Forum > Discussion Forum
Report on new optimized Astropulse apps for Windows
Leaps-from-Shadows:
--- Quote ---Got some more completed work units on Cruiser:
Main: 368768645 (Pending), 368768653 (Validated)
Beta: 1563494 (Validated)
Cruiser's compiled results so far:
Main:
368768645 (Pending) - 0.008021076 credits per CPU second
368768653 (Validated) - 0.008183099 credits per CPU second
368496971 (Pending) - 0.008235288 credits per CPU second
368418713 (v4.37, Pending) - 0.006726898 credits per CPU second
Beta:
1563494 (Validated) - 0.009484371 credits per CPU second
1565756 (Validated) - 0.009705443 credits per CPU second
1564992 (Validated) - 0.009227865 credits per CPU second
Fairly consistent on both Main and Beta...
For comparison:
Shorty Multibeam (16.84 credits): 0.007037046 credits per CPU second
Average Multibeam (44.12 credits): 0.008375063 credits per CPU second
Long Multibeam (63.86 credits): 0.010619245 credits per CPU second
--- End quote ---
Add another one to the Main list:
368768654 (Validated, canonical result) - 0.008136883 credits per CPU second
Still, it has this:
single pulses: 4
repetitive pulses: 30
Josef W. Segur:
--- Quote from: Haselgrove on 24 Nov 2008, 09:54:08 am ---What's the next description beyond 'jewel'?
ap_04no08ae_B5_P0_00273_20081124_23735 (1068934402)
has 3548 blanking indices, 448 of them with signal strength over 100. Highest signal strength is 213.925781
Would anyone like to estimate the likely scientific value of the next 15 hours work?
--- End quote ---
That's a 90% blanker. There's one place with slightly over 2.7 M unblanked samples, another with over 400 K, and two more very short ones.
With considerable refinement, the app could just process the unblanked portions using only the appropriate tests. The short FFA would be appropriate if shifted to work within that 2.7 M section, the long FFA makes no sense, single pulse searches work on only 32 K samples and could be tried on all the unblanked data. Processing time that way should be less than 10% of the full run, and scientific value would be maximized. That assumes it's possible to have actual clean data in short sections surrounded by noise, we're not on a path to discover that yet.
As it stands, scientific value is going to lie in the realm of illustrating flaws in the implementation; sometimes that's the most important part of the scientific method.
Joe
Richard Haselgrove:
--- Quote from: Josef W. Segur on 25 Nov 2008, 12:08:34 am ---
That's a 90% blanker. There's one place with slightly over 2.7 M unblanked samples, another with over 400 K, and two more very short ones.
With considerable refinement, the app could just process the unblanked portions using only the appropriate tests. The short FFA would be appropriate if shifted to work within that 2.7 M section, the long FFA makes no sense, single pulse searches work on only 32 K samples and could be tried on all the unblanked data. Processing time that way should be less than 10% of the full run, and scientific value would be maximized. That assumes it's possible to have actual clean data in short sections surrounded by noise, we're not on a path to discover that yet.
As it stands, scientific value is going to lie in the realm of illustrating flaws in the implementation; sometimes that's the most important part of the scientific method.
Joe
--- End quote ---
Turned out to be over 16 hours - slightly slower than normal for r69 on this box. Don't know if that's significant.
Found 6 single pulses and 27 repetitive pulses - I suppose there are fewer edges to have edge artefacts on, when the whole thing is blanked ;). Result attached.
Oh, and please contribute to to my 'dilemma' thread at SETI :-\
[ooops, wrong file]
[attachment deleted by admin]
Jason G:
--- Quote from: Haselgrove on 25 Nov 2008, 07:48:55 am ---..
Oh, and please contribute to to my 'dilemma' thread at SETI :-\
..
--- End quote ---
Done. Feel free to disagree.
Richard Haselgrove:
--- Quote from: Jason G on 25 Nov 2008, 07:53:40 am ---
Done. Feel free to disagree.
--- End quote ---
Yours is probably the nearest thing to a 'right' answer, but I just wanted to get the debate out into the open.....
I'll probably end up doing it with v5, just so we get another indices.txt file to play with.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version