I believe I read someplace it is possible to get at the "raw"? data directly?

1) Download and "clean" a piece of data. Pick a particular "part" of the sky and remember it.
2) Analyze it taking however long it takes.
3) Save an abstract of the results.
4) Repeat until you have processed "enough" of the data from that specific point that you can compare "all" the repeated observations.
5) Do you "see" any patterns?
6) Pick another "location".
7) Wash /rinse/dry, repeat.

Assuming we have a "common format" for the abstracted results we could "band together" and have one machine/group of machines/bunch of gpus work on #5 while the rest of us are deciding which location we want to crunch data from next.

There are several different projects out there that had multiple weeks/months per task so I suspect the issue is not the rate of processing but having a suite of tools that allows one or a few machines/GPUs to analyze a single sky location from raw data to final search for a signal.

I know this is all way above my paygrade in terms of actually being able to design/program a system.

I would, however, be willing to alpha test, beta test and process things that take weeks/months to get from one end to the other. I assume regular checkpointing. And I presume we couldn't use the Tbar/Petri gpu processing because it re-starts so badly.

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

https://www.wired.com/story/setihome-is-over-but-the-search-for-alien-life-continues/

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

That's not a bad summary of the process.
There are a couple hurdles to overcome, actually getting the data in a usable form, which shouldn't be too hard as someone posted a link around Christmas, so it's "simple" case of getting permission to do a bulk download, popping the straw in and sucking hard.
Getting a couple of folks on board with the required computing skills - weak signal analysis, spread over various platforms.
There would have to be a few decisions made, such as which set of frequencies to look at within the "DC to Light" range. Much of S@H's work was done on the water gap because, well there are some good reasons, not the least of which it is quite well characterized and is kept almost clear of terrestrial rubbish (note the word "almost"....). Another consideration would be which telescope to select data from, continue with a Northern sky one, or be adventurous and look further south?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

The idea is good but i believe we not have the resources to do that.

Boinc needs a central server and someone who has the skills to take care of it, high speed communications links, etc. that cost a lot of $, specially if is US/EU based.

If that could solve, then we need someway to get the data to be crunched (from Arecibo, GBT, etc.) and a group os scientist who could analyze the crunched data (Nebula?).

In short words, we need another S@H structure to do that.

If you could find a solution to that, count with me.

---

Add - I've found the link to the page where the data can be selected - https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/opendatasearch
To get at the data one needs to have a guess at a location, observation time and a couple of other things.....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

In short words, we need another S@H structure to do that.

If you could find a solution to that, count with me.

Basically what I am proposing more decentralized processing. It wouldn't necessarily require a BONIC structure. It would require a new Suite of programs that could allow a smaller or single user to process until they have something that could be shared.

Either an intermediate stopping spot similar to what we do when we upload back to the Seti@Home server. Or a "final" destination.

And that is an interesting question. Do we have big enough/fast enough computers that we could setup a replication of the first steps of Seti@Home running on a server with multiple Virtual Machines?

If yes, what would we narrow its focus down to, to allow it to handle a small enough bunch of raw data for processing?

And then there is the question of the data analysis step that Nebula (for instance) represents.

All in all, we would need all the skills/talents that Rob Smith listed to build a new(er) Suite of Tools.

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

Well, to do smth useful there should be new approach to search. New patterns. New freq ranges. Maybe even whole new spectrum band (like optical SETI).
And skilled professional to define such patterns. That's hard part. And then definitely some new form of distributed processing can be formed.
As I see the main issue of current SETI@home search - it's hugely undermanned. Just devastately huge. Persons who need to deal exclusively with mentioned "hard part" spend lot of time for just system administration.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.