NISTIR 8046

Calibration of thin-film platinum 

sensors for use in the JILA Sr II Clock

Weston L. Tew

Travis L. Nicholson 

Ross B. Huston 

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8046
NISTIR 8046 

Calibration of thin-film platinum 

sensors for use in the JILA Sr II Clock

Weston L. Tew

Sensor Science Division

Physical Measurement Laboratory

Travis L. Nicholoson

Ross. B. Huston

JILA, University of Colorado

Boulder, CO

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8046

March 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 
Page ii

Table of Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................................vi

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................1

2 Experimental Descriptions....................................................................................................................................4

2.1 The NIST Gaithersburg Temperature Calibration Facility...........................................................................4

2.2 Procedures....................................................................................................................................................4

3 Calibration Results................................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Primary Sensors ...........................................................................................................................................8

3.2 Base Sensors ..............................................................................................................................................14

3.3 Immersion Errors .......................................................................................................................................17

3.4 Use of the Base Sensors for Correcting Immersion Errors ........................................................................19

4 Discussion and Uncertainties..............................................................................................................................21

4.1 Primary Sensors .........................................................................................................................................21

4.2 Base Sensors ..............................................................................................................................................27

4.3 Pressure dependence under vacuum conditions .........................................................................................28

4.4 Uncertainty Curves.....................................................................................................................................29

4.5 Deviation of T90 from thermodynamic temperature ...................................................................................31

5 Sr II Installation and Results...............................................................................................................................32

5.1 Shipping and installation............................................................................................................................32

5.2 Removing heat sources and sinks...............................................................................................................32

5.3 Measuring temperature gradients...............................................................................................................33

5.4 Sensor agreement .......................................................................................................................................33

6 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................................................34

Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................................35

References ...................................................................................................................................................................36
Page iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Probe and sensor identifying information.

Table 2. Summary of zero-power resistance data for the primary sensors # 13 and # 14. All resistances 

are in Ohms, all temperatures are in °C.

Table 3. Summary of 1 mA resistance and temperature data for the base sensors , #15 and #16. All 

resistances are in Ohms, and temperatures in °C.

Table 4. Summary of the self-heating coefficients  for the two primary sensors #13 and #14. The units 

for  are mK/W and °C for temperature.

Table 5a. Helium calibration parameters for the primary sensors according to Equation 1 using zeropower resistances and fitting all three parameters.

Table 5b. Helium calibration parameters for the primary sensors using W(t) -1 and zero-power 

resistances fitting A & B parameters only.

Table 6a. 1 mA Calibration coefficients for the two TF base sensors.

Table 6b. 0 mA Calibration coefficients for the two TF base sensors.

Table 7. The 0 mA Calibration coefficients for the two WW base sensors.

Table 8. Least-squares fitting estimates for the linear immersion error coefficients for the two probes. The 

Cmn are the immersion error coefficients and n are ad hoc offset parameters.

Table 9. Recommended values and standard uncertainties for the linear immersion error coefficients and 

offset parameters for the two probes.

Table 10. Summary of non-parametric uncertainties for the primary and base sensors.
Page iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. The JILA sensor test chamber. a) showing the water-tight shroud covering the probe 1 base and 

b) showing the chamber in cross section along the mid-plane including the sensor probes. The 

approximate location of the bath water line is shown as the horizontal blue line ‘W’.

Figure 2. The setup showing the test chamber immersed in the water comparison bath with the SPRTs.

Figure 3. Self-heating plots for both primary sensors at 25 °C under 2 Torr (270 Pa) He, 7 Torr (930 Pa) 

Ar, and vacuum (< 110-7 Torr (1.310-5 Pa)) from Series 2.

Figure 4. Deviations of the primary and base sensor resistance calibration data and curve fits from the 

nominal IEC curve for a Pt100 thermometer. IEC class AA tolerance bands are shown for comparison.

Figure 5. Fit residuals to Eqn. 1 for the two primary sensors. The error bars represent standard statistical 

(i.e. nominally random) uncertainty only.

Figure 6a. Fit residuals to Eqn. 1 for the two TF base sensors m=15, 16 for both 1 mA and 0 mA data. 

The error bars represent standard statistical (i.e. nominally random) uncertainty only. The 27 °C and 

40 °C data were excluded from the 1 mA fit.

Figure 6b. Fit residuals to Eqn. 1 for the two WW base sensors, m=17, 18 for 0 mA data. The error bars 

represent standard statistical (i.e. nominally random) uncertainty only.

Figure 7. The complete set of immersion errors in Ohms versus the axial gradients tm  tbath for both He 

and Ar data.

Figure 8. Linear portions of the Immersion Error curves for the vacuum and helium data.

Figure 9. Primary sensor transient response to step changes in the self-heating power under helium 

exchange gas. Each point is 90 s = 0.001 d. Fluctuations are due to bath temperature instability of ±1 mK.

Figure 10. Primary sensor transient response to step changes in the self-heating power under vacuum.

The increase of 0.5 m (1.3 mK) on the return to the base power level of 4 W is due to drift in room 

temperature during the elapsed 1.9 h.

Figure 11. Self-heating coefficients of the primary sensors in helium, argon and vacuum.

Figure 12. Axial coordinates for the probe immersions. Note the coordinate x is negative for upward 

displacements. The difference in the effective immersion lengths L for the two probes is exaggerated, but 

deliberate (see text).

Figure 13. Relationship for the system pressure and internal test chamber pressure.

Figure 14. The equilibration of the primary sensors during a pump out from helium to vacuum.

Figure 15a. Standard uncertainty components and combined total uncertainties in measured temperature 

t13 when using probe 1 with the n=13 sensor to determine temperature in the Sr II vacuum chamber.

Figure 15b. Standard uncertainty components and combined total uncertainties in measured temperature 

t14 when using probe 2 with the n=14 sensor to determine temperature in the Sr II vacuum chamber.
Page v

Figure 16. The sensors inside the Sr II chamber. Here heat sources and sinks have been removed and 

passive temperature stabilization is employed to make the temperature uniform inside the chamber. The 

standard deviation of the data (shown as a gray confidence band in the plot) indicates that the ambient 

temperature is stable to ±130 mK

Figure 17. The difference between the long and short sensors. The measured difference between the 

sensors is within their combined uncertainty of ±12 mK.
Page vi

Calibration of thin-film platinum sensors for use in the JILA Sr II Clock

W. L. Tew1, T. L. Nicholson2and R. B. Hutson2

1Sensor Science Division, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD

2

JILA, U. Colorado, Boulder, CO

Prepared For: Dr. Jun Ye, Fellow

JILA / NIST Quantum Physics Division

University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Abstract

Thin -film platinum resistance thermometers (TFPRTs) have been calibrated on the International 

Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90) for the purposes of determining temperatures inside the 

JILA Sr II Optical Lattice Clock vacuum chamber. The calibration concerns the use of a special 

test chamber for two high-vacuum immersion probes with two TFPRTs each. The data are 

presented as a function of temperature, self-heating power, exchange gas / vacuum pressure, and 

axial gradients. We report the procedures, results, and analysis for these calibrations and estimate 

the resulting uncertainties for transferring the calibrations and correction equations to the Sr II 

chamber.

Keywords: Temperature calibration; thin-film platinum resistance thermometers; ultra-high 

vacuum; ITS-90; thermometry; optical lattice atomic clocks; black body radiatio
Page 1

Introduction

The Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA) has a requirement for determining the 

temperature under ultra-high vacuum (UHV) conditions as part of the efforts there to improve 

optical lattice clocks based on arrays of Sr atoms. The Jun Ye group at JILA has developed a 

new optical lattice clock, the Sr II [1], for this purpose which utilizes a set of Si diode-based 

temperature probes. The purpose of the probes is to determine the ambient electromagnetic field, 

due to the blackbody radiation (BBR) emitted by the UHV chamber, that interacts with the Sr 

atoms. The BBR interaction creates a systematic bias in the atomic transition frequency upon 

which the clock is based, an effect that limits many of the best atomic clocks. Determining the 

BBR field presents certain challenges for any thermal radiation detector due to the relatively 

weak coupling that exists via BBR at only 300 K. While Si diodes offer certain advantages in 

radiance responsivity, other measurement systematics concerning reproducibility, self-heating 

and traceability are less favorable. This has led to an iteration of the probe design where thin film 

platinum resistance thermometers (TFPRTs) replace the Si diodes. This report provides a 

detailed account of how these new probes have been calibrated for use in the JILA Sr II optical 

lattice clock.

Two new sensor probes have been constructed by JILA for use in the Sr II vacuum chamber. The 

two probes are constructed from borosilicate glass tubing with a 7 mm diameter and a 1 mm wall 

thickness. Both ends of the tubing are sealed for use under UHV conditions in the Sr II vacuum 

chamber. One end (the ‘base’) of the glass tubing is sealed against a 6.35 mm OD stainless steel 

(SS) tube extension which is welded into a 34 mm diameter ‘Conflat’ flange (133CF). The other 

end of the glass tubing is sealed and terminated with a small 2 mm diameter glass rod which 

serves as a mounting surface for a TFPRT. The two sensor probes are designed with different 

overall lengths. Probe #1 is approximately 81 mm in length from the sensor mount point to the 

interior side of the 133CF while Probe #2 is approximately 144 mm between the same points 

respectively.

The TFPRT sensors were chosen from a batch of 100  (R(0 °C) ) commercial type C416

sensors manufactured by Heraeus Sensor Technology1[2] and conforming to IEC 60751, class 

B [3]. This model was chosen based on communications with Heraeus engineers which indicated 

that the type C416 was functionally equivalent to an earlier Heraeus type from circa 2004 then 

identified as ‘M-FX420’. That type TFPRT was successfully used by a group at the National 

Physical Laboratory (NPL) for satellite black body thermometry in 2004 [4]. In that work, an Ice 

Melting Point (IMP, 273.15 K) reproducibility of ±5 mK (limits for 8 out of 8 specimens) was 

reported under thermal cycling between -75 °C and 130 °C.

