[LEAPSECS] leap second dating

M. Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com
Mon Nov 16 12:54:01 EST 2009

In message: <C6ECB16E-643A-4C18-BF31-AA8AE06F8EE6 at noao.edu>
Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu> writes:

: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


: > In message <20091116072452.GA21615 at ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:

: >> the context speaks for itself

: >>

: >> http://improbable.com/2009/11/16/leap-second-dating/

: >

: > I can't wait to see what peer-review will do to that paper :-)

That paper isn't so good. Lots of basic math, little real conclusions
other than the observation that 6.2 and 6.3 are about the same. My
reaction is that it lacks something else to support the idea that this
calculation is valid (or it is so obvious that I don't see it at all
due to missing background).

: Perhaps accept it, see for example Deines & Williams 2007, AJ, 134, 64:


: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/134/1/64/205167.text.html

This paper is very interesting. It is suggestive that scheduling of
multiple leap seconds (or scheduling out a number of years) could
produce acceptable results because the predominating effects are more
predictable than tidal friction. While this doesn't fit with my
preferred solution to leap seconds (leap seconds should die and folks
that care about dUT1 should get it from the net or other source), it
does match well my first alternative solution: schedule the damn
things farther in advance than 6 months, preferrable 20x that (10yr)
to allow for better 'cold spare' recovery and increased robustness
in the execution of leap seconds...


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list