[time-nuts] LSEM (Leap Second Every Month)

Scott Stobbe scott.j.stobbe at gmail.com
Thu Jul 21 22:06:02 UTC 2016


If UTC time was adjusted every month would stick with one full second? Or
some smaller quantity?

On Thursday, 21 July 2016, Brooke Clarke <brooke at pacific.net> wrote:

> Hi Tom:
>
> I like this idea.  I addresses the lesson from Y2K that something done
> often works much better than something done only occasionally.
> That's way you see the firetruck at the local store, because it's used all
> the time and so is more likely to work when needed.
>
> --
> Have Fun,
>
> Brooke Clarke
> http://www.PRC68.com
> http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
> The lesser of evils is still evil.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>> Hi Tom...
>>
>> Does your proposal allow for a Zero leap second, or does it require
>> either plus or minus 1 to work? Seems like you could stay closer to the
>> true value if you also have a zero option. Might also cause less
>> consternation for some services, like the finance and scientific worlds,
>> that seem to have critical issues when an LS appears.
>>
>> I like your point that by having it occur monthly it forces systems to
>> address issues promptly, and maybe that's the argument for the non-zero
>> option.
>>
>> Tom Holmes, N8ZM
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On Behalf Of Tom Van
>> Baak
>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:28 PM
>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <
>> time-nuts at febo.com>
>> Cc: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC
>> December 31 this year
>>
>> Time to mention this again...
>>
>> If we adopted the LSEM (Leap Second Every Month) model then none of this
>> would be a problem. The idea is not to decide *if* there will be leap
>> second, but to force every month to have a leap second. The IERS decision
>> is then what the *sign* of the leap second should be this month.
>>
>> Note this would keep |DUT1| < 1 s as now. UT1 would stay in sync with
>> UTC, not so much by rare steps but by dithering. There would be no change
>> to UTC or timing infrastructure because the definition of UTC already
>> allows for positive or negative leap seconds in any given month.
>>
>> Every UTC-aware device would 1) know how to reliably insert or delete a
>> leap second, because bugs would be found by developers within a month or
>> two, not by end-users years or decades in the future, and 2) every
>> UTC-aware device would have an often tested direct or indirect path to IERS
>> to know what the sign of the leap second will be for the current month.
>>
>> The leap second would then become a normal part of UTC, a regular monthly
>> event, instead of a rare, newsworthy exception. None of the weird bugs we
>> continue to see year after year in leap second handling by NTP and OS's and
>> GPS receiver firmware would occur.
>>
>> Historical leap second tables would consist of little more than 12 bits
>> per year.
>>
>> Moreover, in the next decade or two or three, if we slide into an era
>> where average earth rotation slows from 86400.1 to 86400.0 to 86399.9
>> seconds a day, there will be zero impact if LSEM is already in place.
>>
>> /tvb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>



More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list