[time-nuts] Why not TAI?

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Wed Aug 10 09:51:43 UTC 2011

On 10/08/11 09:16, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> Attila Kinali wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:57:45 +0000
>> "Poul-Henning Kamp"<phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>>> Everybody but the time-lords have always been told to stay away from
>>> TAI in the strongest possible terms by said time-lords, who again and
>>> told the world to use UTC.
>> May i ask what the reason was to stay away from TAI?
>> I mean, it is obvious (for me) that for any application that needs
>> a steady, continious and monotone clock that TAI is one of the best
>> alternatives among all those time standards.
>> Attila Kinali
> Strictly TAI, as presently realised, is a paper clock that isn't
> actually available in real time.

This is not entierly true. There are a few national laboratories which 
has a local representation of TAI, alongside their UTC. It is handy to 
say that TAI is a paper clock, but it is a comparable scale.


More information about the time-nuts mailing list