I have been asked to remind list members of the presentation by Ron
Beard, the chairman of ITU-R Working Party 7A, at ION GNSS 2010. The
PowerPoint slides can be downloaded from here:
<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/50/%5B16%5DITU_Status_UTC_Revision_CGSIC_50th.pdf>.
Here are the conclusions, summary, and actions from the presentation:
CONCLUSIONS
Major scientific and GNSS organizations have not taken issue with the subject
There has been ample opportunity and encouragement to contribute
The lack of response has been interpreted as having no concern and
thus no established opinion
Little information on quantitative costs has been provided
The few estimates offered seem to be guesses at best
Few observers noted there are costs associated with maintaining the
status quo that may or may not be mitigated
Most experts in time metrology agree on the necessity for the change
and offer technical support
The Consultative Committee on Time and Frequency strongly recommends
proceeding with a decision so enough time is available for any
necessary software and systems modifications
SUMMARY
Documents demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the definitions and
applications of time scales and system times for internal
synchronization
o Indications that users have the choice between UTC, TAI, UT1, GPS
Time for their applications is incorrect
o UTC is the only international standard time scale, represented by
local approximations in time laboratories, that should be used for
worldwide time coordination and measurement traceability
o TAI is not an option for applications needing a continuous reference
as it has no means of dissemination, and it is not physically
represented by clocks
o GPS time is not a reference time scale, it is an internal time for
GPS system synchronization, as other GNSS system times would be
o A variety of continuous internal system time scales have
proliferated to provide a solution to the problems associated with
discontinuities in UTC
The existence of multiple time scales creates potential problems in
operational use as well as conceptual confusion on the proper
definition and roles of time references
ACTIONS
Working Party 7A exhausted technical considerations and studies
Consensus not reached on other than technical grounds
Submitted to Study Group 7 for resolution
So far, I have not seen any reports from Study Group 7 subsequent
deliberations.
-- Richard Langley
Quoting Rob Seaman <[email protected]>:
God bless us, every one!
On Dec 26, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Richard B. Langley wrote:
Quoting Rob Seaman <[email protected]>:
The ITU, rather, have monomaniacally pursued one-and-only-one
NON-solution for a decade, and have assiduously avoided
characterizing the problem they claim to seek to solve.
"Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious
purposes, and make it worse! And bide the end!"
So yes - I will continue to rattle my chains.
Dare we hope for a Scrooge-like transformation of the ITU? ;-)
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
===============================================================================
Richard B. Langley E-mail: [email protected]
Geodetic Research Laboratory Web: http://www.unb.ca/GGE/
Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering Phone: +1 506 453-5142
University of New Brunswick Fax: +1 506 453-4943
Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3
Fredericton? Where's that? See: http://www.city.fredericton.nb.ca/
===============================================================================
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
