But this was not at all the case in the 60's where countries or
labs would vary by tens or hundreds of microseconds or even
many milliseconds.
See: http://www.leapsecond.com/hpj/v17n12/v17n12p16.jpg
And: http://www.leapsecond.com/hpj/v19n4/v19n4p18.jpg
A huge part of UTC was the formation of
On 18 Jan 2012 at 7:41, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I am pretty sure that at this point everybody read GMT as UTC in
those treaties, if they have not already been fixed.
So, basically:
Using a different name from UTC for a future time standard that is
unmoored from solar time is too problematic
On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
IWarner Losh wrote:
Universal Time is an abstract definition. It wasn't designed at all. It
models the time of day, on the average, of an important historical
observatory in a nation that had the political clout to get its observatory
On 2012-01-18 23:33, Tom Van Baak proposed:
I would like at some point, regardless of how the ITU vote turns
out for this list to collectively work toward external education
rather than internal bickering or google baiting. For every one
of us there are a thousand engineers out there
Ian Batten said:
However, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that UTC as constituted meets
this requirement, but UTC without leap seconds doesn't. S(9) doesn't say
GMT +/- 1s, it says GMT. Why is one second's error bar axiomatically OK,
while 1 minute, 1 hour, etc, not? The legislation
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
With respect to national laws, they are N times easier to fix than
an international treaty, and therefore much less of a concern.
Then it was a mistake for those treaties to directly refer to UTC instead
of indirectly to the internationally agreed upon reference time.
In message 719683fad725c87fb7cb156e7eabdb7a.squir...@mx.pipe.nl, Nero Imhard
writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
With respect to national laws, they are N times easier to fix than
an international treaty, and therefore much less of a concern.
Then it was a mistake for those treaties to directly
On 2012 Jan 18, at 00:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
UTC's semantics is the timescale we agree to coordinate on, its
More precisely something like this:
We will coordinate our efforts so as to produce a time scale
which is more suitable for all purposes.
The annals of the CCIR meetings from the
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Which part of Coordinated did you not understand in UTC ?
Oh, the C part was fine, but it's the UT part that
people/entities/coutries seem to be having second thoughts about.
N
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
On 18 Jan 2012, at 0805, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
I am aware of case law where a difference of 8 seconds between clocks was
relevant. That's the shortest interval I've seen so far in my searches.
And that's between clocks, not between a clock and some abstract reference. If
MSF, GPS user
On 18 January 2012 08:28, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
Which part of Coordinated did you not understand in UTC ?
UTC's semantics is the timescale we agree to coordinate on, its
relationship to the heavens above was merely a convenient matter
of implementation.
Well I've
Well I've always interpretted it as a co-ordinated form of UT. Steve Allens
next email implies others viewed it that way as well.
Stephen,
My reading of the original documents in the 60's is that the
co-ordinate was both astronomical-atomic and atomic-atomic.
I don't know how old you are,
On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
but I sure hope that astronomers wake up, stop complaining,
This is illogical (and borderline insulting). We're supposed to wake up,
but do so without talking about the issues?
and use UT1 and DUT1 for what they were designed for.
Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
If people wish to argue that the '78 Act requires GMT (and, note, the
act only relates to the interpretation of other legislation, not to
civil contracts or what your watch says) then that's fine, but the
natural interpretation of GMT in 1978 would be the
On Wed 2012-01-18T18:42:03 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
Actually, no, because what the RGO called GMT and what they disseminated
as the official British civil time was the same as UTC from 1972. I expect
a court would take this as indicating that GMT should be interpreted as
what the duly
Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Wed 2012-01-18T18:42:03 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
Actually, no, because what the RGO called GMT and what they disseminated
as the official British civil time was the same as UTC from 1972. I expect
a court would take this as indicating that GMT
IWarner Losh wrote:
Universal Time is an abstract definition. It wasn't designed at all. It
models the time of day, on the average, of an important historical
observatory in a nation that had the political clout to get its observatory
named primary over all the other nations that had
Rob Seaman said:
Who has an actual requirement for an approximation of UT to 1s?
