1) Message boards : Number crunching : Faulty Computers or Modified BOINC ?? Huge Credits (Message 23863)
Posted 21 Jan 2012 by Galeon 7

Have I got this right and I lost 400K of what I thought I honestly earned?

It is a valid question that must be answered.

The credits are assigned based on the average of the claims from two valid results. Therefore, if one of the valid results claims disproportionate credit,
the granted credit for both is still too high (for example (0+1Million)/2=500K).

Based on the assignment logs I have, I substracted the unreasonable claims
even from these crunches, who where not actively involved in presenting
the unreasonable claims, but got inadvertently assigned high values due to the average calculation.

After two episodes of this game, we started to calculate the credits based on the internal characteristics of the application. This prevents all cheating
and also filters out random/faulty computer clock readings.

I hope this explains. I appreciate the work you do. Please, keep crunching.

Thank you Igor. I appreciate not only your explanation, but the simplicity of it.

So, like, can I swap those for about 100K work units to crunch? :)
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Faulty Computers or Modified BOINC ?? Huge Credits (Message 23859)
Posted 20 Jan 2012 by Galeon 7
I have now adjusted the total_credit entries in the sixtrack data base for
wdsmia - 500K
Galeon 7 - 400K
MrOctane - 900K
Jnargus - 600K

Sorry guys. Keep on crunching and the scores will come!

Just finished going through this thread. As I understand it, someone either cheated or something and I was one of four people "wingman" that benefitted with extra credits. How? As far as I know, my computers earn credits for the work they do, not someone else screwing with their own computer. I am assuming that those credits have been taken away since I have lost around 400K, specifically on 18 Jan.

I don't get into the heavy number analysis like several very astute people here do, so I don't know what has happened. To that end I have opened up my computers so perhaps someone can tell me what went on. I thought I was doing honest crunching looking only at my daily totals (admittedly not every day).

Have I got this right and I lost 400K of what I thought I honestly earned?

For those of you that are either only science or only credits...I crunch for both. I have been on this project a long time through both thick and thin available work units. Right now, my heater is broke, but that is no problem as I am heating the house using the computer room. I have put upwards of $40,000 dollars into my systems. I don't take this lightly.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Please note: this project rarely has work (Message 19415)
Posted 14 Apr 2008 by Galeon 7
I suppose it is like their WORLD Series which is only competed for by US teams. There are 300M of them and none of them seem to be aware that are 8B others out here. They also don't know how to spell English on their side of the pond, either.

I'm dyslexic, so sue me.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Please note: this project rarely has work (Message 19413)
Posted 14 Apr 2008 by Galeon 7

I thought dd/mm/yy was the world standard just not the American World Stanadrd.

Yes, that format is used more globally, but at least here in the United States, dates are frequently written as mm/dd/YYyy (with YY optional)...

Like today, 07/03/07... If someone put 03/07/07, many people here would think that meant March 7th unless there was something else nearby that had its' first set of digits greater than 12, like 15/07/07, for a visual clue that the dates were being given in dd/mm/yy...

I prefer US military standard: dd MMM yy 14 Apr 08
5) Message boards : Number crunching : When you see work is around ... (Message 15345)
Posted 3 Nov 2006 by Galeon 7

May I give you an analogy? There is a motorway, the M25, that runs all the way round London, England. The Department of Transport have doubled its capacity in peak times by slowing the traffic down. Because the new speed limits keep cars moving, more cars per hour get through in the rush hour than used to when everyone was legally allowed to go faster but was actually obstructed by tail backs.

U were doing good till u got to "tail backs". The colonials will not understand "tail backs".

Heck bubba, Us'n down here in the good ol' Republic of Texas can nary figure it.

Great, just great! I grew up in Texas and don't understand what nary means. :(
6) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14479)
Posted 5 Aug 2006 by Galeon 7
I do not think the problem lies with the user caching the workunits. This can be easily solved by the project adjusting the deadlines as appropriate....

Ok, I have to admit I get confused easily; but, if there is no problem why does it have to be solved?
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Why can't I get any work? (Message 14477)
Posted 5 Aug 2006 by Galeon 7
For Conan: It is the most beutiful thing you can see. There is also a 10^(-80) probability that you unfold all the secrets of universe!

Missed your appointment with your psychiatrist again this week huh?
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Bye all! (Message 14476)
Posted 5 Aug 2006 by Galeon 7
I fail to see why people hate this project so much, I have to say it has been the most reliable project I run out of 20 or so projects...


We're just <snif, snif> tired of it toying with our affections.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14383)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7
TY Dora. Six-Track is only the name of the program they're running. It has no real connecton with the actual number of tracks in the LHC. In several places they are at minimum space so six tracks wouldn't fit equipment wise and the redundancy would be a waste.

The length of the old LEP and the LHC may be primarily the same at 27 Km, but the equipment in the LHC is significantly bigger.

It has to be when you're out to destroy the universe, like Mike. :)
10) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14382)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7
Mike, you know, teaching physics 101 to grad students really sucks :) Yeah, what I said does imply an exit point.

Crossing the beams (magnetic deflection) in Alice, Atlas, LHCB and CMS are the exits I am referring to. With a drawing it is easy to see, but without, a little hard to envision that something inline can actually be an exit point.

You know, they tried doing this in Ghost Busters and almost destroyed the space/time continuum don't you?

And it's all your fault!

Note to self. Never try to explain the difference between a quark and a qwerk to a physicist and a psychologist, because then they will get married and bring about the end of the universe. Philisophically speaking of course.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14381)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7
I don't know what this "Cache" thing is....

It seems so!

Take a look at your general preferences for:
Connect to network about every
(determines size of work cache; maximum 10 days)

Bigger numbers allow you to get more work.

But, you should set your "Connect to network about every"
to no more than one-tenth.
That is the "fair" thing to do...[/quote]

Then I would assume that .04 is ok?
12) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14375)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7
Perhaps this is a Social or Psychological experiment and not one of Physics...

I just see the paper on "Volunteer Responses to Contrived Shortages in an Altruisic Computing Environment..."

Does anyone have any insight into how CERN intended to build and configure the LHC **before** they joined BOINC?

I posted the response below to the Synergy board as there were complaints there too, mostly quanderies. Exellent people, but not as personally involved in particle physics as we are. My apologies if this goes "under" your heads :)

Why LHC Starts and Stops

I've seen several comments, complaints and scratching of the head as to why the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at home puts up a bunch of workunits just to run out of them.

Weee'll it has to do with the very nature of the project. Projects like SETI keep running as long as they have the time on Arecibo to poke their noses into the universe. They gather rheems of data that we crunch. With few exceptions (server crashes etc.) they supply a constant streem of data.

LHC isn't doing this kind of research yet. What LHC is currently doing is designing and tuning their system. We supply numbers, LHC puts them in their simulator and says "Wallah, we can put that magnet together!"

If SETI were designing antennas, receivers etc. they would be doing the same type of work as LHC. Every time LHC gets in data from us, they have to evaluate it and then go to the next step. Once there, they reevaluate and send us more data to crunch. In essence this is a step by step process.

"Ok", you say, "I'll bite. Just what are they doing?"

We smash 2x4's through walls to see if walls survive tornados. We fire bullets into Kevlar vests to see if our soldiers can survive. LHC smashes atoms into other atoms to see...what will happen.

A linear accelerator is just like a gun. You fire a bullet/atom at a target/another atom. These particles are fired and accelerated by alternating electromagnets. The principle drawback is size. You can only get so much energy out of one magnet and the faster you go the bigger the magnet because in the firing cycle the magnet only gets used once.

This problem was fixed by making the accelerator round. Then the firing can go by the magnets lots and lots of times, acquiring more energy every time. The energies are astronomicaly higher than a linear accelerator.

Well here comes problem number one. Put a hole through a tennis ball and put a string through it. Then twirl it over your head. Travels in a circle don't it? Now let it go. Physics 101: An object in motion tends to stay in motion. The ball travels in a straight line when released. Your energy holding it (and the string) are the only thing that kept it going round. Minus gravity Mother Nature prefers things travel in straight lines.

So first we tune (read "Send WUs to us to crunch.") the magnets to pull and push electrons and other particles to horrendous speeds. But now we have to adjust those electromagnets to make that particle travel in a circle like a doughnut. You and I crunch again. LHC applies this and they are further in their design.

Just when you thought they had it figured out: They put a second doughnut right on top of the first one. This one has the electron/target going in the opposite direction. You got it! We crunch again. What LHC did to save money is put the two tracks next to each other and use one set of magnets for both. Now they have to figure out how to pull and push both going in opposite directions. We crunch. Uh oh, tricky part. What to do when they are passing each other in the same magnet? We crunch again.

I'll be brief. Frequency, voltage, amps and a number of other variables have to be taken into consideration so the magnets fire at just the right time (mili, nano seconds). Yup, start crunching again.

Remember when I said let the string go and the tennis ball will go straight? Well somewhere in here LHC lets the particle go and it smashes into the target. Same place every time. Think you can let go of the string and have the ball go the same direction every time? I hear you crunching again.

Now here is really the neat part. At 14 TeV (terra electron volts) an electron can be speeded to nearly the speed of light. What happens when two cars each going 40 mph collide head on? They hit at 80 mph. What happens when two particles traveling in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light hit each other? A collision at nearly twice the speed of light!

Last I looked, they haven't planned this one. Oops, they actually did it on low level in 1971.


"Lacy put down that disintegrator gun! Oh yeah, it's always funny until you put someones planet out!"


I'll admit, I like to crunch for numbers (as well as to further CERN). I consider LHC my pet project. I just think of biology projects as yucky. I always hated biology. I took LHC off of my three dinosaurs. It didn't take too long to see they couldn't take it. I did add three more P4 HTs to the two I was using only to not see enough WU's show up since. I am still waiting to see them strut their stuff.

I don't know what this "Cache" thing is. I just checked my SETI specificatons and didn't see Cache mentioned anywhere. Is it the percentage of memory used?

I will admit, I do stuff WU's but I can get them done in 2 days. I didn't know there was a problem until recently when I saw the low amount of WU's out there and can't grab any of them. Just now, there were about 500 and within minutes it went to 11,000 but all were taken. If I slow down CERN, I will surely back off, but I haven't seen any of my numbers busting the ones members here have set out.

Wasn't this whole thing about the computing power we bring to CERN? If we weren't here, just how much further "behind" would they be on only their processors.

One way or another we are a valuable asset to them, not a liability.

PS: Right before people went on vacations etc. for the summer, distributed computing put out over 400 Teraflops. The fastest supercomputer in the world puts @280 Teraflops, making us the fastest computer in the world.

©2021 CERN