On 2019-01-22 05:17, Steve Allen wrote:
Curiously there is not a big jump in the value of UT2 - A3 at that
same date which would have been caused by changing from the old
expression for UT2 - UT1 to the new expression. I surmise that this
means Stoyko and Guinot did correct the old values of UT2 for the
change in that formula.
In [https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/taiepoch.html], the
table F on page 74 in fact does not show a step in ΔA3 = UT2 - A3
between the lines for 1961 January 00 and January 05 (which is
why you could interpolate linearly to obtain UT2 - A3 = -1.4123 s
for 1961-01-01).
And the column "WWV3" equally shows no step at 1961-01-01,
and since it is probably meant to be "BIH integrated atomic time
- time signaled by WWV3" (where the latter should include the
step down by 5 ms), the point of tabulation "Janvier 0" may
actually be the instant when UT2 was 1960 Dec 31 - 5 ms.
So yes, the entry may have been "corrected".
Anyway, a jump down by 5 ms occurred in (what was later baptized)
UTC on 1961-01-01 (see [Explanatory Supplement 1992, p 87]).
I always thought that this was done to adapt to the jump in UT2
caused by the change in the formula for UT2 - UT1, but from the
graphs in [https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/seasonal.html]
(thanks!) I have to conclude that UT2 must have made an
upward jump by about 5 ms, while the step by 5 ms in UTC
at 1961-01-01 definitely was a downward jump (it is also included
as such in the SOFA function iauDat()). Did I make a sign error?
Michael Deckers.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
