One of my PCs which is usually rock solid has just got an AP invalid result for the first time in a very long time.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1659946592

I had a quick look at the three sets of data but could not see anything obvious. I did note that the two valids were both Macs running the same application version. Is there a reason for the invalid and anything I should be worried about?

---

Nothing to be worried about.

Not all signals are printed in stderr.txt.
Probably a few signals (best pulses) are above treshold.
This happsens.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

One of my PCs which is usually rock solid has just got an AP invalid result for the first time in a very long time.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1659946592

I had a quick look at the three sets of data but could not see anything obvious. I did note that the two valids were both Macs running the same application version. Is there a reason for the invalid and anything I should be worried about?

As Mike said, nothing to worry about. The validator ignores single pulses which are less than 1% above threshold, and both the scale=6 and scale=7 ones in those results are at that critical level while the scale=9 one is well below it.

For scale=6, the actual critical level is 130.14655071, and for scale=7 it is 214.75941787. Later versions of Lunatics builds will have more digits in the peak_power values shown in stderr, the 130.1 and 214.8 rounded values shown for those tasks leave it uncertain.

There's a proposed change to the AP validator which would avoid that difficulty, but that kind of improvement is of course lower priority than other things which have been happening recently.

                                                                  Joe

OK Josef and Mike, thanks for confirming that this is a seti problem and not my PC problem. Just a pity about the wasted processing time.

---