http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=384101909

I don't understand why on this one.

---

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=384101909

I don't understand why on this one.

I'm not sure either... but it looks to me all three you will most likely get granted credit after the third Wingman completes.

---

- Luke.

both crunchers ended the WU with 30 repeating pulses. I would assume that the WU is just bad.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

both crunchers ended the WU with 30 repeating pulses. I would assume that the WU is just bad.

And 30 single pulses, which happens less often. It would be sensible to analyze the pattern of the pulses to be certain it's excess noise and not a strong E.T. signal before deciding the WU was "bad", but the odds certainly favor noise.

Both crunchers got the same credit claim, indicating that both had progressed the same amount when the overflow happened. The AP Validator has tighter tolerances for matching pulse powers (0.1%) and the period of repetitive pulses (0.01%) than the MB Validator, and only compares signals where the reported power is 1% above threshold. It's not too surprising that minor calculation differences can sometimes make these overflow cases with so many signals fail the "strongly similar" test.

                                                               Joe

there is a reason for seti setting the threashold for WU failure so high(30 results) and that is the background noise. Usually, when one person gets 30+ results we can assume they have a problem on their PC. When 2 random people get the same result the obvious answer is the WU is bad.

That's not to say that they could both be putting out bad result. It just unlikely.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope