Hi If you have a “zero option” then nothing ever gets tested. It always sits at zero and gets ignored. If you dither back and forth +/- 1 second, it’s tested every month. The faulty system that does not follow the signal gets spotted and fixed.
Bob > On Jul 21, 2016, at 3:03 PM, Tom Holmes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom... > > Does your proposal allow for a Zero leap second, or does it require either > plus or minus 1 to work? Seems like you could stay closer to the true value > if you also have a zero option. Might also cause less consternation for some > services, like the finance and scientific worlds, that seem to have critical > issues when an LS appears. > > I like your point that by having it occur monthly it forces systems to > address issues promptly, and maybe that's the argument for the non-zero > option. > > Tom Holmes, N8ZM > > > -----Original Message----- > From: time-nuts [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Van Baak > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:28 PM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <[email protected]> > Cc: Leap Second Discussion List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC > December 31 this year > > Time to mention this again... > > If we adopted the LSEM (Leap Second Every Month) model then none of this > would be a problem. The idea is not to decide *if* there will be leap second, > but to force every month to have a leap second. The IERS decision is then > what the *sign* of the leap second should be this month. > > Note this would keep |DUT1| < 1 s as now. UT1 would stay in sync with UTC, > not so much by rare steps but by dithering. There would be no change to UTC > or timing infrastructure because the definition of UTC already allows for > positive or negative leap seconds in any given month. > > Every UTC-aware device would 1) know how to reliably insert or delete a leap > second, because bugs would be found by developers within a month or two, not > by end-users years or decades in the future, and 2) every UTC-aware device > would have an often tested direct or indirect path to IERS to know what the > sign of the leap second will be for the current month. > > The leap second would then become a normal part of UTC, a regular monthly > event, instead of a rare, newsworthy exception. None of the weird bugs we > continue to see year after year in leap second handling by NTP and OS's and > GPS receiver firmware would occur. > > Historical leap second tables would consist of little more than 12 bits per > year. > > Moreover, in the next decade or two or three, if we slide into an era where > average earth rotation slows from 86400.1 to 86400.0 to 86399.9 seconds a > day, there will be zero impact if LSEM is already in place. > > /tvb > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
