Interesting!
Another example of “polysemy”
(http://hanksville.org/futureofutc/aas223/presentations/2-1-ISOterminologyAAS.pdf)
in timekeeping.
In addition to changes in funding (be careful what you ask for, precision time
community), best practices (and worse practices) should get a good workout as
this foundational standard is redefined.
Rob
On 11/21/22, 8:30 AM, "LEAPSECS" wrote:
On 2022-11-21 14:19, Seaman, Robert Lewis - (rseaman) wrote:
> In a post-leap-second world, precision values for dUT1 either become more
> critical or less. Or rather, they become no-less important scientifically but
> perhaps negligible politically. For
> example,https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117719302388
> says “Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) are dependent on VLBI as
> they need dUT1 to maintain its operability”.
I am not sure if we mean the same thing by "dUT1". I used
it in the sense:
dUT1 is an additonal correction to UTC so that
UTC + DUT1 + dUT1
is a better approximation of UT1 than just
UTC + DUT1
and takes its values in the set {0, ±20, ±40, ±60, ±80} ms.
dUT1 in this sense is used only by some Russian time signals,
and its value is not defined by the IERS. Moreover, since the
amplitude of UT1 - UT2 is about 34 ms, dUT1 must be adjusted
for annual variations of UT1 - UTC.
I have seen the term "dUT1" to be used for ΔUT1 = UT1 - UTC
(and that is how I read it in the paper you quoted), and
also for the rate d(UT1) -- but these are different beasts.
Michael Deckers.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