Prequalification tests were run at JILA on a sample size of 11 of the type C416 TFPRTs by 

determining IMP reproducibility under thermal cycling between 0 °C and 200 °C. Of those eight, 

 

1 Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the 

experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment 

identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Page 2

six exhibited reproducibility within limits of ±20 mK, two of those exhibited reproducibility of 

±6 mK, one exhibited reproducibility of ±2 mK, and one exhibited reproducibility of ±0.5 mK. 

The most reproducible type C416s were identified as sensors #1 and #3. The ±0.5 mK

reproducibility TFPRT was mounted on the short probe (described above), and the ±2 mK

reproducibility TFPRT was mounted on the long probe. We refer to these two TFPRTs as the 

‘primary sensors’ with indices n=13,14. Other sensors, to be described later, are designated as 

‘base sensors’ and were also calibrated for use with these probes. Table 1 lists the basic 

identifying information for each of the two probes as calibrated at NIST Gaithersburg.

Table 1. Probe and sensor identifying information.

Probe 

index i

JILA Test 

Sensor #

Nominal Length NIST Primary Sensor 

Identification index (n)

NIST Base Sensor 

Identification index (m)

1 1 81 mm 13 15, 17

2 3 144 mm 14 16, 18

A test chamber was designed and constructed at JILA for the purposes of transport under 

vacuum and calibrating the two probes at NIST Gaithersburg. The test chamber is shown in 

Figures 1a and 1b. The design was dictated by several requirements: a) provide a reasonably 

compact volume with a limiting diameter of less than 178 mm for use in a water comparison bath 

in Gaithersburg; b) keep the two sensors in close proximity while accommodating the different 

glass tube lengths; c). provide as deep immersion below the water bath surface as practical; d) 

accommodate ultra-high-vacuum (UHV) practice; and e) allow the backfill of partial pressures of 

heat-exchange gas and pressure gauging. The test chamber was supplied with a Varian type 24 

nude ion gauge and a 38 mm diameter bakeable UHV valve, both terminated with 71 mm CF 

flanges. Prior to transport, the test chamber was baked out and pumped down at JILA to a 

pressure of 3×10-10 Torr (4×10-8 Pa).

W
Page 3

Figure 1. The JILA sensor test chamber. a) showing the water-tight shroud covering the probe 1 base and 

b) showing the chamber in cross section along the mid-plane including the sensor probes. The 

approximate location of the bath water line is shown as the horizontal blue line ‘W’.

The test chamber was hand carried on a commercial flight and by car, arriving at NIST 

Gaithersburg on 7-May-2014, and testing began that same day. Prior to opening the UHV valve, 

the internal pressure was measured using an ion gauge controller borrowed from the NIST 

Pressure and Vacuum (P&V) Group, with settings adjusted for the Varian 24 ion gauge. Those 

readings indicated an internal total pressure of 4×10-4 Torr (5.3×10-2 Pa) at 273.15 K, using 

either of the two filaments. Based on discussions with NIST P&V group staff [5], the increase in 

chamber pressure (presumably from hydrogen outgassing) over approximately two days during 

transport without pumping was judged to be not unusual for a stainless steel chamber of this size 

and construction.
Page 4

Experimental Descriptions

The NIST Gaithersburg Temperature Calibration Facility

The NIST Sensor Science Division (SSD), Thermodynamic Metrology Group (TMG) maintains 

a series of laboratories on the Gaithersburg, MD Campus for thermometer testing, calibration, 

and research. The JILA SrII sensor probes were calibrated in the TMG’s industrial thermometer 

calibration laboratory, located in building 221, room A242. This laboratory is equipped with 

Standard Platinum Resistance Thermometers (SPRTs), various precision controlled comparison

baths, resistance and voltage instrumentation, and associated standards [6]. 

The primary sensors were calibrated as received in the test chamber by comparison with a NIST 

reference SPRT and a check SPRT in a water comparison bath. Two SPRTs were used to 

determine the bath temperature. The reference thermometer, serial number 4386, and check 

thermometer, serial number 4388, have both been calibrated according to ITS-90 definitions [7] 

in the TMG’s SPRT calibration laboratory [8]. The water comparison bath is a special deep-well 

custom-designed forced-circulation bath built by Hart Scientific for NIST with a 42 L working 

volume. It is similar to a current commercial design, model 7007 sold by Fluke Calibration. This 

bath can maintain stable temperatures within ±2 mK and non-uniformity < 2 mK. 

The SPRTs and all test sensor resistances were determined using a MicroK 70 precision 

thermometry bridge built by Isothermal Technology Ltd [9,10], excitation currents were variable 

from 0.2 mA to 0.707 mA for the primary sensors and 0.5 mA to 1.0 mA for the base sensors. 

The resistance standard was a 100  Tinsley model 5685A, serial number 280167. This standard 

was calibrated against other standards maintained by the TMG which in turn have been 

calibrated by the NIST Quantum Measurement Division traceable to the Quantum Hall Ohm.

Procedures

The primary calibration/test period started on May 7 2014 and ended on May 29, 2014. The 

experimental test conditions underwent adjustments during the test period and the corresponding 

testing activities are divided into three segments identified as ‘Series 1’, ‘Series 2’, and 

‘Series 3’. After return of the test chamber to JILA, a separate calibration process was performed 

to calibrate two TFPRT base sensors (Series 4) from May 30 2014 to June 5 2014. Another 

supplemental calibration was performed much later, in October 2014, to calibrate a pair of wirewound PRTs (Series 5) in order to replace those TFPRT base sensors. The experimental 

uncertainties shown from this point forward are standard (k=1) values.

2.2.1 Series 1

Measurements performed prior to opening the test chamber UHV valve and the final installation 

of the base sensors are referred to as ‘Series 1’. No useful data were obtained from this series of 

measurements since the pressures were too high and the axial thermal gradients were not always 

known. 

An attempt was made to perform a direct Ice Melting Point (IMP) realization by immersion of 

the test chamber in a crushed ice-water bath. This attempt was abandoned once it was understood 

that a stable condition could not be achieved due to significant immersion errors which tracked 

the room temperature variations (see section 3.3). Some measurements were then attempted 
Page 5

using the water comparison bath at 15 °C, (Figure 2) which showed some improvement in 

stability, but also showed a significant influence from variations in the laboratory’s ambient 

temperature.

As a temporary modification, to determine the base temperatures, sensors were glued down onto 

the external surfaces of the 133CF base flanges of each sensor probe. These ‘base sensors’ were 

selected at random from a small collection of Heraeus type C220 class B sensors on hand in 

Gaithersburg, with no prior calibration. An ex-post facto calibration was performed to improve 

the base temperature uncertainty (‘Series 4’, see section 2.2.4).

Prior to opening the valve, the total chamber pressure was again measured using the Varian 24 

ion gauge, indicating 6×10-4 Torr (8×10-2 Pa) at 20 °C on May 9. Significant heating of the test 

chamber was observed during use of the Varian 24 ion gauge. It was decided that this gauge 

could not be used to routinely monitor the chamber pressure and that other ion gauges would be 

used which were situated farther from the chamber.

2.2.2 Series 2

The series 2 measurements were performed from May 12 to 17, after the test chamber vacuum 

was established and a more permanent installation of the base sensors. The two base sensors 

were remounted onto cylindrical copper foils designed to fit into inner diameter of the 6.35 mm

OD SS tube extensions of the 133CF flanges at the base of each of the two sensor probes. The 

corresponding base sensors are identified in Table 1. In addition, a pair of 3 mm diameter nylon 

rods were furnished by JILA with cotton bonded to about half of their lengths and these were 

inserted into the reentrant portions of the 

atmosphere side of the glass tubes in each of the 

probes in order to suppress convection.

A turbomolecular pumping system was connected 

to the chamber via a 914 mm length of 25 mm 

diameter flexible SS hose and the UHV valve port 

(see Figure 2). A glass-encapsulated ion gauge

located on the pumping system near the inlet of the 

turbo pump was used for routine readings of the 

system pressure. The difference between the 

chamber pressure (Varian 24 Nude Ion Gauge) and 

the system pressure was determined later under 

steady-state pumping conditions. The UHV valve 

was opened for the first time on May 12 and the 

test chamber was evacuated overnight using the 

turbo pumping system. The final experimental 

setup is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The setup showing the test chamber 

immersed in the water comparison bath with the 

SPRTs.
Page 6

Starting from May 13, all sensor readings corresponding to ‘vacuum’ conditions would be 

initiated once the system ion gauge indicated a pressure ≲1×10-7 Torr (1.3×10-5 Pa). The normal 

procedure for a set of measurements at a fixed calibration temperature was as follows:

1. Establish the test chamber pressure of ≲1×10-7 Torr (1.3×10-5 Pa).

2. Log ‘vacuum’ data for two SPRTs, two primary sensors and two base sensors. SPRTs 

and base sensor currents were held at fixed excitation current of at 1 mA. Primary 

sensors were measured at 0.2 mA, 0.5 mA, 0.707 mA and then repeating 0.2 mA, 

corresponding to 4.3 W, 27 W and 54 W, waiting approximately 1 h for 

equilibration after each change in sensor current.

3. Introduce an exchange gas of argon or helium into the chamber at an indicated pressure 

of ≈ 3 Torr (400 Pa), then wait ≈ 1 h for re-equilibration.

