Comparison of the NIST and NRC Josephson voltage standards (SIM.EM.BIPM-K10.b)

Abstract

A comparison between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Research Council (NRC) Josephson voltage standards (JVS) was carried out at the NRC from 13 August to 17 August 2007. The comparison was made at the 10 V level. It was a two-way direct JVS comparison, which means that the NIST JVS provided a voltage at 10 V and was measured against the NRC JVS with NRC's measuring system (hardware and software). The comparison was repeated by using the NIST JVS measuring system to measure a voltage at 10 V provided by the NRC JVS. The results from the two comparisons were consistent. The difference between the NIST CJVS and the NRC JVS is −0.28 nV with an expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of 2.07 nV at 10 V or 2.07 parts in 1010.Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCEM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).

The watt or Kibble balance: a technique for implementing the new SI definition of the unit of mass

“…This is often verified by comparison against another Josephson voltage reference [ 53 , 132 – 134 ].…”

“…Resistor The resistor must be measured against a QHR and this can be used to verify the stability of the resistor as described in section 3.4.2. Josephson voltage reference This is often verified by comparison against another Josephson voltage reference [53,[132][133][134]. Voltmeter The operation of the voltmeter can be checked using the Josephson voltage reference.…”

Bilateral comparison of dc voltage at 10 V between UTE and INMETRO

“…Three key-comparisons, linked to the above mentioned ones were performed in the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) Regional Metrology Organization, so far: the SIM.EM.BIPM-K11.b (in 2006, using Zeners for an indirect on-site comparison, resulting in 4.32 parts in 10 9 of expanded uncertainty, k=2) [5], the SIM.EM.BIPM-K10.b (in 2007, in a direct on-site JVS comparison, reaching 2.07 parts in 10 10 of expanded uncertainty, k=2) [6] and the SIM.EM.BIPM-K10.b.1 (in 2009, in a direct on-site JVS comparison, reaching 1.48 parts in 10 10 of expanded uncertainty, k=2) [7]. There are no records of off-site indirect (via Zeners) JVS key-comparison within the SIM, like the most recent one, performed between the BIPM and the KEBS (Kenya), in 2017 (BIPM.EM-K11.a&b, which resulted in 1.55 parts in 10 7 of expanded uncertainty, k=2) [8].…”