[ntp:questions] Re: GMT: UT1 vs UTC

Tim Shoppa shoppa at trailing-edge.com
Mon Nov 3 17:20:04 UTC 2003


wolfgang+gnus20031102T183039 at dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) wrote in message news:<x7sml6dv6r.fsf at capsicum.wsrcc.com>... 
> >> I wonder why all the
> >> clock-chip (and gps) manufacturers insist on handing one Y-M-D H:M:S
> >> and then making one convert back to a useful number.
> >
> > Are you talking about NEMA mode maybe?  I will agree that NEMA time
> > handling is pretty sucky (even if it does work 99.99999999% of the time...)
> 
> @@Ha also has the time broken down in the least useful units for
> computer work.
> 
> struct Ha_data {
>     ...
> 
>     /* date */
>     B1              month;
>     B1              day;
>     B2              year;
> 
>     /* time */
>     B1              hour;
>     B1              minutes;
>     B1              seconds;
>     B4              nano_seconds;
> 
>     ...
> }
> 
> 
> Is there a better way to get a seconds since the epoch?

@@Bp returns a 32-bit integer for the seconds in the Epoch, but I'm unclear
on whether this is useful for our purposes or not.  It might be the
timestamp for ionospheric data?  And it seems to be in UTC, not GPS time.

HP Z3801A's use Oncores internally, and the Z3801A T1-format timestamp returns
a hex string corresponding to the number of GPS seconds since 6-Jan-1980.
I am surprised to find that the Oncore itself doesn't make a message in this
kind of clothing - it seems like it'd be easy to do.

Tim.



More information about the questions mailing list