NavList:

   

Reply

Richard Langley wrote:
>
> variations in LOD. In the recent past (the mid 1920s to the mid 1930s), the
> LOD was even shorter than 86,400 seconds (see Fig.1 in
> ). Should this
> happen again, we might even have to add a negative leap second to UTC. The
> provision to do this actually exists.

Yes, negative leap seconds are possible -- on paper. But I hope we
never have to do that, because I suspect many programmers have not
allowed for such a thing!

I like this leap second page at the U.S. Naval Observatory:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
The links lead you into all sorts of interesting information.


Here's a large page full of links on the history and future of the
leap second. There's even a leap second mailing list.

http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html

   

Reply