Almost everybody,
Oh?
I need an approximation of civil time to somewhere between 30s (when
catching a local train or watching a television programme [1]) and 5
minutes (when attending an internal meeting).
I have
but I sure hope that astronomers wake up, stop complaining,
This is illogical (and borderline insulting). We're supposed to
wake up, but do so without talking about the issues?
Rob,
Yeah, sorry, that was a bit over the top.
I would like at some point, regardless of how the ITU vote turns
Tom Van Baak wrote:
I would like at some point, regardless of how the ITU vote turns out for this
list to collectively work toward external education rather than internal
bickering or google baiting.
My reply from last Friday still seems appropriate (appended). We're also
pretty proud of:
On 17 Jan 2012, at 0739, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Ah, if name changes are allowed, then here's a solution:
Rename UTC to UTD
-- That's D for slightly drifting, the kind of timescale
that astronomers need, the one with leap seconds so
that it very closely follows UT1 but counts at an SI rate.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
So what is the right thing?
The right thing is for each time scale user community to be clear
about what kind of time scale it wants and to have ready access to it.
Those who currently use UTC and actually want a time scale that tracks
UT1 (with whatever tracking precision)
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Why wait? An advantage with creating TI is that it need have no
connection to UTC at all. Stand up TI separately and immediately, and
deprecate UTC (or don't) when convenient.
The point is to make civil time easier to use and the only way to achieve
that by
Dennis Ferguson dennis.c.fergu...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell the only difference between this and just
redefining UTC directly is to ensure continued full employment
at the ITU for years to come making and publishing those changes
... and ISO and the IEEE and the IETF and all the
On 17 Jan 2012 at 10:12, Ian Batten wrote:
Which is a deal breaker, because whatever a country adopts as civil
time, that's going to be the primary payload on its national
broadcast standards
And what if some countries use a solar-time-based standard and some
an atomic-time-based one (as is
Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
And what if some countries use a solar-time-based standard and some
an atomic-time-based one (as is actually the case with current law),
and hence some broadcast a leapless scale and others either continue
leap seconds or use some other scheme to keep
Tony Finch wrote:
Are there any countries whose time standards are not UTC? (De facto I mean,
regardless of what the law says.)
An excellent example of the many, many pertinent questions whose answers remain
unexplored and unknown. Another is the list of countries for which de facto
usage
On Jan 17, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 17 Jan 2012 at 10:12, Ian Batten wrote:
Which is a deal breaker, because whatever a country adopts as civil
time, that's going to be the primary payload on its national
broadcast standards
And what if some countries use a
Warner Losh wrote:
I suspect that such chaos won't develop.
A mere suspicion of the absence of chaos is not a sufficient basis for the ITU
to take action.
[*] Unless I'm an astronomer or care which way the earth is pointing to
sub-minute accuracy.
Such as operators of satellite
On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
I suspect that such chaos won't develop.
A mere suspicion of the absence of chaos is not a sufficient basis for the
ITU to take action.
Correct. I'll agree with that.
[*] Unless I'm an astronomer or care which way
On Tue 2012-01-17T10:44:18 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
[*] Unless I'm an astronomer or care which way the earth is pointing to
sub-minute accuracy.
The GPS system, and the other GNSS, must know that in order to operate.
The satellite tracking code, the VLBI code, the LLR code have all been
Steve Allen wrote:
Warner Losh hath writ:
[*] Unless I'm an astronomer or care which way the earth is pointing to
sub-minute accuracy.
The GPS system, and the other GNSS, must know that in order to operate.
The satellite tracking code, the VLBI code, the LLR code have all been
written
Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
The GPS system, and the other GNSS, must know that in order to operate.
The satellite tracking code, the VLBI code, the LLR code have all been
written and operated in the presence of leap seconds. The absence of
leap seconds could compromise the
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
The ITU standard is the standard for radio broadcast time. That's why
everybody broadcasts UTC (+/- some fixed offset) today. To conform with
international standards, they would broadcast the new timescale.
