have employed effective

1702: dimensions describing a hollow, right circular cylinder. The

1703: effective value of the small radius $r$ and height $h$ of the

1704: central piece were assigned the approximate values of 60 mm and

1705: 650 mm, respectively. The effective inner radius $R$ of the casing

1706: was then determined such that the inside volume of the tank was

1707: the value determined from measurements.

1708: 

1709: Besides the accuracy of the directly measured dimensions, one has

1710: also to consider the effect of the expansion coefficient of the

1711: stainless steel times the temperature difference between

1712: measurement of the piece and the temperature during the

1713: gravitational measurement, accuracy of the surface roughness and

1714: the deformation due to the load. The accuracy of the temperature,

1715: roughness and deformations effects are assumed to be one half of

1716: the change caused by these effects. An estimate of these

1717: accuracies for the inside effective dimensions of the tanks is

1718: given in Table~\ref{tab:tankaccuracy}.

1719: 

1720: %------------Table 2 accuracy of inside tank dimensions-----------

1721: \begin{table}[tbp]

1722: \caption{Estimated uncertainty in $\mu m$ of the effective values

1723: for the radius $r$ of the central tube, the radius $R$ of the

1724: outer casing and the height $h$ of the central tube due to various

1725: effects. The uncertainties apply to the inside dimensions of the

1726: tank.}

1727: \label{tab:tankaccuracy}

1728: \begin{ruledtabular}

1729: \begin{tabular}{l r r r}

1730: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Description}&

1731: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_r$} &

1732: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_R$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_h$}\\

1733: \hline measurement & 1.0 & 5 & 20

1734: \\thickness        & - & - & 5

1735: \\temperature      & 0.3 & 4 & 6

1736: \\elongation       & - & - & 7

1737: \\bulge            & 0 & 2 & -

1738: \\roughness        & 0 & 6 & 7

1739: \\ \hline

1740: Total & 1.1 & 9 & 24

1741: \\

1742: \end{tabular}

1743: \end{ruledtabular}

1744: \end{table}

1745: 

1746: 

1747: 

1748: \subsection{Weighing the Mercury}

1749: \label{sec43}

1750: After a preliminary measurement in which the tanks were filled

1751: with water, the water was drained from the tanks and they were

1752: ventilated with warm dry air. The tanks were then evacuated to a

1753: pressure of $10^{-2}$~mbar using a rotary pump with an oil filter

1754: to prevent back streaming in preparation for being filled with

1755: mercury.

1756: 

1757: Since the tanks were to be filled with mercury only once, every

1758: effort was made to weigh the mercury as accurately as possible

1759: during the filling. The mercury (specified purity 99.99\%) was

1760: purchased in 395 flasks each weighing 36.5~kg and containing

1761: 34.5~kg of mercury. The general procedure for filling each tank was as

1762: follows. The outer surface of the flasks were first cleaned with

1763: ethanol. Half of the flasks were brought into a measuring room

1764: near the experiment and allowed to come into equilibrium with the

1765: room atmosphere for a few days. These flasks were then weighed

1766: over a period of one week. Then, one after another, the flasks

1767: were attached to the transfer device. Most of the mercury in a

1768: flask was transferred via compressed nitrogen, first into an

1769: intermediate vessel used as a vacuum lock and then into the

1770: evacuated tank. A small amount of mercury was intentionally left

1771: in each flask in order not to transfer any of the thin oxide layer

1772: floating on the surface. The filling of a tank required one week.

1773: After completion of the filling, the flasks with their small

1774: remaining mercury content were weighed again.  The entire process

1775: was then repeated for the second tank.

1776: 

1777: Various precautions and test measurements were undertaken to

1778: insure the accuracy of the weighings. The balance employed for

1779: these measurements was type SR 30002 made by Mettler-Toledo. The

1780: balance was operated in the differential mode with accurately

1781: known (5~mg) standards for weights less than 2~kg (for empty

1782: flasks) and a stainless steel mass of approximately 36.6~kg made

1783: in our machine shop (for full flasks). The mass of the 36.6~kg

1784: weight was calibrated several times at METAS and remained constant

1785: within the 18~mg (the certified accuracy of the weighings) during

1786: the weighing of the mercury. The reproducibility of the weighing

1787: of an almost empty flask or full flask was 20~mg. The average of

1788: three weighings was made for empty and full flasks with the

1789: balance output transferred directly to a computer via an RS232

1790: interface. The balance was checked for nonlinearity and none was

1791: found within the accuracy of the standard weights. A centering

1792: table was used which allowed the flasks to be off center by as

1793: much as 2~cm without influencing the measurement. Atmospheric data

1794: used for buoyancy corrections were taken several times a day. A

1795: 10~kg calibration test was made once a day and the balance zero

1796: was checked every hour. It was found that the flasks were

1797: magnetized along their symmetry axis. Rotating the flask on the

1798: balance did not change the measured weight but inverting the flask

1799: resulted in a 100~mg difference. Since weighings were always made

1800: with the flasks in an upright position, no magnetization error

1801: occurred in the difference between full and empty flasks. The

1802: variation of the weight for 12 flasks was monitored over a period

1803: of  8 weeks. The variation was similar for all 12 flasks and

1804: amounted to about 20~mg per flask during the 3 weeks required to

1805: weigh the flasks and fill the tank. Mercury droplets which had not

1806: reached the tanks and small flakes of paint which had accidentally

1807: been removed from the outer surface of the flasks during the

1808: transfer process were collected and weighed.

1809: 

1810: 

1811: The total uncertainty in the approximately 6760~kg of mercury in

1812: each tank was 12~g for the upper tank and 15~g for the lower tank

1813: which gives a relative accuracy of 2.2~ppm for the mass of mercury

1814: in the tanks. A listing of the various weighing uncertainties is

1815: given in Table 3. An estimate of the  mercury and flask residue

1816: that had not been collected (and the uncertainty of the amount

1817: collected) was assumed to be 20\% of the amount collected. The

1818: pressurizing of the flasks with nitrogen during transfer resulted

1819: in a buoyancy correction of the almost empty flasks due to the

1820: difference in density between air and nitrogen. The flasks were

1821: sealed after use, but air gradually replaced the nitrogen. The

1822: assumption of a constant density (approximate equation) for the

1823: gas left in each empty flask during the time of the measurement

1824: amounted to an uncertainty of 7 and 8~g for the upper and lower

1825: tanks, respectively. The change in mass of the flasks during the

1826: three week measurements gave an uncertainty of 4~g for each tank.

1827: The accuracy of the standard masses caused an uncertainty of 3.7~g

1828: for each tank.  Air buoyancy uncertainties resulted in an

1829: uncertainty of 1.2~g for each tank. The statistical uncertainty

1830: due to reproducibility of the balance was 0.4~g  for each tank.

