International comparison of iodine cells for laser length standards

Howick, Eleanor; Brown, Nicholas; Chartier, J. M.

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/33/2/7

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the CENAM1 laser the modulation width factor was determined during the comparison. As has been demonstrated in previous studies [16][17][18][19][20][21][22], it is through knowledge of such factors and coefficients that good frequency reproducibility is likely to be achieved. Tables 4 and 5 list the frequency differences between the lasers, the former containing the raw data and the latter the results obtained from the following procedure.…”

Section: Frequency Reproducibilitymentioning

confidence: 73%

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the tenth set of results of a series of grouped laser comparisons from national laboratories undertaken by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) at the request of the Consultative Committee for Length (CCL), formerly the Consultative Committee for the Definition of the Metre (CCDM), for the periods July 1993 to September 1995 and March 1997 to March 2001. As with the previous nine comparisons, this one is expected to be listed as a key comparison in the context of the ongoing BIPM.L-K10 series.The results of this comparison, involving seven lasers from four countries in the Americas and the BIPM, meet the goals set by the CCDM in 1992 and in 1997 and adopted by the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) the same year. The standard uncertainty (1 ) of the frequency of the He-Ne laser stabilized on the saturated absorption of 127 I 2 at λ 633 nm is reduced to a level of 12 kHz (2.5 parts in 10 11 ) when the lasers compared meet the recommended values of the parameters. The lasers were first compared with the BIPMP3 laser, with all the lasers set to the parameter values normally used in each laboratory; the results then ranged from -31.5 kHz to +10.0 kHz. After checking and correcting when possible the values of all the parameters, the range stayed about the same, -31.5 kHz to +9.1 kHz. Under the latter conditions, the average frequency difference of the group of seven lasers, with respect to the BIPM4 laser, was -4.4 kHz with a standard uncertainty (1 ) of 13.2 kHz. If the INMETRO2 laser, considered as a secondary laser, is removed from the group, then the average is -0.5 kHz with a standard deviation (1 ) of 9.2 kHz. The best relative frequency stabilities, with Allan standard deviations of about 9.3 10 -13 , 3.5 10 -13 and 1.4 10 -13 , were observed with sampling times of 10 s, 100 s and 1000 s, respectively. Results obtained with NRC and BIPM lasers over a period of five months in two beat-frequency laser comparisons and in an absolute frequency measurement lie within 1 kHz (2 parts in 10 12 ).

show abstract

Section: Frequency Reproducibilitymentioning

confidence: 73%

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As has been demonstrated in previous studies [22][23][24][25][26][27][28], it is through knowledge of such factors and coefficients that good frequency reproducibility is likely to be achieved.…”

Section: Frequency Reproducibilitymentioning

confidence: 73%

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at = 633 nm (September 1999). Part IX: Comparison of BEV (Austria), CMI (Czech Republic), GUM (Poland), OMH (Hungary), NIPLPR (Romania) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

Matus¹,

Balling²,

Šmíd³

et al. 2002

Metrologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the ninth set of results of a series of grouped laser comparisons from national laboratories undertaken by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) at the request of the Consultative Committee for Length (CCL), formerly the Consultative Committee for the Definition of the Metre (CCDM), for the periods July 1993 to September 1995 and March 1997 to March 2001. As with the previous eight comparisons, this one is expected to be listed as a key comparison in the context of the ongoing BIPM.L-K10 series.The results of this comparison, involving six lasers from five European countries and the BIPM, meet the goals set by the CCDM in 1992 and in 1997 and adopted by the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) the same year. The standard uncertainty (1 σ) of the frequency of the He-Ne laser stabilized on the saturated absorption of 127I2 at λ = 633 nm is reduced to a level of 12 kHz (2.5 parts in 1011) when the lasers compared meet the recommended values of the parameters.The lasers were first compared with the BIPMP3 laser, with all the lasers set to the parameter values normally used in each laboratory; the results then ranged from -97.6 kHz to +30.4 kHz. After checking and correcting when possible the values of all the parameters, the range was reduced to -16.4 kHz to +10.4 kHz. Under the latter conditions, the average frequency difference of the group of lasers, with respect to the BIPM4 laser, was 5.6 kHz with a standard uncertainty (1 σ) of 9.9 kHz. The best relative frequency stabilities, with Allan standard deviations of about 9.7 × 10-12, 6.0 × 10-13 and 2.0 × 10-13, were observed with sampling times of 1 s, 100 s and 1000 s, respectively. The overall best values were 1.0 × 10-13 and 9.0 × 10-14 for sampling times of 3000 s and 12800 s, respectively.

