Posts by Kellen
|
1)
(Message 5665)
Posted 27 Jan 2018 by Kellen Post: Nice work Tom! Congratulations on the new badge too! |
|
2)
(Message 5645)
Posted 15 Jan 2018 by Kellen Post: Hi Tom, I think that this issue is back with some new workunits, however I've noticed that they have the same workunit ID as the invalid workunits from November of 2017. Are you having any of these same issues again? From November (workunit 137247): http://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/workunit.php?wuid=74376479 From yesterday (workunit 137249): http://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/workunit.php?wuid=78229856 I recall that workunits between about 136900 and 138500 (somewhere in there) had these errors in November and it looks like the same workunits are affected again. This kindof begs the question whether we are actually just processing the same data over again. |
|
3)
(Message 5612)
Posted 31 Dec 2017 by Kellen Post: Great! Thanks Kyong! I saw the "Tasks ready to send" drop steadily towards zero today but then start to increase again, so it looks like the script is working swimmingly. Hope you and everyone else has a great New Year's! |
|
4)
(Message 5574)
Posted 11 Dec 2017 by Kellen Post: Hi Martin, No problem with the server; just out of work units. More will probably get uploaded soon :) Regards, Kellen |
|
5)
(Message 5548)
Posted 5 Nov 2017 by Kellen Post: Hi Sebastian, This is pretty normal for this project; I just checked and have approximately 250 units waiting for validation. The project occasionally runs out of work, so I think that a lot of users have long work queues to make sure that their CPUs and GPUs stay fed. When I first started I checked the settings of many of the computers that were crunching the other half of my work unit and found that 7 days was a common turnaround time. Don't worry too much about it though, as this is just a sign that your turnaround is a bit faster than average. Eventually you will reach a steady-state where the number of unvalidated units will stabilize. On another note; welcome to asteroids@home! :) Regards, Kellen |
|
6)
Posted 14 Oct 2017 by Kellen Post: The Yarkovsky effect is strongly dependent on size, but also on rotation rate, albedo and a host of other factors. Assuming everything stays constant except for size, the effect on a small asteroid is, as you suspect, more significant than for a large asteroid, due to the decreasing surface area to volume ratio as asteroid size increases (the volume, and as a result, the mass, increases by the cube of the radius, where the surface area increases by the square of the radius). Rotation rate also tends to be higher in smaller asteroids, which will increase the significance of the Yarkovsky effect. If an asteroid has a high albedo, the Yarkovsky effect will be less significant than an asteroid with a low albedo due to the reduced absorption of light (which reduces the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures on the asteroid). As an example of this, the asteroids 6489 Golevka and 4 Vesta have approximately the same semi-major axis and rotation period, however Vesta is nearly 1,000 times larger in diameter than Golevka. This should result in a Yarkovsky effect approximately 1,000,000 times more significant for Golevka than Vesta with respect to orbital acceleration. |
|
7)
(Message 5497)
Posted 15 Sep 2017 by Kellen Post: Great work Mike! Congratulations on your new Palladium badge! :D |
|
8)
(Message 5492)
Posted 15 Sep 2017 by Kellen Post: Woohoo! Nice to see the server back up again. Thanks Kyong! I hope you have a great weekend! |