[time-nuts] any way to bootstrap a frequency standard into a, voltage or resistance standard?

[WB6BNQ]

Ed,

No way in hell does that thing qualify as a voltage standard.  It barely qualifies as a VERY short term transfer device assuming the temperature does not change.

If you want a real voltage reference then buy, from eBay, a Fluke 731B voltage standard.  You will still need to get it calibrated, but then it will hold under 10ppm for well over a year or
more.  Actually, if they are adjusted correctly, you can get less than 5ppm and it will hold it at a given temperature.  These items are serious devices and their latest versions (very expensive)
are better than a properly maintained and operated group of standard cells.

I completely disagree with Brian about buying any standard cells.  Whatever voltage value they had is lost upon shipment.  Shaking the cells changes the value and it will not return to the
original value.  If you did have a set of cells, you would want at least 4 of them.  Then study statistical math all over again because you will need it to use the cells.

As Brian does suggest, you would be much better off picking up a hp3456A, 3457A, 3458A or getting one of Fluke 8500 series if it has the Ohms and AC options included.  The basic Fluke 8500 series
is DC only mainframe.

Measuring your resistors, using one of the above DVMs, in the 4-wire mode is about the best you could possibly do.  To do any better would require some very serious effort.

By the way you could buy several of the latest and greatest Fluke super DVMs for the cost of what it would take to do a Josephson array and still have money left over to fund that divorce.

Bill....WB6BNQ


Ed Palmer wrote:

> It's nowhere near the idea of a Josephson array, but if a NIST-traceable 10V +-10uV reference is good enough to satisfy your voltage-nut urges, you can buy it from www.gellerlabs.com for $35.
>
> I also have a few standard resistors (e.g. 1.000002 ohms) that I'd be interested in calibrating, but I can't seem to come up with a practical way of doing it.
>
> Frustrating, isn't it? :-)
>
> Ed