Re: A Suggestion For Abolishing the Leap Second

Quadibloc wrote:
Some time back, controversy was raised by a suggestion that, due to
the problems in Internet timekeeping caused by leap seconds, that we
just go to straight atomic time.

What problems? Leap second implementation is a mature and well
understood technique and noone has any problems. The average person
isn't even aware that a leap second took place.

If people really don't like local 12 noon happening at a time other
than lunchtime, they can always have a "leap hour", in effect
switching time zones, eventually.

The person who suggested this has no clue about how or why leap seconds
are inserted nor what the consequences would be.

Obviously, this was rejected. For one thing, even if it could be
argued that people would put up with such shifts in time - after all,
they accept daylight savings time - it would mean that while waiting
for the leap hour, the scheme of daylight savings time would keep
having to be changed to maintain the proper effects on energy use.

I suppose one possibility would be to allow UT1 minus UTC to get lots
bigger than 0.9 second, and just insert a *leap-minute* with *lots* of
advance notice. After all, while people notice daylight savings time,
nobody complains about the +/- 15 minutes of daylight savings time.


Nobody but the people who need it even notice the leap second.

But I have another suggestion.

In a year where we would have had a leap second, why not just make the
second *of civil time* longer by a fixed amount, somewhere in the
neighborhood of 31.7 nanoseconds?

This wouldn't affect the SI second, so TV stations wouldn't have to
change frequencies slightly. Except for them, everyone else in the
private sector uses quartz crystal clocks, accurate to perhaps 5
seconds a year, so a 1 second per year change in the length of the
second shouldn't affect them.

This way, the exact length of the second is stipulated in advance, and
it just has a limited set of values, one SI second, plus or minus some
multiple of 30 nanoseconds.

One way to make the change to the second a "round" number, and make
the shift in time an integer number of seconds over a year, so as to
maximize compatibility with the present leap-second scheme, would be
to lengthen the second by 1/(86,400*360) of a second, but only for the
first 360 days of the year, going back to the SI second for the last 5
or 6 days.

For now, only the national time standards would have to update their
equipment.

This would seem to the general public as if we went back to the old
mean solar day system, yet it would have the same exact precision as
leap seconds and atomic time had provided.


Obviously you have no clue as to how or why a leap second is inserted.
In the first place making the length of a second changeable is
unworkable in practice and would break just about everything. In the
second place you seem to be unaware that the frequency of insertion of
leap seconds is irregular and has to do with both the rotation of the
earth about it's axis as well as the rotation of the earth around the
sun not to mention the effects of the moon on the earth's rotation. Even
changing the length of a second permanently by a fixed amount would
break so many different things it would cost trillions in any currency
that you care to name to make such a change. What do you think it would
cost to change just the clocks within the existing orbiting satellites?

Danny

John Savard

_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions

.

Relevant Pages

  • A Suggestion for Abolishing the Leap Second
    ... the problems in Internet timekeeping caused by leap seconds, ... they accept daylight savings time - it would mean that while waiting ... But I have another suggestion. ... yet it would have the same exact precision as ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • A Suggestion For Abolishing the Leap Second
    ... the problems in Internet timekeeping caused by leap seconds, ... they accept daylight savings time - it would mean that while waiting ... But I have another suggestion. ... yet it would have the same exact precision as ...
    (comp.protocols.time.ntp)
  • Re: using perl to print yesterdays date, but with formatting options ?
    ... It works for daylight savings time, ... DST changes, leap seconds, leap years, other calender systems and much more :-) ... You boys need to think in terms of both longitudal regions ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Sheryl Crow
    ... a busy time in Iowa....what with the leap into ... daylight savings time and all......yer gonna have ... Anyone else like Sheryl Crow? ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: is it Time bug?
    ... > First of all for doing stuff like this I highly recommend checking out ... > Runt, ... > accounts for leap years, ... This is a daylight savings time ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)