1831: %----------table 3 weighing uncertainties---------------

1832: \begin{table}[tbp]

1833: \caption{A listing of the weighing uncertainties for the upper and

1834: lower tanks. All uncertainties except that of the standard masses

1835: are independent for each tank. The total mass of mercury in each

1836: tank was approximately 6760 kg.}

1837: \label{tab:mercury}

1838: \begin{ruledtabular}

1839: \begin{tabular}{ l  c  c }

1840: \multicolumn{1}{ l }{Type of Uncertainty}&

1841: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Upper}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Lower}\\

1842: &

1843: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Tank[g]}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Tank[g]}\\

1844: 

1845: 

1846: \hline loss of mercury and residue from flasks & 8 & 11

1847: \\approximate equation & 7  & 8

1848: \\mass variation of flasks & 4 & 4

1849: \\uncertainty of standard masses & 3.7 & 3.7

1850: \\buoyancy correction & 1.2 & 1.2

1851: \\ weighing statistics & 0.4 & 0.4

1852: \\ \hline total uncertainty & 12 & 15

1853: \end{tabular}

1854: \end{ruledtabular}

1855: \end{table}

1856: 

1857: \subsection{Mass Distribution of the Central Piece}

1858: \label{sec44}

1859: Although the principle mass making up the FM's was mercury and

1860: therefore had only a negligible density variation due to its

1861: pressure gradient, the density variation of the walls of the tanks

1862: was important in determining the mass-integration constant. In

1863: particular, the two central pieces which were very near to the

1864: TM's and which were composed of three different pieces of

1865: stainless steel welded together were critical for this

1866: determination. Therefore after the gravitational measurements had

1867: been completed, the central pieces were cut into a number of rings

1868: in order to determine the density of these rings and thus the mass

1869: distribution of the central pieces.

1870: 

1871: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tank}, each central piece was composed

1872: of upper and lower flanges and a central tube. The material of the

1873: flanges extended about 40~mm beyond the surface of the flanges in

1874: the form of the central tube. In order to determine the vertical

1875: mass distribution in the flanges, three rings of 10~mm height were

1876: cut from each of these 40~mm sections with the last ring

1877: straddling the weld between flange and central tube. The weight

1878: and dimensions of the various pieces (12 rings, 4 flanges and two

1879: central sections of the tube) were used to determine the densities

1880: of these pieces. The densities of the flanges were found to be

1881: between 7.9138 to 7.9147~g cm$^{-3}$ and the densities of the

1882: central section of tubes were 7.9062 and 7.9101~g cm$^{-3}$. The

1883: accuracy of the absolute-density determinations was somewhat

1884: better than 0.001~g cm$^{-3}$. The density of the weld regions did

1885: not differ significantly from that of the flanges. The variation

1886: of the flange densities over the 65~mm of the flange and adjoining

1887: section of the tube was found to be less than 0.005~g cm$^{-3}$.

1888: From these measurements, it was not possible to determine a radial

1889: density gradient of the flanges. For calculating the effect of a

1890: radial gradient on the mass-integration constant, we shall make

1891: the assumption that the radial density variation was less than

1892: 0.005~g cm$^{-3}$ over the radial dimension of the flange

1893: (160~mm). The vertical density gradients of the central tubes were

1894: not important since their effects on the gravitational signal are

1895: almost completely cancelled due to the symmetry of central tube

1896: relative to the apart-together measurements with the FM's.

1897: 

1898: 

1899: 

1900: 

1901: 

1902: 

1903: 

1904: \subsection{Using the Measured Dimensions}

1905: \label{sec45}

1906: The first step in calculating the mass-integration constant was to

1907: enter the measured dimensions and masses of the various pieces in

1908: a computer program. For pieces that had essentially axial symmetry

1909: such as the central tube and the outer casing, an average radius

1910: was determined from the data measured at each height and used in

1911: further calculations. For horizontal surfaces which were nearly

1912: planar such as the top and bottom plates, an average height was

1913: determined from the data at each measured radius and used in

1914: further calculations. Since the original data were normally

1915: available only in Cartesian coordinates, it was necessary to

1916: determine the symmetry axis and make the conversion to cylindrical

1917: coordinates. For data without axial symmetry such as screws, screw

1918: holes and linear objects, single or multiple point masses were

1919: used. With this reduced set of dimensions, approximately 580 data

1920: elements were necessary to describe each tank.

1921: 

1922: As a preliminary calculation related to the mass-integration

1923: constant, the volume of the individual pieces and the inside

1924: volume of the tanks were calculated from the reduced dimensions.

1925: Using the known weight of the piece, the calculated volume allowed

1926: the density of the material to be determined. This was a valuable

1927: test to check whether the input data for the piece was reasonable.

1928: 

1929: The volume for pieces with axial symmetry was determined by making

1930: a linear interpolation between the points of the reduced data. The

1931: volume of a piece was thus composed of a sum of cylindrical rings

1932: with rectangular and right triangular form. A cylindrical ring

1933: with circular cross section was used for the volume of O-rings.

1934: The accuracy of the linear approximation in the volume

1935: determination was checked relative to a quadratic approximation of

1936: the surface. The linear approximation was found to be sufficient

1937: for all calculations.

1938: 

1939: 

1940: The original CMM measurements had been made for 12 $\varphi$

1941: angles at 14 heights on the central tube, at 4 radii on the

1942: horizontal surfaces of the central flange, at 11 radii on the

1943: horizontal surfaces of the top and bottom plates and at 7 heights

1944: on the outer casing. Although many more points of the horizontal

1945: surfaces were measured with the LT, they were reduced to the

1946: original CMM points for the purpose of volume integration and mass

1947: integration by fitting functions to the LT data. Only outside

1948: surfaces were measured with the LT. Inside dimensions were

1949: obtained from the LT data by subtracting the micrometer-thickness

1950: values. The only measurements of the  casing radius were the CMM

1951: measurements of the inner radius. The outer surface of the casing

1952: was determined from the CMM values combined with the micrometer

1953: data.

1954: 

1955: 

1956: 

1957: 

1958: \subsection{Density Constraint}

1959: \label{sec46}

1960:  Since the mercury represented roughly 90\% of the

1961: total tank mass, special attention was given to its contribution

1962: to the signal. The density of mercury samples from each tank was

1963: measured at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt,

1964: Braunschweig with an accuracy of 3 ppm. One can use this density

1965: and mass measurements of the mercury (see Sec.~\ref{sec43}) to

1966: obtain better values for the effective tank dimensions and thus

1967: for the mass-integration constant. This results in a correlation

1968: among the effective parameters, $r,R,h,m$. The method employed to

1969: determine the best parameters representing the effective values

1970: (determined from measurements as described in the previous

1971: section) is based on minimizing a $\chi^2$ function of the form

1972: \begin{align}

1973: \chi^2=&\left(\frac{r-r_0}{\sigma_r}\right)^2

1974: +\left(\frac{R-R_0}{\sigma_R}\right)^2

1975: +\left(\frac{h-h_0}{\sigma_h}\right)^2 \notag \\

1976: &+\left(\frac{m-m_0}{\sigma_m}\right)^2

1977: +\left(\frac{\rho-\rho_0}{\sigma_\rho}\right)^2

1978: \end{align}

1979: subject to the density constraint

1980: \begin{equation}

1981: \rho=\frac{m}{\pi (R^2-r^2)h}.