4. Again, log ‘Ar’ or ‘He’ data for two SPRTs, two primary sensors and two base sensors. 

Primary sensors were similarly measured at 0.2 mA, 0.5 mA, 0.707 mA and then 

repeating 0.2 mA, corresponding to 4.3 W, 27 W and 54 W, waiting approximately 

0.5 h to 1 h for equilibration after each change in sensor current.

5. If a single measurement set involved taking data for both argon and helium exchange 

gas conditions in a single day, the helium backfill was done before the argon and the 

chamber was re-evacuated between backfills. The reasoning for this was that a small 

amount of helium contamination in the argon should have relatively little effect of the 

effective thermal conductivity of the argon, while the converse situation would be more 

noticeable due to collisions by the helium atoms with the much heavier argon 

impurities.

6. Re-evacuate the chamber overnight and adjust the bath temperature for the next-day 

calibration.

The exchange-gas pressure was monitored with a Lesker type 910 wide-range combination 

Pirani-Piezo pressure gauge using a nominal calibration curve adjusted for N2 gas. Therefore for 

a nominal indicated gauge reading of 3 Torr (400 Pa), the actual chamber pressure for argon 

would be closer to 7 Torr (930 Pa) and about 2 Torr (270 Pa) for helium. In either case, these 

pressures were judged sufficiently high to serve as a basis for strong thermal coupling to the 

water bath and establishing isothermal conditions inside the chamber at a known temperature (as 

determined by the SPRTs). A more accurate knowledge of the gas pressures is not necessary. 

Both the Ar and He gas supply cylinders contained nominally 99.995 % purity gas. In practice 

there was some evidence of contamination of the gases, particularly the helium with other 

heavier species, either air or argon. This may have been due to inadequate purge and flush 

procedures in the gas manifold.

The Series 2 measurements comprised calibration data at nominal temperatures of 20 °C, 25 °C, 

30 °C, and 35 °C. Data were obtained using both Ar and He exchange gas, except for the 20 °C 

point, which only included argon and did not include helium.

2.2.3 Series 3

The series 3 measurements were performed from May 23 to 29, at nominal calibration 

temperatures of 20 °C, 22 °C, 24 °C, 25 °C and 27 °C. The set up and procedures closely 

followed those established for the earlier Series 2 measurements, with only two exceptions: 
Page 7

a) the 0.5 mA primary sensor current was usually skipped as it was deemed unnecessary; and 

b) only helium exchange gas was used.

Other more subtle differences in the Series 3 measurements were improvements in the ambient 

laboratory temperature stability and additional insulation used at the top opening to the water 

bath. In the former case, access to the laboratory was restricted and the overhead lights were kept 

off whenever measurements were underway (May 27-29), keeping the ambient conditions 

generally within ±0.1 °C during the course of a day. In the latter case, the improved insulation 

would have reduced the vertical gradients near the surface of the water bath, but there are no 

measurements to verify if any reduction was achieved.

2.2.4 Series 4

The series 4 measurements were supplemental to the primary sensor calibrations and undertaken 

only to perform a simple calibration on the two TFPRT base sensors, identified with indices 

m=15, 16. Calibration data between 0°C and 45 °C were obtained from May 30 to June 6 using 

the same equipment as used in the earlier measurement series, except that the base sensors were 

mounted into 8 mm OD glass test tubes for water bath and ice bath immersion.

2.2.5 Series 5

An additional series of supplemental measurements were made to calibrate an extra pair of base 

sensors identified by indices m=17, 18. These sensors were 100  wire-wound (WW) PRTs

made from high-purity Pt wire which conformed to a different specification [11] than the TF 

types. The calibration data for this series were obtained from 15 to 17 October over the range 

0.01 °C to 35 °C in Building 221, Room B217 on the Gaithersburg campus using different 

equipment from the earlier series of measurements. 

All measurements in this series were made using a miniature 11 mm OD aluminum comparison 

block within a close-fitting 13 mm OD glass tube. Both WW PRTs were co-located inside the 

aluminum block along with a 25.5  capsule-type SPRT, s/n 3368, calibrated on the ITS-90. The 

tube was immersed inside the well of a WTP cell for measurements at 0.01 °C and immersed 

within an actively-controlled stirred-oil bath for the comparison measurements from 15 °C to 

35 °C. All resistance readings were made using an AC resistance bridge using a 30 Hz carrier 

relative to a calibrated standard resistor maintained at 25 °C. Measurement currents were varied 

between 1 mA and 2 mA and resistances extrapolated to 0 mA for calibration purposes.
Page 8

Calibration Results

Primary Sensors

The first feature of importance in the data is the variable self-heating of the sensors, which varied 

(qualitatively) as expected according to the test chamber pressure conditions over the Joule 

heating rates from 4 W to 57 W. Figure 3 shows self-heating data obtained at 25 °C for 

vacuum, 2 Torr He (270 Pa) and 7 Torr (930 Pa) Ar.

Figure 3. Self-heating plots for both primary sensors at 25 °C under 2 Torr (270 Pa) He, 7 Torr (930 Pa) 

Ar, and vacuum (< 110-7 Torr (1.310-5 Pa)) from Series 2.

All primary sensor calibration data are extrapolated to zero-power resistance using the selfheating curves like the one shown in Figure 3. The fact that there is a significant offset between 

the zero power resistance under vacuum and under exchange gas conditions is an indication of 

the influence of ambient temperature as a thermal perturbation under vacuum conditions. In fact 

it was found that this offset between vacuum and helium conditions varied linearly with the 

difference between ambient temperature and the calibration bath temperature, and also in 

proportion to the base temperature-bath temperature difference (i.e. the ‘axial gradient’). This is 

because the base flange temperatures, as indicated by the base sensors, would always passively 

equilibrate to a temperature intermediate between the bath temperature and ambient temperature. 

In either case, the effect can be explained as a normal consequence of imperfect immersion and 

will be discussed in more detail below.

109.73

109.735

109.74

109.745

109.75

109.755

109.76

109.765

109.77

109.775

109.78

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

R / Ohms

power / W

R_13 Vac

R_14 Vac

R_13 Ar

R_14 Ar

R_13 He

R_14 He

13 mK
Page 9

The reproducibility of the 0.2 mA ( ≈ 4.5 W power) vacuum data were limited by drift in the 

ambient laboratory temperature during the measurements due to the immersion error offsets.

These offsets have been correlated with the axial gradients for each probe and are treated below 

(section 3.3) and in section 4.1.2. In contrast, the helium data reproducibility was limited only by 

the bath temperature stability and showed no dependence on ambient temperature drift or 

fluctuations. The argon data were less reproducible than the helium data and appeared to be 

limited by both water bath temperature and ambient temperature fluctuations. This observation 

led to the discontinuation of argon exchange gas after series 2 was completed in favor of 

exclusive use of helium thereafter.

The slopes of the self-heating curves were remarkably similar between the two probes for

constant conditions in the test chamber. These slopes were also reasonably independent of bath 

temperature, ambient temperature, and axial gradients. A conventional term for the slope is the 

‘self-heating coefficient’,, which is equivalent to an effective thermal resistance for a heat 

transfer network of series and parallel resistances.

Table 2 provides a summary of the zero-power resistance calibration data for the primary sensors 

#13 and #14. Table 3 lists a summary of the associated 1 mA resistance data for the base sensors 

#15 and #16. The base sensor data are averages taken over the same time periods as the vacuum 

data for the primary sensors. Table 4 is a summary of the self-heating data associated with the 

two primary sensors, including  values for all vacuum, argon and helium data. In all cases the 

standard uncertainty s is derived from the normal statistical variance alone.

The helium data were used as the basis for the calibrations of the two primary sensors. A 3-

parameter mild-quadratic function R(t) for resistance as a function of temperature t (in °C) is 

used to fit the data and then re-parameterized equivalent to the IEC industrial PRT specification 

[3],

R(t) = R0(1 + At + Bt

2

). (1)

Since R0 can be determined with much greater relative precision than A and B, there is no real 

loss in precision by factoring out R0 from the other two coefficients.

Table 5a lists the calibration fit parameters and associated uncertainties for the two primary 

sensors when fitting all three parameters in Eqn. 1. When these estimated standard errors are 

used as uncertainties, however, they grossly overestimate the interpolation uncertainty when 

using Eqn. 1 or its inverse to calculate temperature. The normal procedure for PRT calibration is 

to obtain R0 independently as a fixed point realization, use it to reparameterize the data as ratios 

WR(t)/R0, and then fit W-1 for the remaining parameters. This procedure results in much lower 

estimated errors in A and B, but it is not available in this case since IMP realizations were found 

to be impractical using the test chamber. The solution is to take the estimated R0 values from the 

first unconstrained fits of R(t), and then refit the data in W-1 constrained so that the intercept 

W(0)-1=0. The resulting estimated coefficients are shown in Table 5b. The A and B coefficients 

are essentially equivalent to their previous estimates (well within the new smaller error 

estimates), but with much lower estimated errors, and also nearly equivalent between the two 

sensors. This is an acceptable practice as long as R0 is not intended to provide interpolation near 

0 °C. Rather, in this case its role is that of a scaling parameter for the resistance unit and hence is 
Page 10

known to a much lower uncertainty than the ≈ 50  given in Table 5a. (see section 4.1.4

under Discussion)

Figure 4 shows the deviation of the primary sensors’ calibrations with respect to the IEC nominal 

specification in terms of a temperature-equivalent difference in resistance. The primary sensors 

would qualify as IEC class AA tolerance over this limited range despite the fact that the sensors 

are categorized as Class B (Class B=3Class AA). These deviations from the nominal IEC curve 

range from 41 mK to 64 mK and are highly correlated between the two sensors. A closer look at 

the degree of correlation in the sensor data is shown in Figure 5 which is a plot of the residuals 

for both sensor fits to Eqn. 1. The correlation coefficient for the two sets of residuals is 0.99989

and the residuals are all within ±1.2 mK. The origin of the correlation is most likely due to 

temperature transients and or spatial gradients in the water bath which are in phase for the two 

primary sensors. Both sets of coefficients, either from Table 5a or Table 5b, yield practically 

identical residuals.
Page 11

Table 2. Summary of zero-power resistance data for the primary sensors # 13 and # 14. All resistances are in Ohms, all temperatures are in °C.

