[LEAPSECS] pick your own length of second

Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com
Wed Jan 11 17:18:06 EST 2012

On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:

> Here's a plot that shows how a non leap second UTC would

> look if the cesium resonance were other than 9,192,631,770.


> http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/ut/ut-ani-v2.gif


> In retrospect it's too bad |DUT1| had to be so tight. If Essen

> and friends had made it 10 s we wouldn't need leap seconds

> in a lifetime.

Yea, I sure like 9,192,631,950 a lot better than ,770. :) But then again, any value > 840 or so would have required positive leap seconds if UTC was defined like it has been, but the SI second's value just slightly off. '770 has a fractional frequency error of 2e-8, which is about what we'd expect from 1.3ms/century drift from the Ephemeris Second's origin in 1820.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list