1982: \end{equation}

1983: After substituting $\rho$ from Eq. (4) in Eq. (3), $\chi^2$

1984: becomes a function of the four parameters $r$, $R$, $h$, $m$, the

1985: five measured quantities $r_0$, $R_0$, $h_0$, $m_0$, $\rho_0$ and

1986: their uncertainties (see Table~\ref{tab:fitval} for the

1987: uncertainties of the effective values). The simplex method was

1988: used to minimize $\chi^2$ and thereby obtain best values for the

1989: fit parameters. Although $\rho$ is not explicitly one of the fit

1990: parameters, a best value for $\rho$ can be obtained by

1991: substituting best fit parameters in Eq. (4).

1992: 

1993: The difference between best fit parameters and the measured values

1994: are shown in Table~\ref{tab:fitval} along with the resulting

1995: minimum $\chi^2$. It is seen that the difference between

1996: parameters and measured values is less than the error in all cases

1997: and that $\chi^2$ is consistent with the expected $\chi^2$ for a

1998: least-squares fit with one DOF.

1999: 

2000: %------table 4 difference between measured and improved values-----

2001: \begin{table}[tbp]

2002: \caption{The correlated measured values, their uncertainties and

2003: the difference between the best fit parameters and the measured

2004: values for upper and lower tanks labelled 1  and 2. Only

2005: approximate values are shown for the measured quantities.}

2006: \label{tab:fitval}

2007: \begin{ruledtabular}

2008: \begin{tabular}{l r l r l r l r l}

2009: \multicolumn{1}{l}{}&

2010: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Measured}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uncertainty}&

2011: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Difference 1}&

2012: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Difference 2}\\

2013: \hline $r_0$ &60   &mm   &  1.1 & $\mu \mbox{m}$ &0.007  & $\mu \mbox{m}$&0.013&$\mu \mbox{m}$

2014: \\$R_0$      &498  &mm   &  9.0 & $\mu \mbox{m}$ &-3.5  &$\mu \mbox{m}$&-7.1&$\mu \mbox{m}$

2015: \\$h_0$      &650  &mm   & 24.0 & $\mu \mbox{m}$ & -9.5 &$\mu \mbox{m}$&-19.0&$\mu \mbox{m}$

2016: \\$m_0$      &6760 &kg   & 14.8 & g       & 0.3 &g&0.7&g

2017: \\$\rho_0$   &13.54&g/cm$^{3}$       & 40.6 & $\mu \mbox{g/cm}^{3}$ &-1.3 &$\mu \mbox{g/cm}^{3}$&-2.5&$\mu \mbox{g/cm}^{3}$

2018: \\ \hline $\chi^2$&&&&&0.27&&1.18&

2019: \end{tabular}

2020: \end{ruledtabular}

2021: \end{table}

2022: 

2023: 

2024: In order to obtain the uncertainty of the mass-integration signal

2025: one needs the parameter-error matrix involving $r$, $R$, $h$, $m$

2026: and $\rho$ multiplied by partial derivatives of the signal with

2027: respect to the these quantities. The partial derivative with

2028: respect to $\rho$ is zero since it does not occur explicitly in

2029: the expression for the signal. The error of the signal $S$ is

2030: given by

2031: \begin{displaymath}

2032:    \sigma_S=\left( \sum_{i,j}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_i}

2033:    \frac{\partial S}{\partial x_j} \textrm{err}(x_i,x_j) \right)^{1/2}

2034: \end{displaymath}

2035: where the $x_i$ and $x_j$ are any pair of the measured quantities

2036: and err$(x_i,x_j)$ is the 5 by 5 parameter-error matrix. Assuming

2037: that, for small variations about the measured values, the fit

2038: parameters represented by the 5-dimension vector $\overline y$ can

2039: be expressed as a linear function of the measured values

2040: $\overline x$ of the form $\overline y=T \overline x +\overline

2041: a$. The parameter-error matrix can be written as

2042: \begin{displaymath}

2043:   \textrm{err}(y_i,y_j)=T V T^t

2044: \end{displaymath}

2045: where T is the Jacobi derivative of $y$ with respect to $x$, $T^t$

2046: is its transpose, $V$ is the 5 by 5 matrix covariance matrix (i.e.

2047: $V_{i,j}=err(y_i,y_j)$) with all zero elements except along its

2048: diagonal and $\overline a$ is a constant vector. The elements of

2049: the matrix $T$ and the vector $\overline a$ were determined

2050: numerically by solving a system of linear equations in which the

2051: fit parameters were determined for measured values incremented by

2052: small amounts ($\sigma_x$).

2053: 

2054: The partial derivatives were also determined numerically by

2055: calculating the signal for measured values with small increments

2056: ($\sigma_x$). The signal was calculated using actual dimensions of

2057: the deformed tanks corrected by factors relating the $r,R,h$

2058: parameters to the effective dimensions $r_0,R_0,h_0$. The

2059: resulting covariance matrix representing the square of the

2060: uncertainty in the calculated mass-integration signal is shown in

2061: Table~\ref{tab:covar}. It is seen that the elements involving $R$

2062: and $h$ are much larger than those for $r$ and $m$. For the upper

2063: tank (tank 1), the relative uncertainty of the calculated

2064: mass-integration constant due to the correlated dimensions is

2065: 2.14~ppm. For tank 2, it is 2.41~ppm. The large cancellation

2066: occurring in the sum of the elements results in the uncertainty

2067: for these constrained parameters being approximately a factor of

2068: seven smaller than the uncertainty that would be obtained without

2069: the density information.

2070: 

2071: 

2072: 

2073: %--------table 5 signal covariance matrix--------------

2074: \begin{table}

2075: \begin{ruledtabular}

2076: \caption{The covariance matrix  involving $r,R,h,m$ for the

2077: uncertainty of the calculated signal. Values are given in units of

2078: ng$^2$. Only the upper part of the symmetric matrix is shown. The

2079: sum of all element in the full matrix is 2.84~$\mbox{ng}^2$. The

2080: sum of a similar diagonal matrix for uncorrelated $r,R,h,m$ values

2081: (not shown) is 175 $\mbox{ng}^2$.} \label{tab:covar}

2082: 

2083: \begin{tabular}{l uuuu}

2084:   & \mone{r}   & \mone{R}  &  \mone{h}  & \mone{m} \\ \hline

2085: r & 0.52       &      0.04       &   0.05           &  0.0003\\

2086: R & \mone{}    &      35.77      & -42.52           & -0.20\\

2087: h & \mone{}    &  \mone{} &  51.62                  & -0.25\\

2088: m & \mone{}    &  \mone{} & \mone{}             &  0.66 \\

2089: \end{tabular}

2090: \end{ruledtabular}

2091: \end{table}

2092: 

2093: 

2094: 

2095: 

2096: 

2097: 

2098: \subsection{The Effect of Air Density}

2099: \label{sec47} Since air is not present in the region of the FM's,

2100: the motions of the FM's results in a force on the TM's due to the

2101: mass of the air elsewhere. It is as if there were a negative

2102: contribution to the mass of the FM's due to the lack of air in

2103: this region. This effect depends upon the density of the air in

2104: the region surrounding the FM's.

