On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote: > Here's a plot that shows how a non leap second UTC would > look if the cesium resonance were other than 9,192,631,770. > > http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/ut/ut-ani-v2.gif > > In retrospect it's too bad |DUT1| had to be so tight. If Essen > and friends had made it 10 s we wouldn't need leap seconds > in a lifetime.
Yea, I sure like 9,192,631,950 a lot better than ,770. :) But then again, any value > 840 or so would have required positive leap seconds if UTC was defined like it has been, but the SI second's value just slightly off. '770 has a fractional frequency error of 2e-8, which is about what we'd expect from 1.3ms/century drift from the Ephemeris Second's origin in 1820. Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
