[time-nuts] Solving the UTC drift problem
dforbes at dakotacom.net
Thu Jul 14 03:15:45 EDT 2005
At 8:25 AM +0200 7/14/05, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>In message <email@example.com>, David Forbes writes:
>>A modest proposal:
>>Instead of adding randomly-placed leap seconds to UTC or allowing UTC
>>to drift from UT1 etc, the timing community should just change the
>>second's definition from time to time as needed. That is, dither the
>>Cs transition frequency between 9,192,631,770 Hz or ,780 Hz annually
>>to make time speed up or slow down to match the earth's rotation.
>That has already been tried (1958...1972) It was not a success.
I can see that it was not a success at the time, but the equipment of
the time was rather primitive compared to today's digitally
programmed electronics. It used to be difficult to synthesize a
microwave signal with 10 Hz resolution; now it's done in less than a
square mm of silicon.
However, the argument presented in the Metrologia article that
physicists would not have a fixed SI unit called the second is a
>>The beauty of this method is that there are only a few hundred Cs
>>clocks in the world,
>This number is probably one or two orders of magitude to low, but
>a lot of them are telecom timers so they can be ignored.
Tee hee. Yes, they don't what a second is, as long as each clock is
consistent with the clock at the other end of the fiber.
Symmetricom would love this idea, as they would get to sell a lot of
upgrade kits at monopoly prices.
--David Forbes, Tucson, AZ
More information about the time-nuts