2105: 

2106: The air pressure, the relative humidity and the air temperature

2107: were recorded every 12~min during the gravitational measurement

2108: thereby providing the information necessary to determine the air

2109: density. The effect of air density on the calculated

2110: mass-integration constant was approximately 100 ppm. The variation

2111: of the mass-integration constant for this effect was only about 1

2112: ppm. Thus, it was sufficient to employ only the average value of

2113: the air density during the entire gravitational measurement. The

2114: average density employed was 1.156~$\mbox{kg}/\mbox{m}^3$.

2115: 

2116: \subsection{The Effect of Mercury Expansion}

2117: \label{sec48}

2118: Due to the small temperature variations of the FM's,

2119: the volume of the mercury relative to the volume of the tanks

2120: changed slightly during the gravitational measurement. This

2121: resulted in a variation of the mercury height in the compensation

2122: vessels. The height of the mercury in each compensation vessel was

2123: recorded every 12~min during the experiment. The calculated

2124: mass-integration constant varied by only 0.3~ppm due to this

2125: effect. Therefore, only an average value of the mercury height in

2126: each compensation vessel was employed in determining the

2127: mass-integration constant for the entire measurement.

2128: 

2129: 

2130: \subsection{Uncertainties Affecting the Mass-Integration Constant}

2131: \label{sec49}

2132: The relative uncertainties  of the mass-integration

2133: constant due to the various measured and estimated quantities

2134: relating to either the upper or lower TM or to either the upper or

2135: lower FM are given in Table~\ref{tab:umassint}. The signs of the

2136: estimated quantities have been chosen to give the largest

2137: uncertainty of the mass-integration constant. With the exception

2138: of the constrained quantities $r$, $R$, $h$, and $m$, all measured

2139: quantities of this table are independent (i.e. uncorrelated). All

2140: estimated quantities are also independent. The total uncertainty

2141: of the mass-integration constant due to the measured quantities

2142: listed in Table~\ref{tab:umassint} results in a relative

2143: statistical uncertainty of 4.89~ppm. The total uncertainty of the

2144: mass-integration constant due to estimated quantities results in a

2145: relative systematic uncertainty of 3.25~ppm.

2146: 

2147: %----------table 6 uncertainty mass integration constant---------

2148: \begin{table}

2149: \caption{Mass-integration constant relative uncertainties (ppm)

2150: associated with the measured quantities. 'Upper' and 'Lower' refer

2151: to the upper and lower FM or TM quantities. The values in

2152: parentheses are the uncertainty of the measured quantities. Where

2153: two measured values are listed, the first applies to the upper

2154: object and the second to the lower object. Quantities marked with

2155: a $^*$ are obtained from estimated limiting values. All

2156: uncertainties are independent except for the constrained

2157: quantities r,R,h,m. However, these constrained quantities are

2158: independent for the upper and lower tanks.} \label{tab:umassint}

2159: \begin{ruledtabular}

2160: \begin{tabular}{l ss}

2161: \mone{Measured Quantity} & \mone{Upper} &

2162: \mone{Lower} \\

2163: \hline  & & \\FM Quantities & &

2164: \\ \hspace{5 mm} $r,R,h,m$ constrained                & 1.20 & 1.09

2165: \\ \hspace{5 mm} position=2460 or 1042 mm (35 \mum) & 2.05  &

2166: 2.99

2167: \\ \hspace{5 mm} inner radius=50 mm (1.1 \mum)       &  0.91  & 0.91

2168: \\ \hspace{5 mm} travel=709 mm (10 \mum)        & 0.95 & 1.22

2169: \\ \hspace{5 mm} upper plate mass=153 kg (0.9~g)    & 0.01 & 0.01

2170: \\ \hspace{5 mm} lower plate mass=154 kg (0.45~g)   &0.02 & 0.02

2171: \\ \hspace{5 mm} central piece mass=46 kg (0.18~g)  & 0.03 & 0.03

2172: \\ \hspace{5 mm} outer tube mass=412 kg (0.83~g)    & 0.01 & 0.01

2173: \\ \hspace{5 mm} central piece no density gradient & 0.03 & 0.03

2174: \\ \hspace{5 mm} central piece z density gradient$^*$ &<0.03&<0.03

2175: \\ \hspace{5 mm} central piece r density gradient$^*$ &<1.1&<1.1

2176: 

2177: \\ & &

2178: \\TM Quantities & &

2179: \\ \hspace{5 mm} radius=23 mm (5 \mum)              & 0.57 & 0.57

2180: \\ \hspace{5 mm} height=77 mm (5 \mum)              & 0.49 & 0.87

2181: \\ \hspace{5 mm} position=2495, 1077 mm (35 \mum)   & 0.45 & 0.32

2182: \\ \hspace{5 mm} mass=1.1 kg (300 \mug)             & 0.14 & 0.14

2183: \\ \hspace{5 mm} off center=0.44 or 0.51 mm (0.1 mm)&1.03 & 1.03

2184: \\ \hspace{5 mm} angle relative to vertical $^*$   &<1.85 &<1.85

2185: \\ \hspace{5 mm} relative z density gradient$^*$    &<0.9&<0.7

2186: \\ \hspace{5 mm} relative r density gradient$^*$    &<0.02&<0.02

2187: \\ \end{tabular}

2188: \end{ruledtabular}

2189: \end{table}

2190: 

2191: 

2192: 

2193: In addition to the uncertainties related to either TM alone, there

2194: is the common vertical displacement (shown as $\varepsilon$ in

2195: Fig.~\ref{fig:geom}) of both TM's due to evacuating the system.

2196: The uncertainty of this displacement results in a relative

2197: uncertainty of the mass-integration constant equal to 0.78~ppm

2198: which is added to the other uncertainties as an independent

2199: relative uncertainty. Including the uncertainty of $\varepsilon$

2200: results in a relative statistical uncertainty of the

2201: mass-integration constant equal to 4.95~ppm.

