Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds

From: Ed Davies <ls_at_EDAVIES.NILDRAM.CO.UK>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:31:38 +0000

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> Well, the BIPM doesn't really want anybody to use TAI, their director
>>> said as much last year, and I can see where he is coming from on that
>>> one.

Ed Davies asked:
>> Since the usual response of the pro-leap second lobby to people
>> who want a uniform timescale is "use TAI" this is significant.
>> Do you have any information or references on why the BIPM director
>> said this?

Poul-Henning Kamp replied:
> As I understood it, it was mainly that TAI is a post-factum "postal"
> timescale.

Well, yes, at well below the one microsecond level (10s of nanoseconds
I think). The same would apply to UTC, of course, given that it's
defined by an offset from TAI and I doubt he meant the world should
stop using UTC. Of course, in the real world people don't directly
use UTC anyway - they use UTC(NIST) or UTC(NPL) or whatever local
approximation is good enough for their purposes. This would be
true for any timescale.

Received on Sun Jan 08 2006 - 07:33:10 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT