[LEAPSECS] pick your own length of second
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.
> 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