2202: 

2203: 

2204: %****************Discussion of Measurements**************

2205: \section{Discussion of Measurements}

2206: \label{sec5} The measured gravitational signal discussed in

2207: Secs.~\ref{sec37} to \ref{sec311} is 784,883.3(12.2)(5.8)~ng. The

2208: calculated mass-integration constant determined in

2209: Secs.~\ref{sec41} to \ref{sec45} is 784,687.8(3.9)(2.6)~ng. Using

2210: these values, we obtain the value for the gravitational constant

2211: \\ \\

2212: $G$=6.674252(109)(54)$\times 10^{-11}\;\Gunit$.

2213: \\ \\

2214: A summary of the relative uncertainties contributing to this

2215: result is given in Table~\ref{tab:relerrs}.

2216: 

2217: %-----------table 7, summary of errors-----------

2218: \begin{table}

2219: \caption{Relative statistical and systematic uncertainties of $G$

2220: as determined in this experiment.} \label{tab:relerrs}

2221: \begin{ruledtabular}

2222: \begin{tabular}{l l r}

2223: {Description}& {Statistical(ppm)} &{Systematic(ppm)}

2224: \\ \hline

2225: Measured Signal & &\\

2226: \hspace{5 mm} Weighings & 11.6 & \\

2227: \hspace{5 mm} TM-sorption  & 7.4 & 7.4\\

2228: \hspace{5 mm} Linearity  &6.1& \\

2229: \hspace{5 mm} Calibration & 4.0 & 0.5\\

2230: Mass Integration & 5.0&3.3\\

2231: \hline

2232: Total &  16.3 & 8.1 \\

2233: \end{tabular}

2234: \end{ruledtabular}

2235: \end{table}

2236: The relative statistical and systematic uncertainties of this

2237: result are 16.3~ppm and 8.1~ppm, respectively. The two largest

2238: contributions to the total relative  uncertainty are the

2239: statistical uncertainty of the weighings (11.6~ppm) and the

2240: combined statistical and systematic uncertainty due to the

2241: TM-sorption effect (10.3~ppm). All uncertainties have been given

2242: as one sigma uncertainties. Statistical and systematic

2243: uncertainties have been combined to give a total uncertainty by

2244: taking the square root of the sum of their squares.

2245: 

2246: 

2247: \subsection{Comparison with Our Previous Analysis}

2248: \label{51}

2249: Our previously published value \cite{Sa02} for $G$ was

2250: $6.674070(220) \times 10^{-11}\; \Gunit$ which was based on the

2251: measurements of both the copper and tantalum TM's. The value for

2252: the copper TM's alone was $6.674040(210)\times 10^{-11}\;\Gunit$.

2253: The value obtained for $G$ in the present analysis for only the

2254: copper TM's ($6.674252((124)\times 10^{-11}\; \Gunit$) is in

2255: reasonable agreement with the previous value. The difference

2256: between the present and previous result is due primarily to the

2257: correction for the ZP curvature which was not taken into account

2258: in the previous analysis. A minor difference is also due to a

2259: slightly different selection of the analyzed data.

2260: 

2261: The uncertainty given for the present result is appreciably

2262: smaller than that of our previous result. This is due to a better

2263: method used in computing the nonlinearity correction

2264: (Sec.~\ref{sec310}) and a  calculation of the mass-integration

2265: constant (Sec.~\ref{sec45}) using the mercury density as a

2266: constraint. The uncertainty of the linearity correction was

2267: reduced from 18~ppm to 6.1~ppm and the uncertainty of the

2268: mass-integration constant was reduced from 20.6~ppm to 6.7~ppm.

2269: The statistical uncertainty of the weighings in the present

2270: analysis is somewhat larger than the previous value (9.1~ng vs

2271: 5.4~ng). This is due to the correlation of the ZP-corrected data

2272: of the present analysis. The previous ABA analysis involved only

2273: uncorrelated data.

2274: 

2275: \subsection{Comparison with Other Measurements}

2276: \label{sec52}

2277: Recent measurements \cite{Gu00,Qu01,Ar03} of the

2278: gravitational constant with relative errors less than 50~ppm are

2279: listed in Table~\ref{tab:Gcomp}\ and shown in

2280: Fig.~\ref{fig:Gcomp}. We list only the latest publication of each

2281: group. It is seen that the present result is in good agreement

2282: with those of Gundlach and Merkowitz \cite{Gu00} and Fitzgerald

2283: \cite{Ar03}. It is in disagreement (3.6 times the sum of the

2284: uncertainties) with the result of Quinn et al. \cite{Qu01}.

2285: 

2286: %-----------fig 20 plot of other measurements-------------

2287: \begin{figure}[width=8cm]

2288: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{G_measurements.ps}

2289: \caption{Plot of recent measurements with relative errors less

2290: than 50~ppm} \label{fig:Gcomp}

2291: \end{figure}

2292: 

2293: All of the measurements listed in Table~\ref{tab:Gcomp} with the

2294: exception of our own were performed using torsion balances. It is

2295: therefore instructive to compare the problems encountered in the

2296: different types of measurements.

2297: 

2298: In the measurements being discussed, the statistical accuracy in

2299: determining the gravitational signal was obtained in measurements

2300: lasting one to six weeks. However, as in the case of all precision

2301: measurements, the time required for obtaining a good statistical

2302: accuracy of the measurement is less than the time required to

2303: obtain calibration accuracy of the equipment and the time

2304: necessary to investigate and eliminate systematic errors.  All of

2305: the measurements listed in Table~\ref{tab:Gcomp} have been long, on-going

2306: investigations which have lasted for periods up to ten years.

2307: 

2308: Although the beam-balance measurement was made with more massive

2309: FM's (15~t) than were employed in the torsion-balance measurements

2310: ($<60$~kg), the larger gravitational signal had to be measured in

2311: the presence of the TM weight. In our experiment the gravitational

2312: signal was roughly 0.7~ppm of the total weight on the balance.

2313: This small ratio of signal to total weight on the balance resulted

2314: in larger effects of zero-point drift as well as larger

2315: statistical noise in the beam-balance data than in the

2316: torsion-balance data. In the torsion-balance measurements, the

2317: deflection of the balance arm is due entirely to the gravitational

2318: force to be determined with only small perturbations from distant

2319: moving objects.

2320: 

2321: A similar problem has to do with the change of TM weight that is

2322: produced by an adsorbed water layer. In our measurement, this

2323: varied with the temperature of the vacuum tube produced by the FM

2324: motion. This resulted in one of the largest contribution to the

2325: uncertainty of the gravitational signal (see Sec.~\ref{sec310}).

2326: In the beam-balance measurement the weight change adds directly to

2327: the signal whereas in the torsion-balance it adds only to the mass

2328: of the torsion-arm and is therefore a negligible effect.

2329: 

2330: The calibration of the beam balance, while simple in principle, is

2331: difficult in practice due to the lack of calibration masses having

2332: the required mass and accuracy. We have used an averaging method

2333: to correct for the nonlinearity of the balance (see

2334: Sec.~\ref{sec311}) involving a large number of auxiliary masses.

