/
Article

The helium vapor‐pressure scale of temperatures

APR 01, 1958
A report on this NBS Conference was made at the Fifth International Conference on Low‐Temperature Physics and Chemistry, Madison, Wisconsin, August 26–30, 1957. Dr. Brickwedde is consultant to the Director of the National Bureau of Standards and is also Dean of the College of Chemistry and Physics, The Pennsylvania State University.
F. G. Brickwedde

Since the Fourth International (Paris) Conference on Low‐Temperature Physics in 1955, precision low‐temperature research has been plagued by having two standard scales for temperature in the range 1 to 5.2 °K. These are the helium vapor‐pressure scales of J. R. Clement (the 55E Scale), and of H. van Dijk and M. Durieux (the L55 Scale). The differences between these scales (Fig. 1) are within the experimental uncertainties of the measurements on which the scales are based. A reliable decision as to which of these two scales is superior to the other calls for a study and reevaluation of all the data on which the scales are based. The original or raw experimental data from which published values for the vapor pressure, and calorimetric and state properties of helium were calculated should be recalculated using the present best values for physical constants and related properties of helium. The magnitude of this reevaluation may be better appreciated when it is realized that the temperature scales used by the original investigators are in error and have to be corrected for, but that these corrections cannot be determined until the ultimate objective, the standard scale, has been determined. This is a big, though possible, undertaking. There are real difficulties, however, because some investigators have not published sufficient data for a complete reevaluation of their work. Then the personal judgment of the reevaluator becomes important. Difficulties of this kind seemed to be blocking agreement of Clement and van Dijk on a single helium vapor‐pressure scale of temperatures.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

  1. 1. J. E. Kilpatrick, W. E. Keller, and E. F. Hammel, Phys. Rev. 97, 9 (1955).

  2. 2. J. Kistemaker and W. H. Keesom, Physica 12, 227 (1946), or Leiden Comm. 269b;
    and J. Kistemaker, Physica 12, 272 (1946), or Leiden Comm. 269c.

  3. 3. R. W. Hill and O. V. Lounasmaa, Phil. Mag. 2, 143 (1957).

  4. 4. R. Berman and C. Swenson, Phys. Rev. 95, 311 (1954).

More about the authors

F. G. Brickwedde, Pennsylvania State University.

Related content
/
Article
At the end of the turbulent 1960s, the postwar funding boom in US physics came to a crashing halt. The lessons learned then may be helpful to today’s physicists.
/
Article
Interviews with 22 successful early-career physical scientists and engineers reveal that networking has been one of the most critical ways to nurture their careers.
/
Article
Myriad solutions emerge in the stressful process of balancing professional ambition and personal happiness.
/
Article
An interview with a prominent member of the Marshallese diaspora delves into the ongoing impact of aboveground US nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific archipelago.
This Content Appeared In
pt-cover_1958_04.jpeg

Volume 11, Number 4

Get PT newsletters in your inbox

pt_newsletter_card_blue.png
PT The Week in Physics

A collection of PT's content from the previous week delivered every Monday.

pt_newsletter_card_darkblue.png
PT New Issue Alert

Be notified about the new issue with links to highlights and the full TOC.

pt_newsletter_card_pink.png
PT Webinars & White Papers

The latest webinars, white papers and other informational resources.

By signing up you agree to allow AIP to send you email newsletters. You further agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.