Seriously, from your first post on to reading the end of this post, you are
not "getting it".  Sorry.. You said you've done alot of research on the
seti@home but I just can't believe that.  The questions you've asked and the
statements you've made tell me you probably just need to move on to
something you can comprehend.  Yes, at one time we're all newbies to this
stuff, but c'mon....
Nick

"Warlock of Eire" <shaggy_ks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0b41g$943$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

Assuming SETI@Home means Berkeley, rather than the client.

Thats what I meant.

The data is not encrypted and is reasonably meaningful to anyone who
would have the technical knowledge to make judgements about what it
means (the exact scale factors on numbers may not be immediately
obvious).  There are some subtleties in data going to the client, but
anyone with the knowledge to independently process it should not take
long to discover those details.

I am dedicating myself to this, its really interesting. I will probably

find

out what the work units mean soon or in the near future.

There are programs that will interpret the raw data part of work
unit, but one, WU2WAV, was really created for people who insisted on
listening to work units (you won't hear anything except a hiss
for signals in the range that S@H is designed to detect), and another,
Baudline, doesn't seem to dechirp the FFTs, only the overall

integration,

and doesn't look for gaussians or pulses when integrating.

Yeh, i downloaded WU2WAV last night and all I got was hissing, although
maybe if i found an audio program that would let me increase and decrease
the decibels allowing me to hear the work unit properly as the frequency

is

too high or to low for humans to hear.

That's not possible.  No WU in isolation is sufficient to indicate that.
Two or three different work units from the same direction must produce
similar results.  These must be confirmed by dedicated observations,
and probably re-confirmed by further dedicated observations.  Resources
only exist to do the first dedicated observation on a few hundred cases.

It still could show a result, which I would find exciting. I know that it
has to be re-confirmed over and over again, but the feeling would be nice

to

get a result.


Ciaran