Date Ser. Tbath s(Tbath) R13_vac s(R13_vac) R13_Ar s(R13_Ar) R13_He s(R13_He) R14_vac s(R14_vac) R14_Ar s(R14_Ar) R14_He s(R14_He)

13/05/14 2 20.0229 0.0013 107.8388 0.0007 107.8226 0.0001 107.8553 0.0012 107.8273 0.0001

26/05/14 3 20.0233 0.0012 107.8354 0.0007 107.8189 0.0002 107.8468 0.0010 107.8234 0.0003

27/05/14 3 22.0019 0.0004 108.5922 0.0009 108.5869 0.00004 108.5975 0.0010 108.5915 0.00003

28/05/14 3 23.9658 0.0005 109.3439 0.0002 109.3500 0.0001 109.3436 0.0003 109.3545 0.0001

28/05/14 3 25.0101 0.0005 109.7458 0.0001 109.7554 0.00002 109.7434 0.0001 109.7599 0.00001

14/05/14 2 25.0082 0.0010 109.7403 0.0007 109.7510 0.0006 109.7351 0.0011 109.7554 0.0006

17/05/14 2 25.0091 0.0015 109.7546 0.00001 109.7592 0.00003

29/05/14 3 26.9836 0.0003 110.5059 0.0001 110.5218 0.00003 110.4999 0.0001 110.5263 0.00004

15/05/14 2 30.0161 0.0008 111.6513 0.0006 111.6891 0.0002 111.6981 0.00003 111.6290 0.0010 111.6935 0.0002 111.7026 0.00002

16/05/14 2 35.0253 0.0004 113.5544 0.0017 113.622 0.0002 113.6384 0.00016 113.5149 0.0001 113.6265 0.00025 113.6428 0.00017

Table 3. Summary of 1 mA resistance and temperature data for the base sensors , #15 and #16. All 

resistances are in Ohms, and temperatures in °C.

Date Ser. R15 s(R15) T15 s(T15) R16 s(R16) T16 s(T16)

13/05/2014 2 107.8240 0.0013 20.1829 0.0035 108.5508 0.0196 21.9257 0.050

26/05/2014 3 107.8180 0.0017 20.1673 0.0043 108.2655 0.0171 21.1888 0.044

27/05/2014 3 108.5549 0.0018 22.0684 0.0047 108.6703 0.0196 22.2344 0.051

28/05/2014 3 109.2854 0.0004 23.9543 0.0010 109.0814 0.0033 23.2964 0.0085

28/05/2014 3 109.6796 0.0004 24.9725 0.0009 109.3498 0.0019 23.9900 0.0048

14/05/2014 2 109.6690 0.0018 24.9452 0.0046 109.2135 0.0241 23.6378 0.063

29/05/2014 3 110.4258 0.0004 26.9016 0.0012 109.8873 0.0035 25.3796 0.0090

15/05/2014 2 111.4955 0.0030 29.6694 0.0078 109.9381 0.0206 25.5109 0.054

16/05/2014 2 113.2703 0.0261 34.2687 0.0679 110.4941 0.070 26.9489 0.18
Page 12

Table 4. Summary of the self-heating coefficients  for the two primary sensors #13 and #14. The units for  are mK/W and 

°C for temperature.

Date Ser. Tbath s(Tbath) 13vac s(13vac) 13_Ar s(13_Ar) 13_He s(13_He) 14vac s(14vac) 14_Ar s(14_Ar) 14_He s(14_He)

13/05/2014 2 20.0229 0.0013 1.61 0.06 0.90 0.01 1.60 0.10 0.88 0.01

26/05/2014 3 20.0233 0.0012 1.51 0.06 0.655 0.020 1.47 0.08 0.638 0.022

27/05/2014 3 22.0019 0.0004 1.48 0.07 0.451 0.003 1.45 0.08 0.442 0.003

28/05/2014 3 23.9658 0.0005 1.49 0.01 0.462 0.011 1.45 0.02 0.452 0.010

28/05/2014 3 25.0101 0.0005 1.47 0.01 0.479 0.002 1.42 0.01 0.469 0.001

14/05/2014 2 25.0082 0.0010 1.54 0.06 0.86 0.05 1.52 0.09 0.84 0.05

17/05/2014 2 25.0091 0.0015 0.424 0.001 0.416 0.002

29/05/2014 3 26.9836 0.0003 1.46 0.01 0.494 0.002 1.43 0.01 0.482 0.003

15/05/2014 2 30.0161 0.0008 1.48 0.05 0.85 0.01 0.410 0.002 1.45 0.08 0.83 0.01 0.401 0.002

16/05/2014 2 35.0253 0.0004 1.46 0.14 0.83 0.02 0.425 0.012 1.53 0.01 0.81 0.02 0.417 0.013

Table 5a. Helium calibration parameters for the primary sensors according to 

Equation 1 using zero-power resistances and fitting all three parameters.

parameter #13 Value #13 Std. Error #14 Value #14 Std. Error

R0 /  100.0164 0.0052 100.0207 0.0053

A / °C-1 0.0039055 3.9E-06 0.0039055 3.9E-06

B / °C-2-4.82E-07 7.0E-08 -4.86E-07 7.0E-08

Table 5b. Helium calibration parameters for the primary sensors using W(t) -1 

and zero-power resistances fitting A & B parameters only.

parameter #13 Value #13 Std. Error #14 Value #14 Std. Error

R0 /  100.0164 - 100.0207 -

A / °C-1 0.0039054 3.0E-07 0.0039055 3.1E-07

B / °C-2-4.82E-07 1.1E-08 -4.86E-07 1.1E-08
Page 13

Figure 4. Deviations of the primary and base sensor resistance calibration data and curve fits from the 

nominal IEC curve for a Pt100 thermometer. IEC class AA tolerance bands are shown for comparison.

Figure 5. Fit residuals to Eqn. 1 for the two primary sensors. The error bars represent standard statistical 

(i.e. nominally random) uncertainty only.

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

0 10 20 30 40 50

R - RIEC / mK

t / °C

#13 Fit #14 Fit

IEC Class AA+ IEC Class AA-

#13 Data #14 Data

#15 Fit #16 Fit

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Residual / mK

t / C

Sensor #13

Sensor #14
Page 14

3.2 Base Sensors

3.2.1 Thin Film Types

Base sensor calibration data for the # 15 and #16 TFPRTs were obtained between 0 °C and 

45 °C; however, the IMP data (0 °C) was noticeably less reproducible than the other data taken 

at higher temperatures in the water comparison bath. Transient stress-relaxation effects were 

observed in most of the IMP data, particularly for sensor #16. This behavior was unusual, and 

necessitated discarding the IMP data and fitting the R0 parameter in Eqn. 1 indirectly using 

calibration data at 14 °C, 25 °C, 35 °C and 45 °C. This decision should be acceptable given that 

the base sensors will not likely be used at temperatures lower than 16 °C. Tables 6a and 6b list

the 1 mA and 0 mA calibration coefficients, respectively, for the two base sensors and associated 

statistical uncertainties. The 1 mA calibration curves for the base sensors are also shown in 

Figure 4 relative to the nominal IEC curve.

Table 6a. 1 mA Calibration coefficients for the two TF base sensors.

parameter #15 Value #15 Std. Error #16 Value #16 Std. Error

R0 /  99.9642 0.0039 100.0310 0.0035

A / °C-1 0.0039121 2.8E-06 0.0038986 2.5E-06

B / °C-2-8.12E-07 4.6E-08 -6.41E-07 4.2E-08

Table 6b. 0 mA Calibration coefficients for the two TF base sensors.

parameter #15 Value #15 Std. Error #16 Value #16 Std. Error

R0 /  99.9575 0.0044 100.0267 0.0018

A / °C-1 0.0039122 3.2E-06 0.0038979 1.3E-06

B / °C-2-8.09E-07 5.3E-08 -6.25E-07 2.2E-08

The 1 mA fit residuals for the two base sensors are shown in Figure 6. In addition to the 

calibration data at 14 °C, 25 °C, 35 °C and 45 °C, two other sets of residuals are shown at 27 °C 

and 40 °C. These points were excluded from the 1 mA fits because they were obtained in earlier 

comparisons, before apparent resistance shifts and stress-relaxation effects were observed at 

0 °C. All the residuals including the extra points are included in Figure 6 to help estimate the 

stability of the base sensors.
Page 15

Figure 6a. Fit residuals to Eqn. 1 for the two TF base sensors m=15, 16 for both 1 mA and 0 mA data. 

The error bars represent standard statistical (i.e. nominally random) uncertainty only. The 27 °C and 

40 °C data were excluded from the 1 mA fit.

3.2.2 Wire Wound Types

Base sensor calibration data for the # 17 and #18 WW PRTs were obtained between 0.01 °C and 

35 °C. Water Triple-point resistance data (0.01 °C) were obtained in place of the customary IMP 

data (0 °C) at the beginning and end of the calibration sequence. For the purposes of 

interpolation via Eqn. 1, the normal interpretation of the R0 parameter was retained by making a 

simple conversion given by R0=0.999961Rwtp which is correct for all platinum of this grade. The 

calibration coefficients where then obtained in the conventional way by fitting Eqn. 1 in the form 

of W-1 versus t in °C for all the data in the range. These included nominal calibration points at 

0.01 °C, 15 °C, 20 °C, 25 °C, 30 °C, and 35 °C. The results are shown in Tables 7 for the 0 mA 

data. 

