If UTC time was adjusted every month would stick with one full second? Or some smaller quantity?
On Thursday, 21 July 2016, Brooke Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom: > > I like this idea. I addresses the lesson from Y2K that something done > often works much better than something done only occasionally. > That's way you see the firetruck at the local store, because it's used all > the time and so is more likely to work when needed. > > -- > Have Fun, > > Brooke Clarke > http://www.PRC68.com > http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html > The lesser of evils is still evil. > > -------- Original Message -------- > >> 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
