According to the DK NMI DANIAmet: https://daniamet.dk/en/nmi/time-and-frequency/ "The law on time (Law No 83, 29/03/1893) prescribe that the time in Denmark is determined by mean solar time and not the UTC time." -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I'm fairly certain that joining the European Union in 1973 would retire such a Danish law from 1893. Especially since UTC wasn't defined when the said law was introduced, so the law couldn't have mentioned "not the UTC time". ________________________________ From: tz-bounces@iana.org <tz-bounces@iana.org> on behalf of Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:10 AM To: Time zone mailing list Subject: [tz] Danish Time not UTC According to the DK NMI DANIAmet: https://daniamet.dk/en/nmi/time-and-frequency/ "The law on time (Law No 83, 29/03/1893) prescribe that the time in Denmark is determined by mean solar time and not the UTC time." -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
On 2016-11-08 15:45, Matt Johnson wrote:
On Monday, November 7, 2016 9:10 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
According to the DK NMI DANIAmet: https://daniamet.dk/en/nmi/time-and-frequency/ "The law on time (Law No 83, 29/03/1893) prescribe that the time in Denmark is determined by mean solar time and not the UTC time." I'm fairly certain that joining the European Union in 1973 would retire such a Danish law from 1893. Especially since UTC wasn't defined when the said law was introduced, so the law couldn't have mentioned "not the UTC time".
This is an English page from a Danish web site, so I expect the latter is just commentary. They also mention their NMI maintains no Time & Frequency standards, so they outsource calibration and time keeping to other countries, as they have no local UTC standard, which may mean they can't say legally they follow UTC. I think UK legal time is also still some variety of GMT, as may be some other Commonwealth countries. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
I think UK legal time is also still some variety of GMT, as may be some other Commonwealth countries.
Brotish law refers to mean time, but the Greenwich Observatory and subsequently NPL have only provided UTC since it started. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Southwest Viking: Southeasterly 5 to 7. Moderate or rough. Wintry showers. Good, occasionally moderate.
On 2016-11-09 03:23, Tony Finch wrote:
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
I think UK legal time is also still some variety of GMT, as may be some other Commonwealth countries.
British law refers to mean time, but the Greenwich Observatory and subsequently NPL have only provided UTC since it started.
Royal Observatory Greenwich and Royal Greenwich Observatory (at Herstmonceaux 1947-1990, then Cambridge 1990-1998, before closing) provided astronomical and navigational products for GMT, GCT, GMAT, GMST, UT, UT0, UT1, UT2 (used for radio time signals), ET, etc. They did participate in CUT, originally from RGO, NPL, USNO, then BIH. The atomic standard TAI, its civil UTC derivative, and frequencies, are physical standards set and provided by NMIs coordinated by the BIPM. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
On 2016-11-09 03:23, Tony Finch wrote:
Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
I think UK legal time is also still some variety of GMT, as may be some other Commonwealth countries.
British law refers to mean time, but the Greenwich Observatory and subsequently NPL have only provided UTC since it started.
Royal Observatory Greenwich and Royal Greenwich Observatory (at Herstmonceaux 1947-1990, then Cambridge 1990-1998, before closing) provided astronomical and navigational products for GMT, GCT, GMAT, GMST, UT, UT0, UT1, UT2 (used for radio time signals), ET, etc.
UT2 might have been used for radio time signals in the 1960s (though I thought it was rubber-seconds UTC then) but after 1972 British general-purpose time signals were all UTC. See for example section 5.5.6.1 in http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/manuscripts/RGO_history/rgo_home_ch5.html
They did participate in CUT, originally from RGO, NPL, USNO, then BIH. The atomic standard TAI, its civil UTC derivative, and frequencies, are physical standards set and provided by NMIs coordinated by the BIPM.
Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Sole, Lundy, Fastnet: Northwest 5 or 6, backing south 3 or 4, increasing 5 or 6 later in Sole and Fastnet. Rough or very rough. Showers. Moderate or good.
Matt Johnson said:
I'm fairly certain that joining the European Union in 1973 would retire such a Danish law from 1893. Especially since UTC wasn't defined when the said law was introduced, so the law couldn't have mentioned "not the UTC time".
________________________________ From: tz-bounces@iana.org <tz-bounces@iana.org> on behalf of Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:10 AM To: Time zone mailing list Subject: [tz] Danish Time not UTC
According to the DK NMI DANIAmet:
https://daniamet.dk/en/nmi/time-and-frequency/
"The law on time (Law No 83, 29/03/1893) prescribe that the time in Denmark is determined by mean solar time and not the UTC time."
None of this is within the scope of EU law, so there's no reason it would have changed in 1973. The only thing the EU has done is to standardize the one-hour changes twice a year (and even that Directive doesn't apply to the whole EU, only the part that's viewed as being in Europe itself [1]). The Directive in question views UT, UTC, GMT, and various other terms as being equivalent, so doesn't tell us anything. [1] Which, to refer to an earlier thread, includes Cyprus. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Random832 said:
The Directive in question views UT, UTC, GMT, and various other terms as being equivalent, so doesn't tell us anything. Well, are they not?
UT and UTC definitely aren't the same.
What's the *legal* definition of UT and GMT?
To the best of my knowledge neither term is defined in either UK or EU law. Which means that - if it was relevant - a court would either look at the understanding of the person on the Clapham omnibus (possibly with a diversion via the OED) or would ask to be briefed by an accepted expert. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016, at 11:18, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Random832 said:
The Directive in question views UT, UTC, GMT, and various other terms as being equivalent, so doesn't tell us anything. Well, are they not?
UT and UTC definitely aren't the same.
To a layperson, "UTC" appears to be "UT" with an adjective attached. In technical terms, as far as I can tell, "UT" doesn't seem to exist, and it's not clear that UT1 has a better claim to it than UTC. But regardless, I meant this to set up my question on legal definitions as may be distinct from technical definitions.
What's the *legal* definition of UT and GMT?
To the best of my knowledge neither term is defined in either UK or EU law. Which means that - if it was relevant - a court would either look at the understanding of the person on the Clapham omnibus (possibly with a diversion via the OED) or would ask to be briefed by an accepted expert.
One has to wonder whether they would take into account whether there was really legislative intent to require continuous adjustment by fractional seconds. But it's hard for me to imagine what sort of case the difference might be relevant to in the first place. Incidentally, on the subject of time zone laws not specifying UTC, the US timezones were originally defined in 1918 as the mean time of some respective longitude each west of Greenwich, and wasn't amended to specify hours from UTC until 2007 [Pub. L. 110–69, title III, § 3013(c)(3), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 598; this and the text of previous versions mentioning longitude (including an amendment as recent as 2000 defining Chamorro Standard Time as 150 degrees east) can be found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/261] The 2007 amendment also, amusingly, moved the southern part of Idaho to Mountain Time from Central Time.
On 11/10/2016 08:49 AM, Random832 wrote:
In technical terms, as far as I can tell, "UT" doesn't seem to exist
In the tzdata comments "UT" denotes a family of time standards that includes the UTC, UT1, and GMT variants, and "UT" is intended to mean the time standard that is the basis for time zones. I see that this wasn't written down anywhere, so I installed the attached proposed patch to document it.
participants (6)
-
Brian Inglis -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Matt Johnson -
Paul Eggert -
Random832 -
Tony Finch