Table 7. The 0 mA Calibration coefficients for the two WW base sensors.

parameter #17 Value #17 Std. Error #18 Value #18 Std. Error

R0 /  99.97467 0.00011 100.0271 0.00015

A / °C-1 3.98656E-03 1.9E-07 3.98508E-03 1.6E-07

B / °C-2

-6.085E-07 6.8E-09 -6.112E-07 5.6E-09

The #17 and #18 WW base sensors exhibited superior reproducibility compared to the TF types 

#15 and #16. This resulted in much lower uncertainties in the fit parameters as shown in Table 7, 

approximately a factor of 10 lower in u(R0) , 17 lower in u(A) and 8 lower in u(B) or more 

-10.0

-6.0

-2.0

2.0

6.0

10.0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Residual / mK

t / C

R 15 Fit, 1 mA

R 16 Fit, 1 mA

R 15 Fit, 0 mA

R 16 Fit, 0 mA
Page 16

compared to those for the TF base sensors. The fit residuals as shown in Figure 6b are similarly 

much lower for the WW base sensors compared to the TF types. With only a few exceptions, the 

residuals for all the data are within the limits of the statistical (i.e. random) uncertainties alone, 

typically ±1.5 mK. 

Figure 6b. Fit residuals to Eqn. 1 for the two WW base sensors, m=17, 18 for 0 mA data. The error bars 

represent standard statistical (i.e. nominally random) uncertainty only.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Residuals / mK

t / C

#17

#18
Page 17

3.3 Immersion Errors

The primary sensor calibrations as described above are appropriate for conditions where heat 

transfer to the walls of the chamber is dominated by strong gas-phase diffusion or convection. 

The primary sensor (n=13, 14) calibrations are based exclusively on the zero-power, heliummediated resistance data, (i.e. Rn_Cal(t) is the Eqn. 1 fit to Rn_He(t, P=0)). It is assumed that 

immersion errors under these conditions are negligible (see Discussion, section 4.1.1). Under 

vacuum conditions, however, immersion errors may be significant if there are departures from 

isothermal conditions. The procedures required for calibration of the sensors using the test 

chamber necessitated imposing significant departures from isothermal conditions as indicated by 

the base sensor temperatures. Hence, immersion errors were observed in the vacuum data during 

the calibration of the probes in the test chamber, and may also be present when the probes are 

installed in the Sr II chamber.

The immersion errors Rn_Vac  Rn_He were found to be proportional to the differences, tm  tbath , 

between a given base temperature tm , as indicated by the base sensors (m=15, 16), and the bath 

temperature tbath. The related errors Rn_Vac  Rn_Ar were found to exhibit similar dependencies. 

While not actually a gradient, we use the term ‘axial gradient’ as a substitute term for the 

differences, tm  tbath , since any such gradients in the probes will be proportional to that 

difference. This representation of the data produces the immersion error curves shown in Figure 

7 as shown with quadratic fits in tm  tbath.

Figure 7. The complete set of immersion errors in Ohms versus the axial gradients tm  tbath for both He 

and Ar data. 

The quadratic fits shown in Figure 7 are unconstrained and unweighted. In principle the 

intercepts n should be zero, but the data are best fit with small offsets of a few m, equivalent 
Page 18

to 5 mK to 10 mK. The quadratic term is only necessary to accommodate the largest values for 

the axial gradients. By limiting the range of data to a range the equivalent of ±0.13 °C in Rn_Vac 

Rn_He and to ±1.8 °C in tm  tbath , more linear regions of the error curves are observed, as shown 

in Figure 8. Table 8 is a compilation of the linear immersion error parameters derived from the 

He calibration data as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Linear portions of the Immersion Error curves for the vacuum and helium data.

Table 8. Least-squares fitting estimates for the linear immersion error coefficients for the two probes. The 

Cmn are the immersion error coefficients and n are ad hoc offset parameters.

parameter m,n=13,15 Value m,n=13,15 Std. Error m,n=14,16 Value m,n=14,16 Std. Error

Cmn / ·K

-1 0.128 0.005 0.0183 0.0003

n /  0.0041 0.0007 0.00187 0.00035

The parameter values shown in Table 8 are limited to this particular range of tm  tbath and a 

simple unconstrained linear model. Depending on the exact fitting model and range of data 

chosen, the immersion error coefficients Cnm exhibit a range of ratios 7≤ C13,15/ C14,16 ≤ 8, with 

most of that variability being due to probe 1 (n=13, m=15). This degree of ambiguity is a more 

realistic indicator of the relative uncertainties in the Cnm than the simple statistical estimates 

shown in Table 8. The physical origin of the large ratio in coefficients is treated below under the 

Discussion section 4.1.5.
Page 19

3.4 Use of the Base Sensors for Correcting Immersion Errors

Under high vacuum conditions, corrections should be applied to account for offsets in the 

primary sensor temperatures from axial gradients and the corresponding immersion errors as 

shown in Figure 8. The base sensors are used to affect this correction via measurements of tm but 

where the difference tmtn is not directly measured. The immersion errors are most readily 

parameterized in terms of the difference between the vacuum and helium-mediated resistance 

readings of the primary sensors, Rn_Vac  Rn_Cal. Each of the two base sensors is matched to the 

two probes as shown in Table 1. Base sensor 15 is installed on probe 1 to provide corrections for 

primary sensor 13, and base sensor 16 is installed on probe 2 to provide corrections for primary 

sensor 14. Other configurations may be used on the Sr II chamber with the WW base sensors.

In the Sr II chamber, the primary sensors will measure temperatures tn in vacuum conditions, so 

to apply a correction we impose the condition tn = tbath to the immersion error equation,

RnVac − RnCal(tn

) = Cnm(tm − tn) + ∆n (2)

where Cnm are the immersion error coefficients and n are ad hoc offset parameters to account for 

scale offsets or other unknown errors, which should in principle be zero. By combining equations 

1 and 2 and solving for tn we obtain,

 

2

0 0 0 0

0 0

( ) 4

2 2

nm n n n n nVac n nm m n nm n n

n

n n n n

C R A C R A R B R R C t

t

R B R B

      

  , (3)

for the temperature tn, in °C , for either probe as a function of the vacuum resistance reading 

Rn_Vac. Here R0n, An, and Bn are the values obtained for the primary sensor calibration when the

test chamber was under He exchange gas. The first term in Eqn. 3 is a positive constant for each 

probe (2700 °C and 3800 °C, respectively), and the second term is always negative for the range 

of calibrations shown here and contains the dependence on the variables Rn_Vac and tm. In the 

limit in which Cnm and n go to zero, Equation 3 reverts to the inverse of Eqn. 1.

For the purposes of applying corrections in the Sr II chamber, the immersion error coefficients 

must be considered model dependent and uncertain. Therefore, the recommended coefficients 

should not be derived from the statistical estimates from any one model (e.g. as in Table 8), but 

rather as a mean of an ensemble of different model estimates. In addition, the finite estimated 

values for n must be regarded as an indication of a deficiency in the data and or in the fitted

model such that associated uncertainties should accommodate n=0 within an assumed 

distribution of estimates. Thus we assume a relative uncertainty u(n)/n =50 %. This treatment 

results in the recommended values and standard uncertainties for the immersion coefficients as 

given in Table 9.
Page 20

Table 9. Recommended values and standard uncertainties for the linear immersion error coefficients and 

offset parameters for the two probes.

Parameter m,n=13,15 Value m,n=13,15 Std. Unc. m,n=14,16 Value m,n=14,16 Std. Unc.

Cmn / ·K-1 0.1358 0.0075 0.0183 0.0006

n /  0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001

It should be noted that the Probe 1 immersion error coefficient is large by comparison to all other 

likely perturbations. When converted to an equivalent temperature change, the recommended 

C13,15 =353 mK/K or 35.3 %. In contrast, and again from Table 9, C14,16 =47 mK/K or 4.7 %. The 

ratio of 7.5 can be seen as physically reasonable, despite the ratio of probe lengths of only 1.8, 

given the exponential character of the immersion errors described in section 4.1.5 (Discussion).
Page 21

Discussion and Uncertainties

Primary Sensors

The most important assumptions being made for this calibration are that the test chamber was 

sufficiently isothermal during the data collection. However, the existence of axial gradients and 

immersion errors are due to known departures from isothermal conditions and must be quantified 

under known conditions. The two SPRTs were positioned on opposite sides of the test chamber 

in the water bath such that gradients from perturbation of the circulation pattern would produce 

nearly maximal differences. The SPRTs never disagreed by more than 2 mK during the 

calibration and these differences have been factored into the uncertainty estimates for the Tbath

temperatures shown in Tables 2 and 4.

4.1.1 Helium Data

The low values (< 1 mK) for the residuals as shown in Figure 5 indicate that there were no 

sources of fluctuating errors or strongly non-linear systematic errors present with perturbations 

any larger than that uncertainty. The high degree of correlation in the R(t) curves and residuals 

between the two probes also provides similar upper bounds on the degree to which immersion 

errors could have perturbed the helium calibration given the dissimilar probe lengths (see 

Immersion Effects below).

The time constants for the 

primary sensors in helium were 

sufficiently fast that they were 

impractical to measure, with 

most of the transient response 

occurring within the 90 s time 

to scan all six measurement 

channels and thereby provide 

an update to any one particular 

channel. An estimated upper 

limit for the time constant is

He ≲ 30 s. A typical 50 W 

power change step response is 

shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Primary sensor transient response to step changes in the selfheating power under helium exchange gas. Each point is 90 s = 0.001 d. 

