transcribing the MS stuff
On Fri 2006-10-27T01:37:16 +, Michael Sokolov hath writ: > Would you or anyone else on the list be so kind as to provide an ASCII > translation of that application/msword attachment for those of us who > have absolutely no ability to read proprietary formats? Some of the punctuation and URLs have been munged. (I think the URLs are irrelevant to us without ITU TIES accounts) (Gosh, I'll have to try rolling back the edit log to see if the original word doc had any interesting elided text.) -- Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99858 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06014 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m Working Party 7A (Standard Frequency and Time Signal) Meeting Summary 28 August � 1 September 2006 Geneva, Switzerland WP 7A met in Geneva August 28 � September 1, 2006. Mr. Ronald Beard of the USA presided as the new chairman replacing Mr. Gerrit de Jong of the Netherlands who had served in this position for many years. Registered for this meeting were 35 participants from Member States including Germany, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Korea, USA, Russia, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Syria, United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Also registered were the BIPM and Radiocommunication Bureau Counsellor for SG's 3 and7. There were nine input documents including two on the future of UTC, a report on the leap second adjustments in Japan, two concerning information for the ITU web site on time codes and SFTS radio stations, and one document on interference between LF radio stations. Mr. Beard brought the meeting to order at 1000 hours, Tuesday, August 28. Input documents were introduced by representatives of the originating organizations. Working Groups were formed to discuss input documents and other required issues. Included were Working Groups for reviewing existing Questions assigned to WP 7A, to consider the information available for posting on the ITUR web site http://www.itu.int/ITUR/study groups/index.asp?link=rsg7&lang=en extracted from Recommendation ITU R TF.583 regarding time codes and Recommendation ITUR TF.768 regarding Standard Frequency and Time Signal emissions, to consider inputs on time codes, to finalize a report by the Special Rapporteur Group on the Future of UTC (SRG), and to write a executive summary for the SRG report. An additional task of addressing the US contribution http://www.itu.int/md/R03WP7AC0038/en requesting that the SRG report be attached to the Preliminary Draft Revision of Recommendation ITUR TF.4606, Standardfrequency and timesignal emissions (PDRR) http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?type=sitems&lang=e&parent=R03WP7AC 0021, presently attached to WP7A chairman's 2005 report, be circulated to Member States and Sector Members was not assigned to a Working Group at this time as it first required the completion of the SRG report. This US contribution/request was strongly supported by the UK, the only Member State formally objecting to the PDRR. After the introduction of the document the WP7A counsellor informed WP7A that a preliminary document i.e. the PDRR, could not be circulated beyond WP7A according to ITUR resolutions nor could the currently in effect Recommendation ITU R TF.4606, be attached to the SRG report with an explanation of proposed changes since all ITUR Recommendations are only sold by the ITUR. The counsellor, however, did think it possible that the SRG report and its summary could be made available on the ITUR web site. During introduction of input documents representatives of some Member States requested that a decision for accepting or rejecting the PDRR submitted in 2004 be made at this meeting. It was noted that contributions on the subject had been received in 2005 and 2006 and required consideration before any decisions were possible. It appeared that if a vote were taken at this time only the UK would be voting against accepting the PDRR as attached to the chairman's report. By midway through the second day all Working Groups had completed their assignments except those concerned with the SRG report and it summary. Only by the afternoon of the final day was the SRG report and its summary completed leaving no time to address the PDRR and related contributions. This issue would therefore be continued to the 2007 WP7A meeting. Finally, WP7A assisted the counsellor with drafting a press release on its meeting. By close of meeting, the possibility of posting the SRG report and its summary on the ITUR web site had not been confirmed by the counsellor. The next meeting of WP7A has been scheduled for 1114 September 2007 in Geneva.
