Best Gaussian I've ever found so far.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Best Gaussian I've ever found so far.

Author Message
BRENDAN T DAVEY
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 12
Posts: 7
Credit: 9,150
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1397569 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 15:32:46 UTC

Here's the Data so far:
It came from location 23 hr 9' 14" RA, +14 deg 38' 54 " DEC

Here's the finished WU data:

Stderr output

<core_client_version>7.0.64</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
setiathome_v7 7.00 DevC++/MinGW/g++ 4.5.2
libboinc: 7.1.0

Work Unit Info:
...............
WU true angle range is : 0.433590
Optimal function choices:
--------------------------------------------------------
name timing error
--------------------------------------------------------
v_BaseLineSmooth (no other)
v_vGetPowerSpectrum 0.000083 0.00000
sse3_ChirpData_ak8 0.006117 0.00000
v_vTranspose4x16ntw 0.002151 0.00000
AK SSE folding 0.000770 0.00000

Flopcounter: 37258768220915.719000

Spike count: 4
Autocorr count: 0
Pulse count: 0
Triplet count: 0
Gaussian count: 2
18:23:39 (38440): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Best Gaussian- Power: 3.38 Fit: 1.39 Score: 6.632

I've been doing this on and off for a few years now and this is the best Gaussian I've ever encountered thus far. BoinclogX showed a red dot next to the Gaussian spot which meant it was a strong signal but we all know signal strength isn't much of anything really... it was the Fit and the score that raised my eyebrows.
Tell me what you all think and please feel free to share stories of your best Gaussians if you have some. Please supply data if available.

Thank you :)

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1397596 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 16:21:53 UTC

I don't mean to be discouraging but the numbers don't mean much if its a non repeatable result. Also, with all the WU's I produce I'm not even looking at the actual results. I do care that valid results are sent.

There have been a few nutcases that produce bad results here at S@H and repeatly report them on and off to show their work. This isn't a knock on you but you may attract those flies regardless of your intent.

Good to hear of your excellent results. I do hope it is a meaningful result
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

BRENDAN T DAVEY
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 12
Posts: 7
Credit: 9,150
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1397621 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 16:51:21 UTC - in response to Message 1397596.

I'm not trying to attract "flies", just trying to start a discussion to acquire information and opinions and in turn get a better idea how all this works. And by the way its pretty uncool to call people nutcases and flies. Thank You.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13619
Credit: 30,546,789
RAC: 21,363
United States
Message 1397667 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 18:52:30 UTC - in response to Message 1397621.

And by the way its pretty uncool to call people nutcases and flies. Thank You.


Is it still uncool if its the truth? Because we do have a resident nutcase who seems obsessed with the bad numbers his computer produces. We've tried telling this individual but his own delusions prevent him from seeing a rational truth (he simply thinks we're "hiding" signals about ETI).

At any rate, based upon the amount of ET conspiracy theories, this project is bound to attract the nutcases and the flies. It goes with the territory. No need to be offended by the classification unless you feel someone is referring to you. :-)

BRENDAN T DAVEY
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 12
Posts: 7
Credit: 9,150
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1397707 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 20:36:52 UTC - in response to Message 1397667.

For my own edification what exactly are bad numbers? This is the kind of information I think is extremely relevant.
I do believe in UFO's otherwise I wouldn't be interested in S@H but I don't buy into all the heavy conspiracy theory crap. I find it scary that someone would think S@H is hiding evidence about ETI because their computer is producing bad numbers, that's just paranoid delusions, but like I said before what exactly are bad numbers so that I may identify them when I see them.
As you may have deduced I'm not a number cruncher and do not care about credit and ranking all I care about are the results produced.
The reason I started this thread was to find out the best Guassian score other people have gotten in the past, and where in the sky. I know very well that our planet is swamped with terrestrial RFI but that doesn't mean that on occasion we don't pick up something special.

P.S. I think a misunderstanding was had earlier and I apologize.

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8425
Credit: 57,488,812
RAC: 74,799
United Kingdom
Message 1397719 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 20:56:24 UTC

An individual result is pretty meaningless, it has to be correlated with other results from the same location in the sky but at different times so the bigger picture can be built up.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

BRENDAN T DAVEY
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 12
Posts: 7
Credit: 9,150
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1397728 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 21:17:36 UTC - in response to Message 1397719.

Okay so if I get lets say 4 WU's from 23hr 9' 14" RA, +14 deg 38' 54" DEC all retuning good high scoring Gaussians from all different dates or years that's something to take a closer look at?

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13619
Credit: 30,546,789
RAC: 21,363
United States
Message 1397755 - Posted: 1 Aug 2013, 22:59:59 UTC - in response to Message 1397707.
Last modified: 1 Aug 2013, 23:16:15 UTC

For my own edification what exactly are bad numbers? This is the kind of information I think is extremely relevant.


"Bad numbers" are results that don't match closely enough to what another person turned out. Each workunit is sent out to more than one computer and when the results come back, they are compared against each other. The results that match closely are the ones that get granted credit.

Bad numbers can be caused by overheating CPUs, overheating GPUs, system crashes, driver crashes, hard drive failures, RAM failures, etc. Basically anything that would affect your computer's ability to properly process the calculations.

Our resident nutcase seems to have little to do with his free time so as to stare at the screen saver on his computer, or use various other tools to capture the numbers put out by his computer (often overheating, which causes the CPU to give incorrect calculations, which in turn means he doesn't match closely with the other results when they come back). He has then insisted that his numbers are meaningful and should be looked at, all the while the numbers are just numbers - because as Rob said, without repetition over time, the signals themselves are rather uninteresting alone.

It is for this reason that skildude was concerned that you were going to attract this individual's attention and create a hyper-sensitive situation where people jump to conclusions based upon very limited or incomplete data.

P.S. I think a misunderstanding was had earlier and I apologize.


No worries. Easy to misunderstand people from time to time without context or knowing their intent.

Okay so if I get lets say 4 WU's from 23hr 9' 14" RA, +14 deg 38' 54" DEC all retuning good high scoring Gaussians from all different dates or years that's something to take a closer look at?


That's the general idea, yes.

More specifically, all workunits returned have their results recorded in the Master Science Database. There's an automated process then goes through to find the most interesting signals that the project would then like to "re-observe" with more concentrated efforts.

Message 1397776 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 2:14:53 UTC

The Only "NutCases" are those spending thousands and tens of thousands on GPUs and Computers to Run S E T I.

The Signal which will Herald In The Era of ET will be Accidentally "Heard" by some "device" not of any S E T I influence.

Not By NutCase and Fly Crunching.

Bound For IT IT.
____________


juan BFBProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 5344
Credit: 298,814,910
RAC: 466,741
Brazil
Message 1397777 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 2:18:43 UTC

I´m nut, I´m nut , I´m nut... but is only me?

What you have against the nuts?
____________

BRENDAN T DAVEY
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 12
Posts: 7
Credit: 9,150
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1397825 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 6:48:47 UTC - in response to Message 1397755.

Thank you very much that was a very nice summation. I find this message board kinda hard to navigate and pertinent information seems to be strewn all over the place. What you wrote pretty much answered every question I've been searching around for with no real jargon to make me go WTF.
Thanks a million.

P.S. Whats the best Gaussian score you've ever seen...just kidding :)

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Best Gaussian I've ever found so far.

Copyright © 2014 University of California