Fluctuations are due to bath temperature instability of ±1 mK.
Page 22

4.1.2 Vacuum Data

The vacuum data is used to calculate the error immersion coefficients only and a fit to Eqn. 1 is 

not necessary for that purpose. However, when such a fit is performed, the residuals are factors 

of 10 to 20 times those of the helium data fits as shown in Figure 5. These fits also fail to 

conform with the IEC specifications except over a very narrow range of temperatures, yielding 

low values for the mean temperature coefficient of n=0.003725 °C-1and 0.003665 °C-1

respectively. This systematic departure is also due to the influence of immersion errors. Overall, 

the vacuum data is less reproducible due to fluctuations and drift in the room temperature 

perturbations, which lead to the 3 % to 5 % uncertainties in the immersion coefficients.

The observed time constants of 

the primary sensors under 

vacuum were 270 s. The 

transient response to step 

changes of 50 W in the selfheating power are shown on 

Figure 10.

Figure 10. Primary sensor transient response to step changes in the 

self-heating power under vacuum. The increase of 0.5 m (1.3 mK) on 

the return to the base power level of 4 W is due to drift in room 

temperature during the elapsed 1.9 h.

4.1.3 Self-heating coefficients

We expect that the slopes of the vacuum self-heating curves measured in the test chamber will 

reproduce in the Sr II chamber, but this should be checked at JILA after the sensors are installed.

The best practice would be to measure the self-heating in-situ each time a temperature reading is 

obtained using the sensors with two or more currents and extrapolating to zero power. This 

practice will account for any differences which may exist in the self-heating coefficients between 

the test chamber and the Sr II chamber installations. Given this procedure, some increase in the 

random (i.e. type A) uncertainty will result in the R(0) values, but no additional uncertainty will 

be incurred due to self-heating effects in the primary sensors.

A comparison of the observed self-heating coefficients is useful for understanding certain aspects 

of the heat transfer mechanisms. The self-heating coefficients of the primary sensors from 
Page 23

Table 4 are shown in Figure 11 as a function of temperature. Some of the observed variability

in He suggests that contamination of the helium with heavier impurities was a problem, 

particularly in the case of the 20 °C data. For this reason, these data were excluded from the 

average. The average values for the vacuum, argon, and helium self-heating coefficients are 

calculated from Table 4 and are equal to 1.5 mK/W, 0.86 mK/W, and 0.45 mK/W, 

respectively. The ratios of coefficients are relatively small, only a factor of 1.9 separate the argon 

and helium coefficients and only a factor of 3.3 separate the vacuum and helium coefficients. In 

contrast, the thermal conductivities of helium and argon differ by a factor of 8.5. In addition, the 

time constant data suggest that the ratio of thermal resistances under vacuum conditions to 

helium conditions should be > 10.

These observations can be reconciled by constructing a simple thermal resistance network with 

an internal resistance, Zint, in series with an external resistance Zext. The internal resistance is 

created by the fixed geometry and materials of the sensor package and is independent of the 

environmental conditions. In contrast, the external resistance is created by a combination of the 

variable and parallel thermal paths associated with the gas diffusion, ZHe or ZAr, and radiation,

ZR, heat exchange mechanisms.

Figure 11. Self-heating coefficients of the primary sensors in helium, argon and vacuum.

Constructing three simple series/parallel equivalent circuits of the thermal resistances, using only 

ZR and Zint under vacuum conditions and all three (ZR , Zint , and ZHe or ZAr ) under exchange-gas 

conditions, allows some estimates to be made of the values for these individual thermal 

resistances as follows,

Vac int He int Vac int Ar int

He Ar R Vac int

Vac He Vac Ar

( )( ) ( )( ) ; ; and . Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z    



   

   

   

 

(4)
Page 24

This simple underdetermined model may uniquely determine all four thermal resistances if we 

introduce the additional constraint of 8.5×ZHe = ZAr , assuming that both argon and heliummediated heat exchange conditions are dominated by diffusive conductivity. The manufacturer 

specifies the C416 self-heating at 0.4 mK/W at 0°C, and when Zint =0.35 mK/W the assumed

argon/helium ratio of 8.5 is achieved. Under these assumptions we then estimate the four thermal 

resistances: Zint ≈ 0.35 mK/W ; ZHe ≈ 0.108 mK/W; ZAr ≈0.92 mK/W; and ZR ≈1.15 mK/W. 

It should also be noted that this model yields ZR≈10 ZHe. In contrast, a crude estimate for ZR is 

given by (ZR)

-1≈4T3AReff which yields ZR ≈9 mK/W assuming an effective radiative-coupling 

area AReff equivalent to the geometric area AGeom≈1.8×10-5 m2based on the dimensions of the 

C416 alone. This clearly yields a gross overestimate in ZR since it would result in self-heating 

and time constants a factor of 8 larger than observed. The most likely explanation is that the 

radiative-coupling area AReff is much larger than the physical area of the sensor itself due to the 

bonding and proximity to the glass, which augments (by a factor 8) the area of local infra-red 

absorption.

4.1.4 Electrical Resistance

The combined uncertainties in the resistance bridge measurements and resistance standard 

uncertainty are well below 1 . The limiting uncertainty concerns that stability of the IMP 

resistance value R0 for which we assign a standard uncertainty of 1 m, or 2.6 mK. The value 

for R0 as a fitting parameter is uncertain only at the level of 0.5 m as long as no attempt is 

made to use Eqn. 3 to interpolate temperature below the 20 °C lower limit of the primary sensor 

data. Since the sensors can not be checked at the IMP to form a ratio (i.e. a local resistance scale 

independent of the Ohm), it is important for JILA to have a calibrated resistance standard 

available to establish the Ohm in the Sr II laboratory to better than 5 . This will keep 

resistance scale errors at or below an equivalent of 1.3 mK. 

4.1.5 Immersion Effects

The test chamber was designed to co-locate the probes at a fixed immersion. Consequently, it 

was not practical to generate variable immersion data which would be the normal approach in the 

calibration of relatively short probes. In the absence of such data, we must rely on analytical 

models to help estimate uncertainties and check if the relative errors between the two probes are 

physically reasonable. The problem of immersion errors in practical thermometry has long been 

recognized, with various authors providing analytical treatments [12,13]. More recently, White 

and Jongenelen (W&J) [14] have provided a solution based on the heat diffusion equation in one 

dimension. Some general aspects of the W&J treatment are applicable under vacuum conditions

if the departures from isothermal conditions are small. These solutions have the general form

 

   

0 1 2

x L x L T x T T K e K e     

       

(5)

for a distribution of temperatures along the axis of a cylindrical probe with coordinate x , sensing 

temperature at an immersion x=L relative to an isothermal zone transition at x=0 with T0, T, K1

and K2 determined by the appropriate boundary conditions [15] (see Figure 12). The 

characteristic length scale is

  kw h , where k is the bulk thermal conductivity of a tubular 
Page 25

probe with wall thickness w and transverse surface heat transfer coefficient h. If the probe has a 

total length Li > L, and we identify T0=Tbath, then it is straightforward to show that,

1

0 2

1

Li

mn n bath

n n m bath

C T T K

e

R T T K





   

   

  

, (6)

where 

1 R0n n  0.385 K

 

for all Pt100 sensors. In this approximation, the constants K1 and K2

are functions of surface heat transfer coefficients h, k, w, and L, (note that the boundary 

conditions involving h as used by W&J do not apply under vacuum). Assuming that the ratio 

K1/K2 is independent of L, the Cmn coefficients will depend only on the total lengths Li of the 

probes and not on the actual immersion depth L. This result then implies that the immersion error 

curves observed in the test chamber will be equivalent to those for the JILA Sr II chamber, 

despite the fact that the effective immersion depth L will likely be different. This important result 

follows from the fact that we have an implicit boundary condition of tm at x=L-Li. We also expect 

that the characteristic length  and the constants K should all be the same for the two probes 

since they are of identical construction, and only differ in their total length Li .

The exponential factor in Eqn. 6 is the 

reason the immersion error coefficients 

are so different (e.g. 7.5) for the two 

probes despite their lengths differing by 

less than a factor on 2. Assuming the 

characteristic length  is identical for 

both probes, it may be estimated by

taking the ratio of the Cmn coefficients 

for the two probes via Eqn. 6. Taking 

values from Table 1 and Table 8 results 

in the estimate,

    L L 2 1 / ln 7.5 31mm  

in vacuum. 

One complicating issue concerns the 

effective immersion for probe 1 as 

installed in the test chamber. In this case 

a water-tight shroud was installed on the 

chamber to allow the base flange of the 

probe to be located under the water line 

but remain dry as shown in Figure 1b. 

Despite being submerged below the 

water line, the air pocket created by the 

shroud allowed the base flange to 

remain at higher (or lower) temperatures 

than the bath, creating an effective immersion length L that was different (i.e. shorter, as shown 

in Figure 12) from the geometric immersion length. The effective total length, however, should 

remain unaltered from the geometric total length L1.

Figure 12. Axial coordinates for the probe immersions. 

Note the coordinate x is negative for upward 

displacements. The difference in the effective 

immersion lengths L for the two probes is exaggerated, 

but deliberate (see text).

