Re: [LEAPSECS] Looking-glass, through
It would appear that making adjustments every 10 days is not often enough, at least in the US, viz: http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/NISTUTC.cfm http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/nistusno.cfm Even if we abandon the leap second, we have issues at the nanosecond level. This is what happens any time you have more than one clock and if you have bounds on frequency steering. You'll find that all of the UTC(k) clocks disagree at the nanosecond level and that they all wander around the mean paper clock, UTC. This also is normal and expected. /tvb ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] Looking-glass, through
Alas, 'tis neither normal nor expected by the APIs and the programmers who are implementing systems that deal with time. Let me find some good references for you on how the UTC paper clock actually works. Inter-comparing the clocks from each national laboratory is in itself a fascinating subject (or, Demetrios, do you have some canned papers on this?). You really didn't expect 250 diffeent atomic clocks around the world to all agree at the ns level at all times did you? /tvb ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] Looking-glass, through
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 13:47, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote: You really didn't expect 250 diffeent atomic clocks around the world to all agree at the ns level at all times did you? tounge-in-cheek Why not? nano is 10E-9, and I see references to people trying for clocks with 10E-12 on this list. And what good is the atom part of an atomic clock, if it can't even handle nano? /foot-in-mouth Still waiting for the flying cars I was promised ... -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
