On Fri 2018-03-16T16:16:23+0000 Matsakis, Demetrios N CIV NAVOBSY, N3TS hath writ: > I was surprised to find phrases in the Lick web pages: "CCIR ignored > the advice that astronomers " and "squelched astronomers who insisted > that leap seconds would cause trouble".
The IAU publications around the 1970 General Assembly say that. > GPS, and your local cell towers are all part of the system as well. One need merely ask everyone with a 4G Android phone in southern Tasmania whose phone clocks were all an hour off Friday. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-16/time-glitch-leaves-some-hobart-residents-an-hour-late/9554758 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5508199/Tasmanians-hit-Telstra-phone-glitch-shifted-clocks-back.html > it looks to me like the switch to UTC was by universal agreement > among the institutions. The IAU, URSI, CIPM(=CGPM), and CCIR(= ITU) > all agreed to the current system in the late 60's, and I would guess > that the timing of their resolutions probably depended more on the > (generally) 3-year spacing of their general assemblies than anything > else. Note that many of those groups had overlapping membership. It > would however be unusual if all individual members of these bodies > ever agreed to any resolution, even if passed "by consensus". It looks like some paragraphs about lack of agreement were elided from the transcriptions of the 1970 IAU General Assembly, but many words remain that speak of serious disagreeing, ignoring, and excluding. > For more trivia, the dynamic Gernot Winkler of the USNO was both a > practical clock man and astronomer. He was not the only one, and he > was a very active member of the IAU who chaired commissions, served on > working groups, etc. He told me personally that he and Essen > independently came up with the idea of leap seconds. I am going to have to stop being amazed when I keep learning of yet another person taking credit for inventing the leap second. The 1970 IAU documents indicate that Winkler was one who warned that leap seconds would cause trouble for automated systems. They also make it clear that there was not unanimity, and that there was overlap. The rest of this is nitty gritty details and references with links to original content so folks can read that. The documents from the 1970 IAU meeting tell a story which was witnessed by LEAPSECS contributor Clive Page leaving enough impression for that to be in his contribution to an art video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtYvSjS1jUI&t=4m24s Transactions of the IAU A (1970) (prior to the General Assembly) Report to Comm 31 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970IAUTA..14..343Z President: F. Zagar Vice-president: G.M.R. Winkler Winkler was V.P., and acting president at the General Assembly, yet the tone of this report to Comm 31 is clearly not in accord with the actions of the radio broadcast and metrology agencies. bottom of p.344, the CGPM ignored the 1967 IAU recommendations and triggered intervention by the IAU president. middle of p.345, Sadler and Winkler are cited pointing out that an aircraft Collision Avoidance System cannot tolerate time steps. Also this sentence has been ignored: It is stated as a necessity that activities concering time service should be completely independent of the activities of frequency laboratories. bottom of p.345, in 1969 the PTB and URSI asked for a Consultative Committee on Time Scales to consider the course of action, and CCIR working party 7 ignored them. (My impression is that the BIPM/CCTF Task Group on Time Scale Definitions (TGTSD) which first met in 2016 means that this request was deferred for 47 years.) Transactions of the IAU B (1971) (at the General Assembly) Report of Comm 4 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971IAUTB..14...79W p.80, H.M.Smith reported that the CCIR had instituted the leap second, and D.H.Sadler was strongly opposed. Also, the IAU had not been officially informed of the CCIR action to create the leap second. (The proceedings of the CCIR meetings through 1980 indicate that H.M.Smith spearheaded the effort to get international agencies and national laws to adopt the leap second as the perfect solution.) Report of Comm 31 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971IAUTB..14..193W with last page of that included within Report of Joint meeting of Comms 4 and 31 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971IAUTB..14..198W Winkler was acting president at these meetings. p.194 has a break in the flow. Paragraphs about the perennial underfunding of the BIH are inexplicably followed by The President urged Commission 31 to consider the scope of its activities. and the next paragraph inexplicably switches to H.M.Smith talking about problems of two time systems. The second session invited BIPM president J.Terrien to talk about atomic time scales, something that he followed up later Metrologia, v8, #3, p.99 (1972) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/8/3/004 in the last few years regrettable misunderstandings, especially between astronomers and physicists, have crept into discussions on time and frequency in a way that seems like sorry, not sorry. bottom of p.195 has another break in the flow where Winkler reported that the IAU had received no official communication from the CCIR about the leap second even though a CCIR resolution had stated the IAU should be informed. H.M.Smith said that in the absence of official word CCIR to IAU there could be no comments from Comm 31. Smith then mentions 6 points raised in an earlier meeting. That seems like it fits the break in the flow on p.194. Winkler then stopped discussion about the CCIR and allowed "free discussion" which is not recorded. -- Steve Allen <[email protected]> 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 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
