I may be missing something. Should there be any reason that TT-UT1
will change?
Ronald
On 11/20/22, leapsecs-requ...@leapsecond.com
wrote:
> Send LEAPSECS mailing list submissions to
> leapsecs@leapsecond.com is changed?
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> leapsecs-requ...@leapsecond.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> leapsecs-ow...@leapsecond.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of LEAPSECS digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: future access to solar time? (Tony Finch)
>2. Re: Global timekeepers vote to scrap leap second by 2035
> (Steve Allen)
>3. Re: future access to solar time?
> (Seaman, Robert Lewis - (rseaman))
>4. Re: future access to solar time? (Kevin Birth)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 15:15:42 +
> From: Tony Finch
> To: Leap Second Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] future access to solar time?
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Seaman, Robert Lewis - (rseaman) wrote:
>>
>> The plan, rather, is to cease easy access to solar time.
>
> The resolution says the GCPM
>
> : encourages the BIPM to work with relevant organizations to identify the
> : need for updates in the different services that disseminate the value of
> : the difference (UT1-UTC) and to ensure the correct understanding and use
> : of the new maximum value.
>
> So I think your summary is a bit off the mark.
>
> I guess the ITU is going to revise TF.460 to allow larger values of DUT1
> in time signals, and MSF etc. will accommodate the change too. (Do any of
> the national broadcast signals actually follow the ITU spec?)
>
> GPS L5 signals provide UT1 as an 8.23 bits two's complement fixed point
> difference from GPS time. This is enough to cope with the changes in the
> CGPM resolution. See IS-GPS-705 p. 87 at
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/
>
> I have not been able to find any specs for NMEA sentences that contain
> anything like UT1 or DUT1 or delta-T, but I expect they will be created
> before too long, as more GPS receivers support L5 signals.
>
> And there are other sources of UT1 like NIST's stunt NTP servers.
>
> --
> Tony Finchhttps://dotat.at/
> East Sole, Lundy, Fastnet: Westerly backing southerly, 5 to 7, then
> becoming cyclonic 7 to severe gale 9 later, perhaps storm 10 later.
> Rough or very rough, becoming very rough or high later. Rain or
> showers. Good, occasionally poor.
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 07:49:08 -0800
> From: Steve Allen
> To: Leap Second Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Global timekeepers vote to scrap leap second
> by 2035
> Message-ID: <20221120154908.ga7...@ucolick.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On Sun 2022-11-20T13:23:32+ Kevin Birth hath writ:
>> As far as I can tell, they were never successful, but it did keep them
>> busy.
>
> As Rod Serling wrote in The Big Tall Wish
> You got to believe, Bolie.
> But worse, because in this arena infidels will not be tolerated.
>
> --
> Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS)
> UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB 260 Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat
> +36.99855
> 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng
> -122.06015
> Santa Cruz, CA 95064 https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 15:54:37 +
> From: "Seaman, Robert Lewis - (rseaman)"
> To: Leap Second Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] future access to solar time?
> Message-ID:
>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> Getting the solar time currently means looking at your watch or the upper
> right-hand corner of the monitor. Would anybody else?s summary of the notion
> of ?easy access? include phrases like: ?8.23 bits two?s complement fixed
> point? or ?NMEA sentences that contain anything like UT1 or DUT1 or
> delta-T??
>
> I have been presuming tenth-second DUT1 values are slated for demolition
> with leap seconds. Can anybody confirm differently? I applaud the goal of
> ensuring understanding and usage of whatever infrastructure will exist. Few
> systems currently use DUT1. One of the issues is that many more will need to
> start.
>
> UT1 itself is only known retroactively. If your use of the word ?stunt?
> wasn?t a typo, it seems to me that NIST rather needs robust and easy-to-use
> infrastructure. I was never able to get reliable access to the UT1 NTP
> server, and generally, our group doesn?t build reliance on third-party NTP
> pools into our operational systems.
>
> We should all welcome GNSS support for