2335: This allowed the comparison of the gravitational signal with a

2336: heavier, accurately known calibration mass. The accurate

2337: calibration of the torsion balance also presents a problem.

2338: Various methods involving either electric forces or an angular

2339: acceleration of the measuring table to compensate the

2340: gravitational force have been used.

2341: 

2342: 

2343: 

2344: In our measurement, the TM was positioned at a double extremum of

2345: the force field produced by the FM's. This greatly reduces the

2346: relative accuracy of the distance measurements required to

2347: determine the mass-integration constant. It also reduces the

2348: problem resulting from a density gradient in the TM. It is

2349: difficult to compare the problems involved in determining the

2350: mass-integration constant for the two types of experiments. It

2351: appears that the distance between the field masses attracting the

2352: small mass of the torsion balance must be measured with very high

2353: absolute accuracy (1~\mum\  is the accuracy given for this

2354: distance in the torsion balance experiments).

2355: 

2356: The use of liquid mercury as the principle component of the FM's

2357: reduces the problem associated with the density gradients of the

2358: FM's. There is still the density gradient of the vessel walls

2359: which has to be considered. The field masses employed in the

2360: torsion-balance experiments were either spheres or cylinders. The

2361: FM's were rotated between measurements in order to compensate

2362: gradient effects.

2363: 

2364: The large mercury mass resulted in deformations of the vessel

2365: which had to be accurately determined. The FM's although, nearly

2366: cylindrical in form, required more than 1000 ring and point-mass

2367: elements in order to determine the mass-integration constant. A

2368: similar problem (but on a smaller scale) occurs in the torsion

2369: experiments in accounting for small imperfections of the spheres,

2370: cylinders or plates and in determining their relative positions.

2371: 

2372: The determination of $G$ using a beam balance is beset with a

2373: number of problems which we have tried to describe in detail. We

2374: have been able to reduce the uncertainty in $G$ resulting from

2375: these problems to values comparable to the statistical

2376: reproducibility of the weighings determining the gravitational

2377: signal. The total uncertainty for $G$ which we obtain with a beam

2378: balance is comparable to the uncertainty quoted in recent

2379: torsion-balance determinations of $G$. We believe that the

2380: beam-balance measurement involving a number of quite different

2381: problems than encountered in torsion balance measurements can

2382: therefore provide a useful contribution to the accuracy of the

2383: gravitational constant.

2384: 

2385: 

2386: 

2387: 

2388: %--------------table 8 other measurements----------------

2389: \begin{table}[tbp]

2390: \caption{Recent measurements of the gravitational constant.

2391: Statistical and systematic uncertainties have been added as if the

2392: were independent quantities.} \label{tab:Gcomp}

2393: \begin{ruledtabular}

2394: \begin{tabular}{l  l}

2395: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Reference}&

2396: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$G[10^{-11}\;\Gunit]$}\\

2397: \hline

2398: Gundlach and Merkowitz \cite{Gu00} &6.674215( 92)\\

2399: Quinn et al.\cite{Qu01} &6.675590(270)\\

2400: Armstrong and Fitzgerald \cite{Ar03}&6.673870(270)\\

2401: Present analysis &6.674252(124) \\

2402: \end{tabular}

2403: \end{ruledtabular}

2404: \end{table}

2405: 

2406: 

2407: \section{Acknowledgements}

2408: \label{sec6}

2409: The present research has been generously supported by

2410: the Swiss National Fund, the Kanton of Z\"{u}rich, and

2411: assistantship grants provided by Dr. Tomalla Foundation  for which

2412: we are very grateful. The experiment could not have been carried

2413: out without the close support of the Mettler-Toledo company which

2414: donated the balance for this measurement and made their laboratory

2415: available for our use. We are also extremely grateful to the Paul

2416: Scherrer Institut for providing a suitable measuring room and the

2417: help of their staff in determining the geometry of our experiment.

2418: We also wish to thank the Swiss Metrological Institute and the

2419: Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany for

2420: making a number of certified precision measurements for us. Our

2421: heartfelt thanks are also extended to the staff of our machine

2422: shop for their advice and precision work in producing many of the

2423: pieces for this experiment. We wish to thank E. Klingel\'{e} for

2424: determining the value of local gravity at the measuring site. We

2425: are also indebted to the firms Almaden Co., Metrotec A.G. and

2426: Reishauer A.G. for the services they provided.

2427: 

2428: 

2429: 

2430: %***************Appendix************************

2431: \section{Appendix}

2432: \label{sec7} The general idea in determining the $z$ component of

2433: force on a small volume element of a TM is first to calculate the

2434: potential along the $z$ axis due to the FM. The off-axis potential

2435: can then be obtained by making a Taylor series expansion for small

2436: $r$ and substituting this in the Laplace equation. This is the

2437: procedure which is often used in electrostatic calculations

2438: \cite{Gl56}. The force in the $z$ direction is just the negative

2439: derivative of this potential with respect to $z$. We present first

2440: a derivation of the force for the axially symmetric case and then

2441: describe the modification required for a nonaxially symmetric

2442: potential.

2443: 

2444: The gravitational potential on the $z$ axis of a homogeneous,

2445: torus of rectangular cross section with density $\rho_{FM}$, inner

2446: radius $R_1$, outer radius $R_2$ and half height $Z$ is given by

2447: the equation

2448: \begin{equation}

2449:   \Phi(r=0,z) = 2\pi\rho_{FM} G   \int_{-Z/2}^{Z/2} \int_{R1}^{R2}

2450:    \frac{r' dr' \;dz'}{\sqrt{{r'}^2 + (z'- z)^2}}

2451: \label{eq:Phi}

2452: \end{equation}

2453: where $r$ and $z$ are the radial and axial coordinates of a point

2454: within the TM expressed in cylindrical polar coordinates. For

2455: convenience, one chooses the zero of the potential at the center

2456: of mass of a TM. For simplicity, the cross section of the FM

2457: employed in Eq.~\ref{eq:Phi} has been chosen to be a rectangle.

2458: Besides the torus with rectangular cross section, analytic

2459: expressions for the two dimensional integrals with triangular and

2460: circular cross sections were also employed.

2461: 

2462: The potential at points close to the axis can be calculated as a

2463: power series in $r$

2464: \begin{equation}

2465: \Phi(r,z) = a_0 + a_1 r + a_2 r^2 + a_3 r^3 + \ldots =

2466: \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_ir^i  \;

2467: \label{eq:series}

2468: \end{equation}

2469: with unknown coefficients $a_1$,$a_2$,$\ldots$ which are functions

2470: of $z$ alone. For $r$=0, one has $a_0=\Phi(0,z)$. The

2471: gravitational field satisfies the Laplace equation  $\nabla^2 \Phi

2472: = 0$. Applying the Laplace operator in cylindrical coordinates to

2473: Eq.~\ref{eq:series} leads to

2474: \begin{displaymath}

2475: \nabla^2 \Phi=a_1r^{-1} + \sum_{i=0}^\infty r^i \left( \frac{d^2

2476: a_i}{d z^2} + \left(i+2 \right)^2 a_{i+2} \right) = 0 \; .