But how are you going to enforce it? Suppose
Keep in mind that my prognostication was a what would happen if sort of
thing. The people identified would need to change. They all fall into the
'care which way the earth is pointing' category. They are a tiny fraction of a
fraction of 1% and would need to reengineer their operations if this
On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
The ITU standard is the standard for radio broadcast time. That's why
everybody broadcasts UTC (+/- some fixed offset) today. To conform with
international standards, they would broadcast the new
In message 687e600b-e3af-42c1-8d4f-24b8851a3...@bsdimp.com, Warner Losh write
s:
The ITU standard is the standard for radio broadcast time. That's
why everybody broadcasts UTC (+/- some fixed offset) today. To
conform with international standards, they would broadcast the new
timescale.
Well,
On 17 Jan 2012 at 20:59, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
A lot of technical treaties and regulations say UTC in no uncertain words,
for instance in air-space regulations. I am pretty certain that creating
a new timescale and mandating its transmission over for instance WWV[B] and
DCF77 would give
On 18 Jan 2012, at 0421, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
And why are those legal issues more significant than the ones that
will arise with respect to other laws, treaties, regulations,
standards documents, etc., that specify GMT or some other form of
solar time, once a redefined UTC (or
In message 4f1648dd.31240.23276...@dan.tobias.name, Daniel R. Tobias writes
:
On 17 Jan 2012 at 20:59, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
A lot of technical treaties and regulations say UTC in no uncertain words,
for instance in air-space regulations. I am pretty certain that creating
a new timescale
As indicated earlier, ISO Technical Committee 37 produced a statement
about changing the terminology of UTC. Copies are posted at
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/ISOTC37toITURA.pdf
and also on the futureofutc.org website.
--
Steve Allen s...@ucolick.orgWGS-84
In message 20120116195909.ga6...@lake.fysh.org, Zefram writes:
A well-deserved bitch slap for ITU. Would it be in scope for the
upcoming ITU meeting to adopt a modified version of the proposal,
replacing Coordinated Universal Time with International Time?
Or is it an all-or-nothing deal?
It
On 16 Jan 2012, at 1939, Steve Allen wrote:
As indicated earlier, ISO Technical Committee 37 produced a statement
about changing the terminology of UTC. Copies are posted at
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/ISOTC37toITURA.pdf
and also on the futureofutc.org website.
I'm normally quick
In message 58f1ebee-14af-4ca5-b903-b663bc0b6...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten wri
tes:
I'm normally quick to dismiss complaints about split infinitives
as people attempting to make an argument about style into an argument
about correct usage. But whether your objection is stylistic or
prescriptive,
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/ISOTC37toITURA.pdf
hear, hear!
N
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On 16 Jan 2012, at 2038, Nero Imhard wrote:
On 2012-01-16, at 21:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would require a lot of editorial work in a LOT of international documents
So what's new? Doing things right is always harder.
Using it's too hard as an argument is a copout.
But at least you
On 2012 Jan 16, at 12:46, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
ITU hasnt said anything about leapseconds since the last ratification
of TF.460
They have said things twice since 460-6. There was a press release
on 2005-11-11
On 17 Jan, 2012, at 04:38 , Nero Imhard wrote:
On 2012-01-16, at 21:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would require a lot of editorial work in a LOT of international documents
So what's new? Doing things right is always harder.
Using it's too hard as an argument is a copout.
But at least you
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
So what is the right thing? Am I correct in assuming
that it would be something like the following?
- They agree that starting in 2018 time services should stop
disseminating UTC and begin disseminating TI.
Why wait? An advantage with creating TI is that it need
In message 10446c87-b903-4aba-ae52-286a9fd82...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writ
es:
What the ITU-R has said shows that its organization is willing to
advance non-consensual proposals to the level of international
regulations.
Remember: They are just a meeting+printing business.
WG7, unable to
Ah, if name changes are allowed, then here's a solution:
Rename UTC to UTD
-- That's D for slightly drifting, the kind of timescale
that astronomers need, the one with leap seconds so
that it very closely follows UT1 but counts at an SI rate.
Take TAI minus 34 seconds and call it UTC
--
51 matches
Mail list logo