L2

n

L1

n

x =0

x =0

x =+L x =+L

x =L-L1

x =L-L2
Page 26

Axial gradients are always present in any normal immersion-type thermometer probe. These

gradients may or may not create significant immersion errors depending on the relative strength

of the axial heat transfer (e.g. k in this case) to that of the transverse heat transfer (e.g. h). The 

competition between these two heat transfer mechanisms/paths is what determines the 

characteristic length 

  kw h . An implicit assumption in this calibration is that He << Ln and 

more specifically that 

 

He / 4

1 2 1 10 K K e Ln   

 

in helium. Given the empirical estimate for 

Vac  31 mm above, we can further estimate

 

1/2

He Vac He Vac    h h

. Assuming that hVac is 

entirely radiative, and that hHe is entirely due to kinetic gas-diffusion conductance, a crude 

estimate for the ratio is given by [16],

 

3

Vac

He He

4 l n

1 1 b

a b

h T a b a

h a

b



 

 



             

(7)

for concentric cylinders of radii a~3.5 mm and b~11 mm of emissivities a ~0.95 and b ~0.25 

and where  is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and He 0.16 W/m-K is the thermal conductivity 

of helium gas at T=300 K. Evaluating Eqn. 7 yields hVac/hHe 0.077, which in turn implies that

He 8.6 mm. This estimated value for He then allows estimations of the immersion attenuation 

factors 

He / Li e

 

to be calculated for helium yielding 2.310-4and 1.510-7for i=1,2 respectively. 

Thus, assuming that the currently unknown factor of K1/K2 for helium2is ≲ 1, it seems unlikely 

that there would have been measureable (≲ 1 mK) immersion errors for either probe under 

conditions maintained during the helium exchange-gas calibration. This is consistent with the 

observed close correspondence between the helium fits for the two probes and correspondence of 

the fit residuals with bounds set by the SPRT data.

On the one hand, Eqn. 7 is only remotely applicable in the top few inches of the test chamber 

over which the 12.7 mm OD SS tubing surrounds the probes. Below that point, the chamber 

becomes more of a cavity and Eqn. 6 likely would under estimate hVac and the heat transfer ratio. 

On the other hand, if convection is possible in the helium, hHe would be underestimated and the 

ratio overestimated. Without any empirical or vetted theoretical information on the K1/K2 values 

in both helium and vacuum, it is not possible to make any further quantitative evaluations 

concerning the immersion errors.

The observed finite values for the n parameters in the immersion error curves indicates the 

presence of one or more systematic errors in the calibration data and or an inadequate immersion 

error model. Such deficiencies could be due to finite cross-immersion-error coefficients C13,16 

and C14,15. We have analyzed the data to calculate only the diagonal coefficients C13,15 and C14,16.

The existence of finite cross-coefficients C13,16 and C14,15 is also possible, but given the 

correlations in the base temperatures, it is not possible to provide unambiguous estimates for 

these parameters. In principle these are second order corrections (e.g. C13,16  C14,16 C13,14). We 

therefore assume these terms are negligible. The relatively large uncertainties assigned to the n

parameters are partly an allowance for the possibility that this assumption is invalid. 

 

2

In the case of convective boundary conditions, the W&J analysis suggests that K1<0 and K1/K2> 1.
Page 27

Base Sensors

The base sensors serve two separate roles in this work. First, they served to provide the basis for 

determining the Cmn immersion coefficients. That required an ex-post facto calibration using the 

same excitation current (1 mA) that was used during the test chamber measurements for 

calibration of the primary sensors. Secondly, the calibrated base sensors will allow monitoring of 

the temperatures tm as installed in the JILA Sr II chamber. In this case, there is a choice regarding 

the excitation current, including a zero extrapolation, since the calibration data included both 

0.5 mA and 1.0 mA currents.

In the former case, there is an implicit self-heating offset included in the calibration, and this 

may not exactly match the thermal resistance as installed in the test chamber, increasing the 

calibration uncertainty. The self-heating coefficients observed during the base sensor calibrations

were unusually low, only 0.18(4) mK/W, or approximately 19 mK at 1 mA excitation. Despite 

this relatively low self heating, this introduced 4.4 mK uncertainty component into the 1 mA data 

used for the determination of tm and Cnm.

For the purposes of monitoring the base temperatures in the Sr II chamber, a slightly lower 

overall uncertainty can be achieved by using the 0 mA coefficients and extrapolating two-current 

data in the same way as done for the primary sensors.

Once the preliminary uncertainty analysis was completed, it became evident that the less-thansatisfactory reproducibility of the TFPRT base sensors had contributed to the uncertainty in the 

immersion coefficients Cmn and in particular the finite n parameters. While nothing more could 

be done to improve those uncertainties ex post facto, it was decided to replace the TFPRT base 

sensors for the purposes of future use at JILA on the Sr II chamber. The WW PRTs m=17,18 

were calibrated for this purpose and achieved much lower calibration uncertainty as already 

noted in section 3.2.2. These WW base sensors should be used exclusively with 0 mA 

extrapolated resistance readings to achieve the lowest uncertainty on the Sr II chamber.
Page 28

Pressure dependence under vacuum conditions

There are two issues concerning residual pressure under nominal vacuum conditions that were 

investigated. The first is how the pressure inside the chamber as indicated by the Varian 24 ion 

gauge differed from the pumping system ion gauge which was used for all routine monitoring. 

This was necessary due to the restrictions on routine use of the Varian 24 gauge due to excessive 

chamber heating. The second issue is establishing the threshold pressure under which no further 

changes could be observed in the equilibrium (i.e. net heat transfer) for the primary sensors. This 

was necessary to establish when the vacuum was low enough to begin taking ‘vacuum’ data.

Figure 13. Relationship for the system pressure and internal test chamber 

pressure. Data are shown with nominal 5 % standard uncertainties.

A test was conducted to compare the system pressure psys with the test chamber pressure pchr

using the two ion gauges as already described in the section 2.2.2 under ‘Procedures’. The 

results are shown in Figure 13. For system pressures below 110-7 Torr (1.310-5 Pa), the test 

chamber pressure was at or below 5.410-7 Torr (7.210-5 Pa) as read on the Varian 24 ion gauge 

installed in the chamber. 

Another test was conducted to monitor the primary sensors while pumping out the chamber from 

~2 Torr (270 Pa) helium to a pressure just below 110-7 Torr (1.310-5 Pa) (as read on the system 

ion gauge) at a constant bath temperature of 25.01 °C. During this test the ambient laboratory 

temperature was ≈ 22.8 °C and the base temperatures were t15 24.974(2)3°C and 

t1623.995(8) °C. During this test the excitation currents were held constant at 200 A (i.e. 

4.4 W) and the bath temperature remained constant to within ±1 mK. The results are shown in 

Figure 14. As the chamber is pumped out, the sensors cool down to a new equilibrium as 

determined by the immersion error under vacuum conditions. The offset for the #14 sensor is 

because the difference t16tbath ≈ 1 °C while in contrast t15tbath was approximately a factor of 

27 smaller. Once the system pressure reached 1.010-7 Torr (1.310-5 Pa), no further changes in 

the sensor’s resistances could be resolved.

 

3 Numbers in parentheses indicate the standard uncertainly in the least significant digit.
Page 29

Figure 14. The equilibration of the primary sensors during a pump out from helium to vacuum.

These data suggest that once the system pressure reaches ≈10-7 Torr (10-5 Pa) or less, the mean 

free path of the residual gases has become sufficiently large and the gas density so low that gasmediated heat exchange is negligible. At these pressures we should expect that BBR coupling is 

the dominant heat exchange mechanism. To the extent that there still remains some small (i.e. 

unresolved) influence from gas diffusion under these conditions, it would represent a negligible 

contribution compared to the statistical uncertainties already assigned to the immersion error 

coefficients Cnm.

Uncertainty Curves

The uncertainty in tn as determined by Eqn. 3 can be calculated given the values of the fixed 

parameters, realistic ranges of values for the variables Rn_Vac and tm, and estimated nonparametric standard uncertainties as shown in Table 10. These are then combined with the 

parametric uncertainties given in Tables 5b, 6, and 8. Examples of the estimated total standard 

calibration uncertainties as a function of the measured vacuum resistance Rn_Vac are shown in 

Figures 15a and 15b for each of the two probes in the case where tm=23 °C.

Table 10. Summary of non-parametric standard 

uncertainties for the primary and base sensors.

Source un / mK um / mK

non-uniformity 1 2

SPRT calibration 1 1

temperature stability 1 1

self-heating 0.5 4

Resistance Measurement 0.07 0.07

u(tcal)=RMS 1.8 4.7

Start Pump Out

psys=1.3x10-7 Torr

psys=1.0x10-7 Torr
Page 30

Figure 15a. Standard uncertainty components and combined total uncertainties in measured temperature 

t13 when using probe 1 with the n=13 sensor to determine temperature in the Sr II vacuum chamber.

Figure 15b. Standard uncertainty components and combined total uncertainties in measured temperature 

t14 when using probe 2 with the n=14 sensor to determine temperature in the Sr II vacuum chamber.
Page 31

From Figure 15a the strong influence of axial gradients and immersion errors in probe 1 is 

clearly evident. For this example tm=23 °C, and when Rn_Vac≈109 , tn=23 °C and the axial 

gradients are null, resulting in a relative minima as the associated immersion errors go to zero. 

Departures from the uniform condition cause large uncertainties in probe 1/sensor 13, but these 

are much more gradual for the longer probe 2/sensor 14 (Figure 15b) with a smaller immersion 

error coefficient. Similar curves may be generated when the value for tm is varied. 