2477: \end{displaymath}

2478: This equation is valid for all $r$. Since $\nabla^2 \Phi=0$ for

2479: $r=0$, $a_1$ must be identically zero. Thus, the values for $a_i$

2480: can be calculated recursively from

2481: \begin{displaymath}

2482: a_{i+2} = - \frac{1}{\left( i+2 \right)^2} \frac{d^{2}

2483: a_i}{dz^{2}}

2484: \end{displaymath}

2485: starting with either $a_0$ or $a_1$. Since $a_1=0$, all terms with

2486: odd $i$ are zero and $a_i$ for even $i$ can be obtained starting

2487: with $a_0$. By induction, it is easily shown that the coefficient

2488: $a_{2n}$ is

2489: \begin{displaymath}

2490: a_{2n} = \left( - \frac{1}{4} \right)^n \frac{1}{\left( n!

2491: \right)^2} V^{(2n)}(z)

2492: \end{displaymath}

2493: with

2494: \begin{displaymath}

2495:    V^{(2n)}(z)=\frac{ d^{2n} \Phi(0,z) }{ d z^{2n} } .

2496: \end{displaymath}

2497: Here, $V^{(0)}$ is just $\Phi(0,z)$ which can be easily calculated

2498: using  Eq.~\ref{eq:Phi}.

2499: 

2500: Using this expression for the coefficients in the

2501: expansion~\ref{eq:series},

2502:  the   gravitational potential can be calculated  from the sum

2503: \begin{equation}

2504: \Phi(r,z) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \left( - \frac{1}{4} \right)^i

2505: \frac{1}{\left( i! \right)^2}   V^{(2i)}(z)\; r^{2i}

2506: \label{eq:potential_sum} \;.

2507: \end{equation}

2508: 

2509: 

2510: The gravitational field $g_z$ in z-direction is given by

2511: $-\partial \Phi / \partial z$ or

2512: \begin{displaymath}

2513: g_z(r,z)  = -\sum_{i=0}^\infty \left( - \frac{1}{4} \right)^i

2514: \frac{1}{\left( i! \right)^2}   V^{(2i+1)}(z) \; r^{2i} \; .

2515: %\label{eq:field_sum}

2516: \end{displaymath}

2517: %--------------eq 8---------------------

2518: Integrating $g_z$ over the volume of the TM, one obtains the force

2519: on the TM in the $z$ direction

2520: \begin{align}

2521: &F_z =-2 \pi \rho_{TM} \times \notag \\

2522: &\sum_{i=0}^\infty \left( - \frac{1}{4}

2523: \right)^i \frac{1}{\left( i! \right)^2} \int_{-b}^{+b} \ d z'

2524: \int_0^r   V^{(2i+1)}(z) \; r'^{2i}  r' \ d r' \;

2525: \label{eq:F_sum}

2526: \end{align}

2527: where the origin has been taken to be the center of the TM. The

2528: integration over $r$ is trivial. The integration over $z$ is

2529: \begin{displaymath}

2530: \int_{-b}^{+b} V^{(2i+1)} d z' =  V^{(2i)}(b) - V^{(2i)}(-b)  \;

2531: .\nonumber

2532: \end{displaymath}

2533: 

2534: Making a Taylor expansion for small $b$ on the right side of

2535: equation, one obtains

2536: \begin{eqnarray}

2537: \lefteqn{\int_{-b}^{+b} V^{(2i+1)} d z' =}  \nonumber \\

2538: &  V^{(2i)}(0) + b V^{(2i+1)}(0) + \frac{1}{2!} b^2 V^{(2i+2)}(0)

2539: + \ldots

2540:   \nonumber \\

2541: &    -V^{(2i)}(0) + b V^{(2i+1)}(0) - \frac{1}{2!} b^2

2542: V^{(2i+2)}(0) + \ldots  \nonumber \; .

2543: \end{eqnarray}

2544: Adding similar terms results in

2545: %-------------eqs 9--------------------

2546: \begin{align*}

2547: \int_{-b}^{+b} V^{(2i+1)} d z' = &   2 b V^{(2i+1)}(0) +

2548: \frac{2}{3!} b^3 V^{(2i+3)}(0)\\ \notag

2549: & + \frac{2}{5!}b^5 V^{(2i+5)}(0) + \ldots  \notag

2550: \end{align*}

2551: or

2552: \begin{equation}

2553: \int_{-b}^{+b} V^{(2i+1)} d z' =\sum_{j=0}^\infty

2554: \frac{2}{(2j+1)!} b^{2j+1} V^{(2i+2j+1)}(0)  \; .

2555: \label{eq:integral_sum}

2556: \end{equation}

2557: 

2558: The final equation for the gravitational force on a cylinder can

2559: then be calculated by combining Eq.~\ref{eq:F_sum} and

2560: \ref{eq:integral_sum} to obtain

2561: %--------------eqs 10------------------------------

2562: \begin{align}

2563: & F_z=-2 \pi b r^2 \rho_{TM}  \notag \sum_{n=0}^\infty V^{(2n+1)}(0) \times \\

2564: &

2565: \sum_{i=0}^n \frac{1}{\left( -4 \right)^i}

2566: \frac{1}{i!\left(i+1\right)!} \frac{1}{\left( 2 n- 2 i  +1

2567: \right)!} b^{ 2 n -2 i } r^{2i} \ .

2568: \label{eq:massint_main}

2569: \end{align}

2570: 

2571: Only odd derivatives of the potential are required for this case

2572: involving complete axial symmetry. The convergence of the series

2573: can be improved by dividing the TM into two or more shorter

2574: cylinders. The algebraic expressions for the $V^{2n}(0)$, as

2575: determined using "automatic differentiation" \cite{Ra81}, are very

2576: long and will not be given here.

2577: 

2578: The above derivation has assumed that the TM and FM have a common

2579: axis of cylindrical symmetry. We will now show how essentially the

2580: same equations can be employed for an arbitrary FM potential. This

2581: allows one to calculate the potential of a FM with cylindrical

2582: symmetry but with its axis displaced and/or tilted relative to

2583: that of the TM.

2584: 

2585: Again, in order to facilitate integration over the volume of the

2586: cylindrical TM, one employs cylindrical polar coordinates with the

2587: $z$ axis along the symmetry axis of the TM.  The potential is now

2588: a potential of the form $\psi(x,y,z)=\psi\left (r\cos(\varphi),

2589: r\sin(\varphi),z\right)$ which satisfies $\nabla^2\psi=0$. The

2590: center of mass of the TM is chosen as the zero of potential.

