[LEAPSECS] Ghosts of Leap-seconds past and future

[Warner Losh]

On 12/28/2010 11:33, Tony Finch wrote:

> On 28 Dec 2010, at 16:27, Michael Deckers <michael.deckers at yahoo.com 

> <mailto:michael.deckers at yahoo.com>> wrote:

>>   [b] This proposal does not only change technicalities like

>>       the maximal difference |UTC - UT|, but it changes several

>>       other things (more important things, in my opinion). For

>>       instance, it removes the

>>             immediate availability of UT

>>       from the goals of UTC dissemination. Was anybody asked

>>       about this? Do most of the experts agree?

>

> Do practical systems get DUT1 from time broadcasts or from files 

> downloaded from the Internet?


I know most telescopes get this data from the internet.  Posts here, 
plus on-line manuals confirm that many telescopes do this, although I 
don't have a definitive source for "most" tbh.

It has been conjectured in other forums that most satellite tracking 
systems get it from the internet, or via more secure local 
network-attached sources.  Since those applications tend to be 
classified, it is hard to know for sure.

What applications would be OK with 100ms of error in DUT1 and be fed 
exclusively from the broadcast data?  Is the DUT1 broadcast a vestige of 
the past, or is it actively used?  Please note: that's a different 
question than "does |DUT1| < .9s still matter?" or "Can systems that get 
DUT1 today from the internet cope with numbers > 0.8s?" :)

Warner


>

> Tony.

> -- 

> f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at <mailto:dot at dotat.at>> http://dotat.at/

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20101228/1c0d54ba/attachment.html>