Forum > Discussion Forum
Report on new optimized Astropulse apps for Windows
Jason G:
I'm seeing a similar thing in your result file posted before , to my 'full blanked' result... A bunch of repeating pulses collected at the end of the WU.
My 3 results... (attached) 4.35, 5r69 and 5r69FullBlank for a WU that had lots of signals, but didn't overflow with either 4.35 or v5,
Note full blank repeating pulses x 30 all around <peak_bin> 33538050 give or take. They also seem to be all around <scale> 4, so we probably can work out the average power there. I think a step from the randomised to off-the edge or similar phenomemon might be occurring. Exactly where does last dm get its overlap data from during dechirp? and is full blank randomising that too? or have we a nice step to raw data, zero or some averaged value?
Jason
[Note on FFT/High pass filter thing: A quick look it does *appear to me* to be the full complex fft result we're processing. [But note that I always hated digging through buried functionality just to find what should be part of the function name, or a direct parameter] . If so that would make the frequency range -pi to +pi periodic, low frequencies in the middle, a highpass look like an inverted 'U', what dechirp does with this I don't know yet, but later in coadds after inverse fft redundant half of *something* appears to be 'chucked out' though I'm dubious on the in-code comments as to the reasoning]
Whoops [ forgot attachment .. attached... ]
[attachment deleted by admin]
Raistmer:
@Richard
Done too. Maybe it's pretty radical proposal, but there is plenty of SETI search for MB tasks still to probably waste resourses on app under big suspiction for now....
@Jason
LoL, comments... I liked that comments on first reading :))))) But it's still unclear, did he check or not...
Leaps-from-Shadows:
I have suspended the seven queued work units that Cruiser has for Main. There are two in progress that I'm going to let finish, then it's up to the coding experts to decide whether the suspended units get aborted or crunched.
I'll be awaiting your determination.
Jason G:
Personally I would continue crunching in case Berkeley need data to analyse the performance characteristics themselves. Whether the results are fundamentally correct or not, in scientific terms they still have great value for verification, and further refinement if needed. I don't think stopping crunching them based on the anomalies we've seen so far is necessarily the ideal situation, as they could contain important pointers toward further development, or even indicate some real, little understood phenomenon lurking in some WUs.
Just my 2 cents.
Jason
Raistmer:
Sure, maybe.... or maybe not.
As usual there is no announcement what is the aim of current run and, recall situation with beta testing, I personally has no trust at all to ability of AP responsible person to correctly judge what processing power is needed for current aim. It can be just debug run, installed on few thousands of hosts, with easy. In such situation most of results will go into trash because just unneeded.
I will continue running AP offline to clear situation, but no "production" run. Wanna understand what is going on and why.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version