Deviation of T90 from thermodynamic temperature

All temperatures presented here are directly traceable to the NIST realizations of the ITS-90. The 

ITS-90 was designed to define temperatures T90 as close approximations to thermodynamic 

temperature T and consistent with the SI kelvin. The ITS-90 definitions [17] were based on the 

best available information on thermodynamic temperature prior to its adoption in 1990. Since 

that time, new and more accurate methods have become available which have allowed a more 

accurate assessment of T-T90 [18]. The Consultative Committee on Thermometry (CCT) 

operating under the Committee International de Poids et Mesures (CIPM) have published 

recommended values for T-T90 [19]. In the limited range between 0 °C and 35 °C considered 

here, the deviation is approximately quadratic in t / °C =T273.15 , and given by 

TT90/mK≈0.127t+6.13×10-4t

2

, or ~ 3.9(4) mK at 300 K (~13 K/K). Given the current 

uncertainty requirements for the Sr II clock are approximately 10 mK, and that the BBR spectral 

power scales as T

4

, this correction could be considered as an optional final step in determination 

of the Sr II BBR temperature, but is probably not critical.
Page 32

Sr II Installation and Results

Shipping and installation

After the sensors were returned to JILA, they were checked for agreement to ensure that no 

calibration shifts occurred in the shipping process. The sensors agreed within a few mK, which is 

well within their combined total uncertainty of 12 mK. The magnitude and sign of TFPRT 

calibration shifts are not significantly correlated with time, vibration, or minor thermal 

excursions. Hence, even though the two sensors are of the same make and model and under the 

same nominal external stresses, the probability of these exhibiting identical calibration shifts is 

small. The sustained agreement between the two sensors after shipping gives us confidence that 

calibration shifts during transport were negligible.

The test chamber was baked at 100 °C and pumped down to 3×10-10 Torr (4×10-8 Pa) to ensure 

that the sensors remained compatible with vacuum at that level. Baking the sensors was not 

expected to shift their calibrations appreciably since they were preselected for robustness against 

thermal cycling up to 200 °C (see section 1). The sensors and their glass mounts were then 

transferred from the test chamber to the Sr II vacuum chamber using a gas backflow. This 

procedure involves venting the Sr II chamber to high-purity nitrogen at a pressure of ~ 20 kPa

greater than the atmospheric pressure in Boulder. Under these conditions, removing conflats 

from the Sr II chamber to make room for the sensors does not cause measurable contamination 

from the laboratory air due to the positive pressure of the nitrogen gas. The sensors were 

installed in the presence of this positive pressure, and then the chamber was pumped down. 

Cartridge heaters were used to locally bake the glass tubes at 150 °C to remove any water vapor 

accumulated on the structures. The chamber returned to its usual pressure after two days of 

pumping.

Removing heat sources and sinks

The clock transition frequency shift due to BBR is

∆νBBR = νstat (

T

T0

)

4

+ νdyn (

T

T0

)

6

(8)

where νstat and νdyn are constants that describe the atomic response to BBR and T0 = 300 K. This 

equation is used to subtract out the BBR shift from the measured clock transition frequency. νstat

and νdyn are precisely known only for an ideal blackbody spectrum, so a significantly nonthermal heat environment will make it impossible to apply a precise correction. Therefore, it is 

critical to ensure that the thermal environment inside the Sr II vacuum chamber is sufficiently 

uniform. To do this, we surrounded the Sr II chamber with a heat shield for passive temperature 

stabilization. We used infra-red (IR) thermometers and thermistors to confirm that there were no 

unexpected heat sources around the Sr II vacuum chamber. Known heat sources were switched 

off and on to see if they had a measurable effect on the sensors.

We were able to remove all heat sources that affected the sensors. The chilled water used to cool 

our magneto-optical trap coils was the only heat sink that had an appreciable impact on the 

sensor measurements. Since the cooling from the chilled water over compensated for the heating 

from the coils, creating a net heat sink, it proved important to change the temperature of the 
Page 33

cooling water such that the coil heating and water cooling combined kept the coils at room 

temperature.

Measuring temperature gradients

Previously we used simulations of the Sr II vacuum chamber to show that systematic bias due to 

thermal perturbations is negligible for temperature gradients across the chamber of less than 

150 mK/cm [1]. Our measurements with thermistors and an IR thermometer put an upper bound 

on chamber gradients of about 50 mK/cm. For a better measurement of gradients inside the 

chamber, we attached our long sensor to the chamber with an edge welded bellows so that the 

sensor could be translated. The difference between sensor measurements for two positions of the 

long sensor (2.5 cm apart ) infers a gradient of 0.57 mK/cm with a statistical uncertainty of 

12 nK/cm, which is several orders of magnitude smaller than any value that would concern us.

Figure 16. The sensors inside the Sr II chamber. Here heat sources and sinks have been removed and 

passive temperature stabilization is employed to make the temperature uniform inside the chamber. The 

standard deviation of the data (shown as a gray confidence band in the plot) indicates that the ambient 

temperature is stable to ±130 mK

Sensor agreement

Running the Sr II apparatus in normal clock operation conditions, we observed agreement 

between the sensors of about 5 mK, which is within the 12 mK combined uncertainty of both 

sensors. The base sensors did not show any measurable gradients across the sensor mounting 

structures. This confirms that calibration shifts due to sensor transport, installation, and thermal 

cycling are insignificant. Using the long sensor to infer the BBR shift, the 5 mK standard 

uncertainty of this sensor yields a BBR shift relative uncertainty of 310-19. This represents a 

factor of 5 improvement over our previous work.
Page 34

Figure 17. The difference between the long and short sensors. The measured difference between 

the sensors is within their combined standard uncertainty of ±12 mK. 

Summary and Conclusions

The two JILA Sr II temperature probes have been calibrated on the ITS-90 over the range 20 °C 

to 35 °C. The probes exhibit immersion errors under vacuum conditions which are functions of 

the measured mean axial gradient over the entire length of each probe. Each probe has a 

calibration for two sensors, primary and base, which together may be used to make in situ 

corrections of the immersion errors under vacuum. The relative errors are approximately 7.5 

times greater for Probe 1 than Probe 2 for the same axial gradient. The achievable standard 

uncertainty for use of Probe 1 depends strongly on the departures from uniform (i.e. null 

gradient) conditions, with a sharp relative minimum of approximately 11 mK. Probe 2 exhibits a 

more shallow relative minimum in uncertainty of approximately 5 mK. This assumes that the 

combined resistance measurement uncertainties at JILA can be maintained at 5  or less and 

that the sensors are not exposed to temperatures exceeding 200 °C. Corrections for known 

differences between ITS-90 and thermodynamic temperature are considered as an option 

depending on the uncertainties actually achieved in practice. The sensors successfully retained 

their calibrations after being transferred to the Sr II vacuum chamber. Along with these accurate 

sensors, a well-engineered thermal environment inside the vacuum chamber enabled temperature 

measurements with standard uncertainties as low as 5 mK.
Page 35

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jim Fedchak of the NIST TMG for helpful advice and providing 

the use of an ion gauge and a controller. We also thank Howard Yoon of the NIST Sensor 

Science Division for helpful discussions and Dawn Cross and Wyatt Miller of the NIST TMG 

for assistance in the laboratory. We are grateful to Sara Campbell and George Marti for

assistance with installing the sensors in the Sr II vacuum chamber and for laboratory support 

when the JILA-based sensor measurements were made.
Page 36

References

1. B. J. Bloom, T. L. Nicholson ,J. R. Williams, S. L. Campbell, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, W. 

Zhang, S. L. Bromley and J. Ye, Nature, 506, 71–75 (2014).

2. Heraeus Sensor Technology, Datasheet.

3. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 60751-2008, Platinum Resistance 

Thermometers and Platinum Sensors, Geneva, 2008.

4. R Carvell, E Usadi, N Fox, R Rusby and S Bruce, Proceedings of Sensors, Systems for 

Next-Generation Satellites VII, SPIE, 2004.

5. Jim Fedchak, NIST Sensor Science Division, Gaithersburg, MD, Private Communication, 

7-May-2014.

6. C. D. Vaughn and G. F. Strouse, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on 

Temperature and Thermal Measurements in Industry and Science, TEMPMEKO 2001, B. 

Fellmuth, Ed., 629-634 (VDE Verlag, Berlin 2002).

7. B.W. Mangum and G.T. Furukawa, Guidelines for Realizing the International Scale of 

1990. (ITS-90), NIST Technical Note 1265, 1990.

8. G. F. Strouse, Platinum Resistance Thermometer Calibrations from the Ar TP to the Ag 

TP, NBS Special Publication SP 250-81, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C., (2007), 85 pp.

9. P Bramley and J Pickering, Cal Lab Magazine, 30-35, Oct 2006.

10. Isothermal Technology, Ltd., MicroK Product Brosure.

11. Sensing Devices, Inc., Lancaster, PA, Model D-100-1A, and SAMA RC21-4-1966.

12. R.P. Benedict, J.W. Murdock, ASME Trans., J. Eng. Power 235 (1963).

13. J.W. Nicholas and D.R.White, “Traceable Temperatures”, 2

nd Ed., (Wiley, Chichester, 

2001).

14. D R White and C L Jongenelen, Int. J. Thermophys. , 31,1685–1695 (2010).

15. ibid., The general form of the solution is applicable even under vacuum conditions for 

small temperature gradients, but some of the boundary conditions assume convective heat 

transfer, and do not apply under vacuum conditions, therefore W&J’s evaluations of the 

constants K1 and K2 (their ‘A’ and ‘B’) can not be utilized for modeling the vacuum data.

16. F.P. Incropera, D.P.DeWitt, “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer”, 4th ed. (Wiley, 

NewYork, 1996).

17. H. Preston-Thomas, Metrologia, 27, 107 (1990).

18. L. Pitre, M. Moldover, and W. L. Tew, Metrologia, 43, 142 (2006).

19. J. Fischer, M. de Podesta, K. D. Hill, M. Moldover, L. Pitre, R. Rusby, P. Steur, O. 

Tamura, R. White, L.Wolber, Int. J. Thermophys. 32,12-25 (2011).