N Brown et al 2000 Metrologia 37 107 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/37/2/2
N Brown, E Jaatinen, H Suh, E Howick, G Xu, I Veldman, A Chartier and J-M Chartier
Show affiliationsThis paper reports the fifth 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 period July 1993 to September 1995.
The results of this comparison, involving six lasers from five countries and the BIPM, meet the goals set by the CCDM in 1992 and adopted by the Comité International des Poids et Mesures (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 or the CSIRO1 lasers, with all the lasers set to the parameter values normally used in each laboratory; the results ranged from -48.3 kHz to 13.8 kHz. After checking and readjusting the values of all the parameters, the range was reduced to -14.7 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 -0.5 kHz with a standard uncertainty (1 σ) of 8.5 kHz. The best relative frequency stabilities, with Allan standard deviations of about 3.5 parts in 1012 and 3.5 parts in 1013, were observed with sampling times of 8 s and 2048 s, respectively.
42.55.Lt Gas lasers including excimer and metal-vapor lasers
42.60.Lh Efficiency, stability, gain, and other operational parameters
Issue 2 (April 2000)
N Brown et al 2000 Metrologia 37 107
Richard F Katz et al 2005 New J. Phys. 7 37
M B Stone et al 2007 New J. Phys. 9 31
B Hage et al 2007 New J. Phys. 9 227
J Silcock and A Goscinski 1999 Distrib. Syst. Engng. 6 121
Thomas L Curtright and Cosmas K Zachos 2002 New J. Phys. 4 83
S Crosby et al 2007 New J. Phys. 9 285
S Castelletto et al 2004 New J. Phys. 6 87
M Van den Nest et al 2007 New J. Phys. 9 204
Ramesh Narayan 2005 New J. Phys. 7 199