GULFMET key comparison of DC voltage at 1.018 V and 10 V

Yang, Steven; Tsui, CM; Solve, S; Kim, Kyu‐Tae; Calija, Srdan; Bartholomew, J G; Alrobaish, Abdullah M

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/57/1a/01012

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to strengthen the link of the results of an RMO comparison (GULFMET.EM.BIPM-K11) to BIPM.EM-K11, BIPM measured the two travelling transfer standards (Fluke 732B) on two occasions during the comparison loop. Furthermore, the sensitivity coefficients of the transfer standards to atmospheric pressure changes were measured and the results compared to the ones determined by the pilot laboratory [11]. They are reported in figure 12 and show an agreement of all the coefficients to the uncertainty at k = 2.…”

Section: Pressure Sensitivity Coefficientsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The BIPM has been piloting this ongoing comparison since 1992 with a total of 25 participants. The BIPM also provides support to similar comparisons organised by the regional metrology organisations (RMO) [10,11] to enhance the link to BIPM.EM-K11.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In fact, a power outage during the shipment process of the travelling standards can result in a step change in both voltage outputs, due to a change in the resistor values of the resistor divider and/or the intrinsic value of the Zener element. In the case of the recent GULFMET RMO comparison [11], it was reported that a power failure on one of the ZVSs led to a step change of −3.9 µV V −1 and −0.78 µV V −1 from the predicted voltage values for the 1.018 V and 10 V outputs, respectively. The final comparison results were thus detrimentally affected by these sudden changes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metrology of Zener-based secondary voltage standards

Chayramy¹,

Yang²,

Power³

et al. 2021

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) has been carefully maintaining Zener diode secondary voltage standards (ZVS) for about 30 years, which are used in an ongoing international bilateral comparison program with national metrology institutes. The output voltages of the standards are corrected for their sensitivity to parameters such as their internal temperature (relative to the thermistor resistance of the Zener's oven) and atmospheric pressure. In 2016 and 2017, these sensitivity coefficients were redetermined. The corresponding corrections vary between −7 parts in 10 7 kΩ −1 to +6 parts in 10 7 kΩ −1 , and from +8 parts in 10 10 hPa −1 to +2 parts in 10 9 hPa −1 , respectively. In the worst case, the combination of the effect of temperature and pressure are comparable to the 1 f −1 noise floor of these standards (considered to be 1 part in 10 8 at the BIPM). Most of the sensitivity coefficients have not changed since their previous determination in 1998-2002 which seems to indicate that they are intrinsic characteristics of the ZVS, which are dependent upon the properties of the physical support of the Zener element itself (pressure sensitivity) and the intrinsic behaviour of the internal thermistor (temperature sensitivity). As a follow-up to the determination of the new sensitivity coefficients, the reproducibility of the ZVS calibration was also investigated, using three different and independent measurement setups, each built around a different and independent Josephson voltage standard. The metrological performance of the three primary setups were demonstrated to have an agreement of between 2 × 10 −10 and 1 × 10 −11 when compared directly. The comparison results of the calibration of the BIPM ZVS showed that most artefacts reach an agreement of a few parts in 10 9 while a very few can exhibit a considerable systematic error comparable to the 1 f −1 noise, which we suspect is due to a nonzero current from the measuring system flowing through the input impedance of the standard.

show abstract

Section: Pressure Sensitivity Coefficientsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation