no point when there's nothing to crunch for SETI. and the project goals are completely separate. Einstein has their own specific goals and science, and has little or nothing to do with SETI other than they are both searching for some type of signal from space. Einstein is not a project like WCG or Yoyo where they are platforming others folks' research, and they have enough to deal with maintaining the infrastructure for their own research, let alone another unrelated project that wont benefit them.
IF SETI ever comes back (BIG if, IMO unlikely to return at all), it will be run on the normal SETI@home project
There's sure data left to crunch since they simply stopped sending out new work at a randomly selected day, what's actually missing are scientists (and IIRC also hardware) to analyse the returned results and covert them into scientific publication(s). Until someone has actually done something out of all the results, that has been returned in over two decades, it's IMHO simply pointless to continue crunching. Better give the ressources to projects, that can use the returned results now or in near future. We even don't really know if the applications we were using were doing their job right.
There's sure data left to crunch since they simply stopped sending out new work at a randomly selected day, what's actually missing are scientists (and IIRC also hardware) to analyse the returned results and covert them into scientific publication(s). Until someone has actually done something out of all the results, that has been returned in over two decades, it's IMHO simply pointless to continue crunching. Better give the ressources to projects, that can use the returned results now or in near future. We even don't really know if the applications we were using were doing their job right.
towards the end they increased the replication to a crazy amount to increase the rate in which WUs were completed and validated. Instead of waiting for two people to validate, they sent tasks out to like 5 different people in the hopes that 2 would return results quickly and not the worst case two-month long process of validation when people don’t return a result, or error and resend again, etc. They abruptly stopped processing with tasks still out in the wild because all of those tasks were duplicates and no longer needed. They got everything they needed. There is no longer anything to crunch that would be useful. They need to analyze the 20-year database of collected results now, which they are doing internally instead of utilizing the S@h network.
Read through David Anderson's Nebula threads in News at Seti.
He came to the conclusion that the search tools were completely inadequate. Didn't find stuff it should have with the injected 'birdies' and did find 'false' signals that were impossible.
I believe he threw in the towel and acknowledged that his approach was defective.
SETI was the trailblazer for distributed computing and the online citizen science model. Their hypothesis was low probability but huge payoff. Nonetheless it was SETI that stimulated Bruce Allen to try a similar approach with his data analysis requirements. E@H owes much to SETI.
Cheers, Mike.
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
When he said search tools were inadequate did that mean the collected raw data (assuming it is still available) couldn't be processed with different tools?
Tom M
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
no point when there's nothing
)
no point when there's nothing to crunch for SETI. and the project goals are completely separate. Einstein has their own specific goals and science, and has little or nothing to do with SETI other than they are both searching for some type of signal from space. Einstein is not a project like WCG or Yoyo where they are platforming others folks' research, and they have enough to deal with maintaining the infrastructure for their own research, let alone another unrelated project that wont benefit them.
IF SETI ever comes back (BIG if, IMO unlikely to return at all), it will be run on the normal SETI@home project
_________________________________________________________________________
Ian&Steve C. wrote:no point
)
There's sure data left to crunch since they simply stopped sending out new work at a randomly selected day, what's actually missing are scientists (and IIRC also hardware) to analyse the returned results and covert them into scientific publication(s). Until someone has actually done something out of all the results, that has been returned in over two decades, it's IMHO simply pointless to continue crunching. Better give the ressources to projects, that can use the returned results now or in near future. We even don't really know if the applications we were using were doing their job right.
.
well said
)
well said
Link wrote: Ian&Steve C.
)
towards the end they increased the replication to a crazy amount to increase the rate in which WUs were completed and validated. Instead of waiting for two people to validate, they sent tasks out to like 5 different people in the hopes that 2 would return results quickly and not the worst case two-month long process of validation when people don’t return a result, or error and resend again, etc. They abruptly stopped processing with tasks still out in the wild because all of those tasks were duplicates and no longer needed. They got everything they needed. There is no longer anything to crunch that would be useful. They need to analyze the 20-year database of collected results now, which they are doing internally instead of utilizing the S@h network.
_________________________________________________________________________
Read through David Anderson's
)
Read through David Anderson's Nebula threads in News at Seti.
He came to the conclusion that the search tools were completely inadequate. Didn't find stuff it should have with the injected 'birdies' and did find 'false' signals that were impossible.
I believe he threw in the towel and acknowledged that his approach was defective.
Keith that is consistent with
)
Keith that is consistent with the lack of posts in the past year on the subject.
Keith Myers schrieb: I
)
That is really sad. SETI was the first project that I participated on years ago and I really hope there will be something similar in the future.
SETI was the trailblazer for
)
SETI was the trailblazer for distributed computing and the online citizen science model. Their hypothesis was low probability but huge payoff. Nonetheless it was SETI that stimulated Bruce Allen to try a similar approach with his data analysis requirements. E@H owes much to SETI.
Cheers, Mike.
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
When he said search tools
)
When he said search tools were inadequate did that mean the collected raw data (assuming it is still available) couldn't be processed with different tools?
Tom M
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
Read the Nebula thread. The
)
Read the Nebula thread. The search parameters were flawed. The applications were insufficient.