Not having seen anything posted on the site as to whether or not there have been any interesting candidate WU's completed, I was curious as to what determines whether or not a completed work-unit would be deemed interesting and worthy of further study?

For instance, the most "interesting" WU I have crunched had a Gaussian score of 4.13 and a Triplet score of 11.4 according to seti@home Mapview. Does that even come close to be considered interesting? If not, what scores would be?

Also, any idea as to why there is no info on any interesting candidate WU's? Is it because none have been found in all the years this project has been going on?

At least with Einstein@home there have been 10 Pulsars found so you feel like you have a shot at helping to actually accomplish something...

I have an I7-870 with an nVidia GTS 450 (Cuda_Fermi) so I'm crunching 9 WU's at a time and splitting it between Seti and Einstein in the past 6 months or so. I've been crunching for Seti on & off since 2004 (more off than on), but am considering going full time Einstein as the lack of info on the science end of what we're accomplishing (or not accomplishing) is a little disappointing.

-Riff

...Forgot to add that I also have a laptop with an I7 and an nVidia Cuda_Fermi chip that crunches 5 WU's at a time full time for Seti...no Einstein on that one yet.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/ntpckr.php

---

This thread apparently is a suitable one for the following question or maybe assumption.

A possible signal which could be received through space could consist of information carried through by means of a series of gaussians. A gaussian is a result of an algorithm written by humans based on a series of spikes or pulses in consecutive order and possibly thought of or wished to be carrying some information or meaning of sorts.

But a signal (most likely having some information in it), would be thought of as perhaps being intelligent in nature on its own. If such a signal consisted of a series of gaussians in such a consecutive order, would it still be a gaussian derived by means of our algorithms - or could such a signal be a gaussian on its own, not necessarily be carrying information by means of the spikes and pulses which by the algorithm could be thought of as a gaussian.

How would such a signal (consisting of a series of gaussians in consecutive order) possibly look like? I guess it would be different than the ordinary signal background which is being observed all of the rest of the time.

Was meaning a question mark at the end:

- or could such a signal be a gaussian on its own, not necessarily be carrying information by means of the spikes and pulses which by the algorithm could be thought of as a gaussian?

Hopefully claryfying.