2591: 

2592: One defines a function $\Psi(r,z)$ such that

2593: \begin{equation}

2594:  \Psi(r,z)=(2 \pi)^{-1}\int_{\varphi=0}^{2\pi} \psi(r,\varphi,z)

2595:   d\varphi.

2596:  \label{eq:Psi}

2597: \end{equation}

2598: One can then show that this function satisfies the same assumption

2599: that were made for the function $\Phi(r,z)$, namely that $\Psi$

2600: has axial symmetry, that it is zero on the $z$ axis and that its

2601: Laplacian is zero. It can therefore be used in the Eqs. 7 through

2602: 10 instead of $\Phi$ to obtain the gravitational force integrated

2603: over the TM.

2604: 

2605: The axial symmetry of $\Psi$ is obvious since $\varphi$ has been

2606: removed by the integration over $\varphi$. The zero potential was

2607: chosen to be at the TM center of mass. The Laplacian of $\Psi$ can

2608: be shown to be zero by allowing the Laplacian to operate on $\Psi$

2609: as defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:Psi}. Reversing the integration and

2610: differentiation operations one obtains

2611: \begin{displaymath}

2612:   \nabla^2 \Psi(r,z) = (2 \pi)^{-1} \int_{\varphi=0}^{2

2613:   \pi} (\nabla^2 \psi-r^{-2}\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \varphi^2})

2614:   d\varphi.

2615: \end{displaymath}

2616: The Laplacian of $\psi(r,\varphi,z)$ is zero for an inverse $r$

2617: potential. The integral of the second term is $r^{-2}\partial \psi

2618: / \partial \varphi$ evaluated at $\varphi=0$ and $2\pi$ which is

2619: also zero. Thus, one obtains the desired result that $\nabla^2

2620: \Psi(r,z)=0$.

2621: 

2622: In order to use this property of a potential which does not have

2623: axial symmetry about the TM axis (the $z$ axis), one must

2624: determine the potential and its derivative with respect to $z$

2625: along the $z$ axis. This is not difficult for the case of a FM

2626: which has axial symmetry about an axis not coincident with the TM

2627: axis. One merely uses Eq. 7 to determine the potential at radial

2628: distances from the FM axis corresponding to points on the TM axis.

2629: The force in the $z$ direction (TM axis) is then determined as

2630: before using Eqs. 8 and 10. This procedure is particularly useful

2631: for the case of TM and FM axes which are parallel but which are

2632: displaced relative to one another.

2633: 

2634: In principle, one can determine the derivatives with respect to

2635: $r$ which are required for the force on a TM tilted relative to

2636: the vertical; however, in this case it is simpler to approximate

2637: the TM by a number of thin slabs displaced from the vertical axis.

2638: This completes the discussion of nonaxial-symmetric potentials.

2639: 

2640: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2641: \bibitem{Mo05} P.~J.~Mohr and B.~N.~Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1(2005).

2642: \bibitem{Fi86}

2643:   E.~Fischbach, D.~Sudarsky, A.~Szafer, C.~Talmadge and S.~H.~Aronson,

2644:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  56, 3(1986)

2645:   [Erratum-ibid.\  56, 1427(1986)].

2646: \bibitem{Co94} A.~Cornaz, B.~Hubler and W.~K\"{u}ndig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1152(1994).

2647: \bibitem{Hu95} B.~Hubler, A.~Cornaz and W.~K\"{u}ndig, Phys. Rev. D51, 4005(1995).

2648: \bibitem{Mo88} G.~I.~Moore, F.~D.~Stacey, G.~J.~Tuck, B.~D.~Goodwin,

2649: N.~P.~Linthorne, M.~A.~Barton, D.~M.~Reid and G.~D.~Agnew, Phys.

2650: Rev. D38, 1023(1988).

2651: \bibitem{Sp87} C.~C.~Speake and G.~T.~Gillies, Proc. R. Soc.

2652: London A414, 415(1987).

2653: \bibitem{Sa98}J.~Schurr, F.~Nolting and W.~K\"{u}ndig, Phys. Lett. A248, 295(1998).

2654: \bibitem{Sb98}J.~Schurr, F.~Nolting and W.~K\"{u}ndig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1142(1998).

2655: \bibitem{No98}F.~Nolting, PhD Thesis, University of Zurich(1998).

2656: \bibitem{No99}F.~Nolting, J.~Schurr, St.~Schlamminger and W.~K\"{u}ndig,

2657: IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 48, 245(1999).

2658: \bibitem{Sa99}F.~Nolting, J.~Schurr, St.~Schlamminger and W.~K\"{u}ndig,

2659: Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 487(1999).

2660: \bibitem{Sa02}St.~Schlamminger, E.~Holzschuh and W.~K\"{u}ndig,

2661:  Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,161102-1(2002).

2662: \bibitem{Sb02}St.~Schlamminger, PhD Thesis, University of Zurich(2002).

2663: \bibitem{Sl88}A.~H.~Slocum, Precision Eng. 10(2), 85(1988).

2664: \bibitem{Fu81}J.~E.~Furse, J. Phys., E:Sci. Instrum. 14, 264(1982).

2665: \bibitem{Sch94a}R.~Schwartz, Metrologia, 31, 117(1994).

2666: \bibitem{Sch94b}R.~Schwartz, Metrologia, 31, 129(1994).

2667: \bibitem{Re00}A.~Reichmuth, Non-Linearity in Mass Comparison.

2668: Proc. Intl. Conf. Metrology, Jerusalem (II), pages 58-66,

2669: May(2000).

2670: \bibitem{Ba89} R.~J.~Barlow, Statistics, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester(1989).

2671: \bibitem{Gl56}W.~Glaser, Encyclopedia of Physics, Volume XXXIII,

2672: Springer-Verlag, Berlin-G\"{o}ttingen-Heidelberg(1956).

2673: \bibitem{Ti87} S.~P.~Timoshenko and S.~Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of Plates and

2674: Shells, McGraw-Hill, New York(1987).

2675: \bibitem{Ra81}L.~B.~Rall, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 120:

2676: Automatic Differentiation: Techniques and Applications, edited by

2677: G.~Goos and J.~Hartmanis, Springer-Verlag, New York(1981)

2678: Publishers, Amsterdam(1989).

2679: \bibitem{Gu00}

2680: J.~H.~Gundlach and S.~M.~Merkowitz, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  85, 2869

2681: (2000).

2682: \bibitem{Qu01} T.~J.~Quinn, C.~C.~Speake, S.~J.~Richman,

2683: R.~S.~Davis and A.~Picard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 111101-4(2001).

2684: \bibitem{Ar03}T.~R.~Armstrong and M.~P.~Fitzgerald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 201101-4(2003).

2685: \end{thebibliography}

2686: 

2687: \end{document}

2688: