Comparison of the Josephson voltage standards of the CENAM and the BIPM (part of the ongoing BIPM key comparison BIPM.EM-K10.b)

Solve, S; Chayramy, R; Stöck, M; Aviles, David; Navarrete, Enrique; Hernandez, Dionisio

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/49/1a/01011

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other 7% of the results were above 1 × 10 −9 but a systematic error was assumed to be the origin. The best results obtained in these comparisons correspond to a relative difference of a few parts in 10 11 within a comparable relative combined uncertainty [23,26].…”

Section: Results and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 71%

See 1 more Smart Citation

BIPM direct on-site Josephson voltage standard comparisons: 20 years of results

Solve¹,

Stöck²

2012

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discovery of the Josephson effect has for the first time given national metrology institutes (NMIs) the possibility of maintaining voltage references which are stable in time. In addition, the introduction in 1990 of a conventional value for the Josephson constant, KJ-90, has greatly improved world-wide consistency among representations of the volt. For 20 years, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) has conducted an ongoing, direct, on-site key comparison of Josephson voltage standards among NMIs under the denominations BIPM.EM-K10.a (1 V) and BIPM.EM-K10.b (10 V) in the framework of the mutual recognition arrangement (CIPM MRA). The results of 41 comparisons illustrate the consistency among primary voltage standards and have demonstrated that a relative total uncertainty of a few parts in 1010 is achievable if a few precautions are taken with regard to the measurement set-up. Of particular importance are the grounding, efficient filters and high insulation resistance of the measurement leads, and clean microwave distribution along the propagation line to the Josephson array. This paper reviews the comparison scheme and technical issues that need to be taken into account to achieve a relative uncertainty at the level of a few parts in 1010 or even a few parts in 1011 in the best cases.

show abstract

Section: Results and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…If the dynamic impedances of the capacitor and the filter inductors differ too much, parasitic leakage voltages will occur which will lead to systematic errors. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully select similar components before assembly to mount a symmetrical filter [23].…”

Section: Filters and Leakage Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

BIPM direct on-site Josephson voltage standard comparisons: 20 years of results

Solve¹,

Stöck²

2012

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A battery-operated analog nanovoltmeter 5 (NVM), EM N11, was used as a null detector to measure the voltage difference between the two cryocooled voltage standards, PJVS (1) and PJVS (2). Analog NVMs can provide a factor of two improvement in measurement noise over that of the best digital null detectors [18,19]. Analog null detectors are routinely used by BIPM in option A of the protocol of BIPM.EM-K10 key comparison framework [20].…”

Section: Comparison Measurement Setup and Synchronizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated direct comparison of two cryocooled 10 volt programmable Josephson voltage standards

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have performed direct dc comparisons between two cryocooled 10 V programmable Josephson voltage standards. Utilizing an automated synchronization scheme for the voltage reversals enables use of a high-sensitivity analog null detector on its 10 µV range. No switches or manual operations are necessary to protect the null detector from overload signals. The agreement measured between the two voltage standards at 10 V is 9 parts in 1012 with a relative combined uncertainty of 29 pV V−1 (k = 2 coverage factor). Since both systems can be operated floating from ground, various grounding configurations of the measurement circuit were investigated to evaluate possible leakage current paths to ground. Comparing the two systems under various grounding conditions enables minimization of leakage-current errors, optimization of system performance by revealing leakage-limiting components, and verification of key elements in the uncertainty budget for the measurement method.

show abstract

“…The comparison was performed from the 19th to 24th of September 2011, in the new DC Voltage Laboratory of CENAM [5], [6].…”

Section: Comparison Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Comparison of Josephson Voltage Standards at 10 V Between BIPM and CENAM

Aviles

Navarrete

Hernandez

et al. 2013

IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A direct comparison of Josephson voltage standards at 10 V between the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and the Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM), México, was carried out in September 2011. This comparison is part of the BIPM key comparisons (BIPM.EM-K10.b) and took place in the new DC Voltage Laboratory of CENAM. Both systems were very stable during the comparison, and the type "A" uncertainty was very low. The relative voltage difference between the two quantum standards was −6 parts in 10 11 (−0.6 nV), with a combined uncertainty of 7 parts in 10 11 (0.7 nV). Index Terms-DC voltage measurement, DC voltage standard measurements, Josephson voltage standard (JVS), JVS comparison, standards comparison.

show abstract

Comparison of the Josephson voltage standards of the CENAM and the BIPM (part of the ongoing BIPM key comparison BIPM.EM-K10.b)

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

BIPM direct on-site Josephson voltage standard comparisons: 20 years of results

BIPM direct on-site Josephson voltage standard comparisons: 20 years of results

Automated direct comparison of two cryocooled 10 volt programmable Josephson voltage standards

Direct Comparison of Josephson Voltage Standards at 10 V Between BIPM and CENAM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About