And on further thought, I also concede your point, since pps does not really
give the fractions of a second either, but just gives the second mark. You do
need an additional "clock" to actually tell you the fractions of a second.
Anyway, I hope I clarified what I meant.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Tomalak Geret'kal wrote:
On 28/11/2013 20:05, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Tomalak Geret'kal wrote:
> On 28/11/2013 19:11, Bill Unruh wrote:
> > Is this the nmea time or the PPS time?
>
> What is "PPS time"? PPS provides timing, not time.
In my nomenclature, they are the same. PPS does supply time but just the
fractional seconds part of it. (Just as ntp supplies time by only the
fractional
"centuries" part of it-- You probably would not argue that ntp does not
supply
time just the timing.)
>
It probably comes from the traditional notion of time as something useful to
humans, i.e. something down to minutes or seconds at least but up to hours or
days/months/years.
In the commercial world of timing sync (e.g. telecoms networks) we say timing
vs time to differentiate the two, and do not allow sub-second timing to count
as any indication of absolute "time", but I concede your point.
Tom
--
William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | un...@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
--
To unsubscribe email chrony-users-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org
with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-users-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org
with "help" in the subject.
Trouble? Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org.
