Join TeamCFC saving the World HERE!

[BCLG100]

ah right k, so it isnt say just the results over one month then

 

[bhsup]

Well, you could have just a few people where each person is controlling something like 50 machines and has all 50 set up to record that one name.

For example, suppose 4 IT managers, all at different company campuses, from company X decided to start folding. The team name is the company name, but each campus folds under the same username, Campus (number), and has dozens or hundreds of machines each. That's only four users on the team as far as the stats go, but they'd be a powerhouse team.

 

[BCLG100]

Well, you could have just a few people where each person is controlling something like 50 machines and has all 50 set up to record that one name.

For example, suppose 4 IT managers, all at different company campuses, from company X decided to start folding. The team name is the company name, but each campus folds under the same username, Campus (number), and has dozens or hundreds of machines each. That's only four users on the team as far as the stats go, but they'd be a powerhouse team.

Ah k i see what you mean

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: Poll merged with main thread

 

[IglooDame]

Man, I missed the whole "breaking the top 2000" thing. But, we're about to go over 100,000 total points, so that's cool too. Looks like a month or so till we break the top 1000, at this rate. Good to see all the new teammates!

 

[taper]

Ok, I joined. Still think the name should have something to do with a radioactive monkey. Maybe someone with photoshop skills should make an avatar of a monkey folding stuff, and then we all use that to increase awareness. I'd switch.

 

[Sophie 378]

More protein structure spam info (spoilered for the science-phobic)!

Spoiler :

My edits etc in bold.

From http://www.steve.gb.com/science/spectroscopy.html#xray
As I attempted to explain earlier, Xray crystallography is the normal method of solving structures - biomolecules such as proteins, DNA etc are well suited to this. This explains it more concisely than the link I posted earlier - and has prettier pictures.

X-ray crystallography is the most difficult of the techniques so far described to grasp, as it is intensely mathematical. What we would really like to do with X-rays is to take pictures of atoms, like we can take pictures of bigger things with visible light. The reason we must use X-rays is that to 'see' something with light, the light must have a wavelength similar to (or smaller than) the size of the thing we are looking at. X-rays fit the bill here (visible light is far too big to see atoms), but they unfortunately cannot be focussed by any current technique. Hence we must rely on making diffraction patterns from beautifully ordered piles of molecules (crystals), rather than looking at the molecules directly. Crystallisation of the compound of interets is the primary problem in X-ray crystallography: making perfect crystals is rather fraught. Once we have a nice crystal of the compound (e.g. a protein), we illuminate it with X-rays and collect the diffracted X-rays on a photographic film, to form a diffraction pattern, like the one below.

The diffraction patterns can be mathematically transformed back into electron density maps of the molecules in the crystals by Fourier transform techniques we won't go into here. A further problem of X-ray diffraction is that it relies on the size of the atoms, and hydrogen is too small to show up (Hydrogen makes up 63% of the body, so that's an important omission = but you can mostly work out where the Hs should be), hence when we 'join the dots' in our electron density map, we get something akin to a line-bond notation of the compound we have 'photographed'.

Haem electron density map: note the 'dot-to-dot' and missing hydrogens. Left, top view of unbound haem; right, side-on view on haem coordinating to two Histidines from whatever protein the haem is bound in. Carbons yellow, oxygens red, nitrogens blue, the iron atom is shown in white.

Oh, and we're on page 7 of FAHSTATS, now, not page 8: 1,909th! http://fahstats.com/?col=3&offset=1501

 

[ironduck]

45 members have submitted results now! Welcome newcomers

Sophie, the modeling from those diffraction patterns reminds me of the way engineers are getting around the wavelength limit of computer chips today (when they use optical lithography in the manufacturing) by adjusting for the diffraction patterns that appear on the mask.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

They can be split, but it still won't make any sense afterwards.

I have another computer running, but it may take a while for it to do a work unit. It's less than half the power of mine.

 

[Mathilda]

I've done three WU's no problems.
Now I've got this massive one that says I'll finish it in March 2007
(providing I leave my computer on all the time)
And yes, it seems to be accurate

I don't have enough patience for one and I don't trust my computer enough to stay alive long enough to finish this.
So gurus, can I swap it for a smaller one somehow?

 

[IglooDame]

Yes, you can, but first I'd suggest letting it complete a couple frames of the 20000, to get a better read on it. How long has it been chewing without completing the first frame?

 

[Mathilda]

About two hours. (Give or take half an hour). I sat here last night for almost half an hour staring at it, counting down the seconds with it, and did give the impression of being accurate.

edit: forget it. You were right. It jumped straight from none to 201 and is now zooming through them at 13 seconds / frame.

 

[ironduck]

I still don't understand why it is that when I get a WU of a few frames each frame takes much longer than if I get one with a lot of frames.

I just finished one of 3500 frames, and each frame was around 7 seconds.
Now I'm working on one that's 400 frames and each frame is 7 minutes.

It always does this on my computer, the small ones must be really complicated and the big ones really simple?

 

[BCLG100]

i dont think that is the case as i completed a 3750 one and am nearly completed a 1000 one so i dont think one is more complex than the other as there is little difference in times.

 

[BCLG100]

Ive also noticed we have moved up a lot of places very quikely in the last couple of days lets hope it continues

 

[ironduck]

i dont think that is the case as i completed a 3750 one and am nearly completed a 1000 one so i dont think one is more complex than the other as there is little difference in times.

I'm telling you what happens on my computer, I can't say for anyone else.

 

[Furiey]

The number of points you get for a Work Unit seems to be a better measure of how long it's likely to take - they do after all try and calibrate them so that the projects are worth roughly the same number of points/time spent.

Some of the projects use higher precision calculation than others, the cores also report the results differently, some report frames, others steps. the current projects summary page will tell you what yours is worth.

 

[lost_civantares]

For those scared at how long a wu will take, after just finishing a WU my computer told me that the next WU would take 10987d, 21h, at 729110254 min/frame! (hope it will be a high point WU when finished in 3985 AD!), but than changed to a much more reasonable 2 days (in accordence with windows in general it seems...).

 

[IglooDame]

Ive also noticed we have moved up a lot of places very quikely in the last couple of days lets hope it continues

Yep, the only team rising faster than us nearby is Democratic Underground, apparently also a forum with just over 80,000 members, but they've got nearly double the number of folders on the team.

 

[Abaddon]

Yeah, but we have a few members with multiple computers at their bec and call

I hope our membership levels will continue to grow, certainly with the start of a new thread we got a big increase.