show abstract

“…is the slope of a linear fit to the data points and the estimated standard uncertainty (1 ) of one measurement. been demonstrated in previous studies [11,[19][20][21][22][23][24], it is through knowledge of such factors and coefficients that good frequency reproducibility is likely to be achieved. Tables 4 and 5 list the frequency differences between the lasers, the former containing the raw data and the latter the results obtained from the following procedure: for those parameters that were adjustable, the values recommended by the CIPM were adopted; otherwise, the results were evaluated by performing calculations using the coefficients listed in Table 3.…”

Section: Frequency Reproducibilitymentioning

confidence: 95%

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at = 633 nm (July 1997). Part VIII: Comparison of NIM (China), NRLM (Japan), KRISS (Republic of Korea) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

Shen¹,

Ni²,

Qian³

et al. 2001

Metrologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the eighth set of results of a series of grouped laser comparisons from national laboratories undertaken by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) at the request of the Comité Consultatif pour la Définition du Mètre (CCDM, now the Consultative Committee for Length, CCL) during the periods July 1993 to September 1995 and March 1997 to July 1997. This comparison, like the previous seven, is expected to be listed as a key comparison in the context of the ongoing BIPM.L-K10 series. The results of this comparison involving five lasers, four from three countries of the Asia-Pacific group and one from the BIPM, meet the goals set by the CCDM in 1992 and adopted by the International Committee of Weights and Measures (CIPM) the same year. The standard uncertainty (1 ) of the frequency of the He-Ne laser stabilized on the saturated absorption of 127 I 2 at λ 633 nm is reduced to the level of 12 kHz (2.5 10 -11 ) when the lasers compared meet the recommended values of the parameters.The lasers were first compared with the BIPMP3 laser, with all the lasers set to the parameter values normally used in each laboratory; the results then ranged from -112.7 kHz to +24.9 kHz. After checking and correcting the values of all the parameters and replacing a contaminated iodine cell, the range was reduced to -31.5 kHz to +14.3 kHz. Under the latter conditions, the average frequency difference of the group of lasers, with respect to the BIPM4 laser, was -1.9 kHz with a standard uncertainty (1 ) of 20.2 kHz. The best frequency stabilities, with relative Allan standard deviations of about 6.6 10 -12 , 6.0 10 -13 and 1.3 10 -13 , were observed with sampling times of 1 s, 100 s and 1000 s, respectively. The overall best value was 9.5 10 -14 for a sampling time of 6000 s.

show abstract

International comparison of iodine cells for laser length standards

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at = 633 nm (September 1999). Part IX: Comparison of BEV (Austria), CMI (Czech Republic), GUM (Poland), OMH (Hungary), NIPLPR (Romania) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at = 633 nm (July 1997). Part VIII: Comparison of NIM (China), NRLM (Japan), KRISS (Republic of Korea) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

International comparison of iodine cells for laser length standards

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with127I2at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with127I2at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with127I2at = 633 nm (September 1999). Part IX: Comparison of BEV (Austria), CMI (Czech Republic), GUM (Poland), OMH (Hungary), NIPLPR (Romania) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with127I2at = 633 nm (July 1997). Part VIII: Comparison of NIM (China), NRLM (Japan), KRISS (Republic of Korea) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at 633 nm (July 2000). Part X: Comparison of INMETRO (Brazil), INTI (Argentina), NRC-INMS (Canada), CENAM (Mexico), and BIPM lasers at 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at = 633 nm (September 1999). Part IX: Comparison of BEV (Austria), CMI (Czech Republic), GUM (Poland), OMH (Hungary), NIPLPR (Romania) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm

International comparisons of He-Ne lasers stabilized with¹²⁷I₂at = 633 nm (July 1997). Part VIII: Comparison of NIM (China), NRLM (Japan), KRISS (Republic of Korea) and BIPM lasers at = 633 nm