Re: 2006 WP-7A meeting summary
Daniel R. Tobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why people always feel compelled to use proprietary Microsoftism file > formats for things that could be epressed perfectly fine in plain > ASCII text I have no idea. Would you or anyone else on the list be so kind as to provide an ASCII translation of that application/msword attachment for those of us who have absolutely no ability to read proprietary formats? TIA, MS
Re: 2006 WP-7A meeting summary
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > FYI - this was written for distribution to all interested parties. Why people always feel compelled to use proprietary Microsoftism file formats for things that could be epressed perfectly fine in plain ASCII text I have no idea. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Re: 2006 WP-7A meeting summary
On Thu 2006-10-26T16:01:55 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath forwarded: After the introduction of the document the WP-7A counsellor informed WP-7A that a preliminary document i.e. the PDRR, could not be circulated beyond WP-7A according to ITU-R resolutions nor could the currently in effect Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6, be attached to the SRG report with an explanation of proposed changes since all ITU-R Recommendations are only sold by the ITU-R. Anyone care to join in an accolade to Shakespeare's Dick? Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, scene 2, line 76 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_VI%2C_part_2 Alternatively just to mope like Cassius to Brutus? Julius Caesar, Act 1, scene 2 -- Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99858 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06014 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
Re: Titan Time
Zefram said: >> There's nothing at all wrong with the radian - but there is a reason >> calculators let you switch between degrees and radians. Each is best >> for particular purposes, > Certainly the radian is best for some purposes. But the degree? Is there > some inherent feature of the circle that makes it particularly natural to > divide it into 360 parts? Not really. Personally, I like the mil: 6400 mils in a circle, and a mil is close enough to a milliradian that you can use the usual tricks (a mil subtends about a metre at a kilometre). -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Tel:+44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fax:+44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS plc||
2006 WP-7A meeting summary
FYI – this was written for distribution to all interested parties. WP 7A meeting in Geneva August 28, 2006.doc Description: MS-Word document
Re: Titan Time
Rob Seaman wrote: >There's nothing at all wrong with the radian - but there is a reason >calculators let you switch between degrees and radians. Each is best >for particular purposes, Certainly the radian is best for some purposes. But the degree? Is there some inherent feature of the circle that makes it particularly natural to divide it into 360 parts? I don't think angle quantities need particular divisors any more than length quantities do. For that matter, dividing the circle into 360 parts for some purposes and then 24 for others (solar time, right ascension) is pretty annoying. It would be nice to be able to calculate LMT = UT + longitude without having to switch units in the middle. >...leading to the need to rely on pico, femto or atto spheres on a >day-to-day basis? For some purposes, yes. In astronomy, I can't really visualise a square arcsecond, but expressing it as 1.9 psf puts it in proportion. > also the ability to express right angles and a >multitude of other special values of trigonometry, leading to >expressions like cosine (166.667 mcr) = one-half. The right angle is, of course, 250 mcr. As for arccos(1/2), I'm as happy to express it as "1/6 cr" as to express it as "1/3 _pi rad". -zefram
Re: Titan Time
Zefram wrote: the radian is not a very practical unit. There's nothing at all wrong with the radian - but there is a reason calculators let you switch between degrees and radians. Each is best for particular purposes, just as interval time and time-of-day are best for different uses. See also natural and common logarithms. Or even the continuing value of Newtonian mechanics in the age of Relativity. I prefer to use the circle: 1 cr = 2 _pi rad. Similarly, for solid angle, the sphere: 1 sf = 4 _pi sr. ...leading to the need to rely on pico, femto or atto spheres on a day-to-day basis? 83 mcr (millicircles). That gives me a good image of where the sun is. Fine. Glad for the acknowledgment that the position of the sun in the sky matters. I prefer to cut everything decimally, including the circle and the day. Actually I might prefer to cut everything octally, but decimal is the dominant standard so let's use it. Consistency is the key. Point "the Google" at "consistency emerson" for the canonical quote on this subject. For angles, I'll merely point out that you appear to be willing to sacrifice not only the 24 hours in a day (what would Jack Bauer think?) – but also the ability to express right angles and a multitude of other special values of trigonometry, leading to expressions like cosine (166.667 mcr) = one-half. And my kid thought trigonometric identities were dubious before... I doubt even the ITU would claim authority over the definition of pi :–) Rob
