[time-nuts] The future of UTC
ghane0 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 15:19:50 UTC 2011
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 23:09, Steve Rooke <sar10538 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 July 2011 03:01, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> > In message <
> CACTjVNy8h2EtHR_M6DquxhABhJb9NfgyauhJcN1bf-UMH+KhDQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > , Steve Rooke writes:
> >>Ah! I get you. Not 10 leap seconds at 20 year intervals, just an
> >>almanac to indicate when they will be for up to 20 years in advance. I
> >>guess that means they could take a bye for any scheduled event that is
> >>not required, as in the 7 year period without one.
> > Nope, once they have scheduled a leap-second, it happens.
> And if it's not needed?
Then they are exiled from Gallifrey, and fed to the Daleks.
Seriously, if we are announcing 20 years in advance, we accept that DUT may
be as large as 4 or 5 secs. In which case, having an extra one (or not
having one when required) will not materially change the _long-term_
tracking. Within a few years, the effect should lessen.
Although I would rather that leap secs stay, and DUT is kept small, if we
are not changing the definition of UTC, but loosening the strictness of the
tracking in the "short"-term, this may be a good compromise.
PHK, in your proposal, the long term stability of "low, bounded DUT" would
+65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
More information about the time-nuts