Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On Dec 28, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I belive that the British 60kHz "Rugby" transmitter regularly have > been transmitting out-of-date DUT1 values due to sloppy procedures. > > That would indicate that it is not a very important part of their data. Not currently, perhaps...

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 2010-12-28 18:33, Tony Finch asked: Do practical systems get DUT1 from time broadcasts > or from files downloaded from the Internet? I do not know -- but this is one of the questions I would expect to be answered when it is decided to which degree of precision UT is made avai

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

In message <4d1a3358.8070...@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh writes: >Is the DUT1 broadcast a vestige of the past, or is it actively used? I belive that the British 60kHz "Rugby" transmitter regularly have been transmitting out-of-date DUT1 values due to sloppy procedures. That would indicate that it i

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

> Do practical systems get DUT1 from time broadcasts or from files downloaded > from the Internet? > > Tony. Most all practical systems today do neither, because DUT1 is known to be less than plus or minus one second, and very few systems need to know what DUT1 is to any accuracy better than t

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 12/28/2010 11:33, Tony Finch wrote: On 28 Dec 2010, at 16:27, Michael Deckers > wrote: [b] This proposal does not only change technicalities like the maximal difference |UTC - UT|, but it changes several other things (more important things, in my

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 2010 Dec 28, at 10:33, Tony Finch wrote: > Do practical systems get DUT1 from time broadcasts or from files downloaded > from the Internet? For the Shane 3-m telescope (built like a battleship, points like a battleship) DUT1 is irrelevant. For the 21st century computer-controlled subarcsecond

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Richard B. Langley wrote: > 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. Thanks for forwarding this. > Here are the conclusions, summary, and actions from the presentation: >

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 28 Dec 2010, at 16:27, Michael Deckers wrote: > > [b] This proposal does not only change technicalities like > the maximal difference |UTC - UT|, but it changes several > other things (more important things, in my opinion). For > instance, it removes the > im

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 2010 Dec 28, at 08:21, Steve Allen wrote: > By the nature of its charter the ITU-R is incapable of serving > a role of giving guidance. That seems to me what Dave Finkleman > has been starting to do. In this case guidance, and time for engineers and systems to adapt to handle a change, is more

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 2010-12-28 12:56, Richard B. Langley wrote: 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:

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

On 2010 Dec 28, at 04:56, Richard B. Langley wrote: > 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 applicatio

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

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: . Here are

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

God bless us, every one! On Dec 26, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Richard B. Langley wrote: > Quoting Rob Seaman : > >> 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. >> >>

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

Quoting Rob Seaman : 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 b

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

Poul-Henning Kamp replies to...well, apparently himself: >> ...but Poul-Henning Kamp said: >> >>> 1. There is no "international civil timekeeping", civil timekeeping is a >>> national legislative matter. >> >> and later appeared to be arguing the exact opposite: >> >>> The entire point of the

Re: [LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

In message <83e442cd-4a84-4493-8e60-867af882b...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >I wrote: > >>> Which is why the international civil timekeeping standard should be tied to >>> physical reality. > >...but Poul-Henning Kamp said: > >> 1. There is no "international civil timekeeping", civil timekeepin

[LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

I wrote: >> Which is why the international civil timekeeping standard should be tied to >> physical reality. ...but Poul-Henning Kamp said: > 1. There is no "international civil timekeeping", civil timekeeping is a > national legislative matter. and later appeared to be arguing the exact oppo