Re: Titan Time
Rob Seaman wrote: >Presumably folks who dismiss sexagesimal Sumerian units for clocks >would also welcome the deprecation of degrees for measuring angles. Oh yes. But the radian is not a very practical unit. I prefer to use the circle: 1 cr = 2 _pi rad. Similarly, for solid angle, the sphere: 1 sf = 4 _pi sr. >and local time (since this is an >angle, too) as 0.5236 radians past midnight? 83 mcr (millicircles). That gives me a good image of where the sun is. > I prefer my pi cut into >12 slices. I prefer to cut everything decimally, including the circle and the day. Actually I might prefer to cut everything octally, but decimal is the dominant standard so let's use it. Consistency is the key. -zefram
Re: Titan Time
John Cowan wrote: MAPS: In general the flybys around T20 are relatively similar. They approach over 35degrees latitude, ~135degrees west longitude (moving from north to south) and local time is around 2 am. Bizarre. So each Titan local day is 24 local hours long, where an hour is about 57.4 ksec? Which of these notions would you prefer to discard – the idea that local planetary time is divided into 24 parts, or that one of those parts may not be 3600 SI seconds long? In a solar system full of dozens of rotating spheroids, what overarching concept of timekeeping best ties all the local clocks together? Oh! I know – let's ignore the big shiny signpost in the middle! Surely every space mission isn't tasked with inventing not only a new clock, but also a new kind of clock? Surely it would be better to adapt prior art to new conditions? On this tidally locked moon, one can make the case that descriptors like midnight, noon, sunrise and sunset gain an even greater importance precisely because they are extended by a factor of 16 in duration. How then best to convey an illumination similar to 2 am local time on Earth, rather than by calling it "2 am"? Should the Earth be deemed a special case whose rotational clock will be allowed to drift by 54,000 arcseconds precisely over the historical period that humanity is exploring, visiting and perhaps colonizing other planets and moons? Why? My personal mnemonics: you can be no more than a ksec late for an appointment in American culture without anyone making a fuss; a Msec is a reasonable length of time for a single work assignment; a marriage is doing very well if it lasts a Gsec (mine is at 0.85 Gsec and counting). And any good university library will be chock-a-block with utopian screeds for metric calendars and clocks. Presumably folks who dismiss sexagesimal Sumerian units for clocks would also welcome the deprecation of degrees for measuring angles. So the Cassini operations staff would be expected to report its ground track as 0.6108N 2.356W, and local time (since this is an angle, too) as 0.5236 radians past midnight? I prefer my pi cut into 12 slices. The pragmatic engineers who pilot spacecraft pay little attention to astronomers' whims when choosing what standards to use. They must have had some other reason for not specifying those "standard" units that were baptized during the Reign of Terror. Rob
Re: Titan Time
Peter Bunclark scripsit: > MAPS: In general the flybys around T20 are relatively similar. They > approach over 35degrees latitude, ~135degrees west longitude (moving from > north to south) and local time is around 2 am. Bizarre. So each Titan local day is 24 local hours long, where an hour is about 57.4 ksec? My personal mnemonics: you can be no more than a ksec late for an appointment in American culture without anyone making a fuss; a Msec is a reasonable length of time for a single work assignment; a marriage is doing very well if it lasts a Gsec (mine is at 0.85 Gsec and counting). -- Take two turkeys, one goose, four John Cowan cabbages, but no duck, and mix them http://www.ccil.org/~cowan together. After one taste, you'll duck [EMAIL PROTECTED] soup the rest of your life. --Groucho
Titan Time
I rather like this, it's a quote from the most recent Cassini fly-by of Titan; another example of the ingrained assumption that "local time" is equivalent to rotation angle (because illumination incidence is important to these guys). MAPS: In general the flybys around T20 are relatively similar. They approach over 35degrees latitude, ~135degrees west longitude (moving from north to south) and local time is around 2 am. The full suite of RPWS, CAPS, MIMI, and INMS taking data during this flyby, and the MAPS instruments get to choose the overall pointing of the spacecraft from -52 minutes down to -10 minutes from closest approach. Pete.
