After s4 ?
8 Apr 2006 13:07:45 UTC
Topic 191052
(moderation:
Hi Bruce,
people are setting out their guesses for when we will polish of s4 in other threads. It made me wonder, will there be a gap in the work here when s4 runs out, or will you have some other analysis we can usefully do on the s4 data?
And roughly how long will we be before s5 comes online for crunchers?
All the best
~~gravywavy
After s4 ?
)
??
~~gravywavy
I'm not in on the loop, but
)
I'm not in on the loop, but according to the server status page there's about 87 days worth of crunching still to do, but what will happen then I do not know. It would be great if we could start the s5 analysis right away :-)
Click my stat image to go to the BOINC Synergy Team site!
[grain of salt] Disclaimer: I
)
[grain of salt]
Disclaimer: I run the risk of some mis-interpretation here, as I've only browsed the published Powerpoint presentations here, and I wasn't obviously present for the talks ( and I'm a total amateur at this ). But the timeline seems to be at least about this:
There were a number of various scenarios outlined in that talk - I have no idea what was finally decided. Anyhows you can see that the S5 run still has a ways to go. Also I would conclude from this:
that the triple co-incidence targets ( when the two Hanfords and the Livingstone LIGO's are all simultaneously 'locked' ) were rather under target ( 38.4% vs. 70% ). On the upside the sensitivity is cracking good:
The side axis is essentially 'strain' or fractional change in length as inverse powers of ten ( quite small aren't they? ) with smaller strains to the bottom, and the frequency of response of the instrument along the bottom axis with higher 'sounds' to the right. ( both are logarithmic, which saves on paper/screen-size to compress those dimensions for display )
The well defined hard curve lowermost was the original design goal ( 'SRD' ) from the distant past, and the legend indicates progressive improvement on the lower bounds of sensivity of that with successive runs from S1 ( '02 ) to S5 ( '06 ). It's about a hundred fold more sensitive now than when started, and that really winds out the distance into space from here to the limit of the faintest possible detection. It really is quite a big volume of space now that we ought to 'hear' from. LLO and LHO are Livingstone and Hanford respectively. You can see that all the curves have persistent 'spikes' at certain frequencies which reflect certain noise sources with fairly precise/sharp 'tones' - which I think is a result of design choices which corralls away energy that can't be eliminated as easily.
Note the point about lining up science runs with VIRGO/GEO, where you would potentially have pentuple ( ? ) co-incidence data! Oooohhh ... what a rich seam of gold that would be! They are physically widely separated ( like us on different continents ), with quite divergent 'pointing' in the sky, and differently 'tuned' instruments. You would improve any deduction of the direction from which a confirmed event originated.
Anyhows ( after a long detour ) in my humble opinion I would reach the following conclusions:
- They haven't finished S5 by a long ways yet.
- Thus they haven't decided 'best' data for S5, and you know they only give us the best data for our consumption..... :-)
- forgive our fearless leaders for not being exact and/or clear in the detail of plans. When these projects were planned ( long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away .... ), it was certainly expected that it would be a learning exercise with invention on the fly.
- I think the project leaders are really, really busy now.
- be cheerful, as you are involved in history in the making, whatever is found!
[/grain of salt]
Cheers, Mike.
(edit) Bear with me while I try to get the images to proper size on my ISP's host!!
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal