Arecibo binary pulsar re-discoveries updated

The latest radio pulsar re-discoveries are available at the usual place. Our count is now at 172 detections of 105 different known radio pulsars, including 16 re-observations of 7 different milli-second pulsars. Thanks to our volunteers!

Comments

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6534
Credit: 284734192
RAC: 103342

Arecibo binary pulsar re-discoveries updated

This Gary Roberts fellow is up to 8 ABP detections by my count with his uber farm ( #8 on RAC, #13 on total ) !! Is he the leading goal scorer for ABP ???? :-) :-)

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73516529
RAC: 0

RE: This Gary Roberts

Message 98494 in response to message 98493

Quote:

This Gary Roberts fellow is up to 8 ABP detections by my count with his uber farm ( #8 on RAC, #13 on total ) !! Is he the leading goal scorer for ABP ???? :-) :-)

Cheers, Mike.

I think he's cheating. ;)

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6534
Credit: 284734192
RAC: 103342

RE: I think he's cheating.

Message 98495 in response to message 98494

Quote:
I think he's cheating. ;)


Probably. Who cares ?? :-) :-) He's an Aussie, and we really need anyone who can kick a goal at present ....

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5842
Credit: 109411234493
RAC: 34939190

RE: ... Is he the leading

Message 98496 in response to message 98493

Quote:
... Is he the leading goal scorer for ABP ???? :-) :-)

Nah - not even close :-).

The top five are (unless I've overlooked someone else)

  • * AEI eScience group ---- 23
    * Caltech OSG team ----- 14
    * ATLAS AEI Hannover -- 10
    * Steffen Grunewald ------ 9
    * Gary Roberts ------------- 8

Finding previously detected pulsars is interesting enough but the real thrill will be when a previously unknown one is found. I read somewhere that there are thought to be around 200K pulsars in our galaxy of which around 2K have actually been detected already. So it would seem that there is quite some scope for finding a new one eventually. However it's a bit worrying when you realise that we have already processed more than 20% of the currently available data without finding a single 'noob' (unless that information is 'classified') :-).

Maybe someone who knows a bit more about the subject might like to comment?

Cheers,
Gary.

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5842
Credit: 109411234493
RAC: 34939190

RE: RE: I think he's

Message 98497 in response to message 98495

Quote:
Quote:
I think he's cheating. ;)

Probably. Who cares ?? :-) :-)

Sshhh!! the two of you.... You'll get me kicked outta here ... :-).

Cheers,
Gary.

KSMarksPsych
KSMarksPsych
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 05
Posts: 2702
Credit: 4090227
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: I think

Message 98498 in response to message 98497

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think he's cheating. ;)

Probably. Who cares ?? :-) :-)

Sshhh!! the two of you.... You'll get me kicked outta here ... :-).

I knew it. I knew it.

*hmph*

Just kidding, ya know I luv ya Gary!

Kathryn :o)

Einstein@Home Moderator

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2118
Credit: 61407735
RAC: 0

Not all pulsars are binary

Not all pulsars are binary pulsars. I think we are looking only for this second type. Is it so?
Tullio

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4267
Credit: 244933956
RAC: 16243

RE: Maybe someone who knows

Message 98500 in response to message 98496

Quote:
Maybe someone who knows a bit more about the subject might like to comment?


Well, known pulsars are easy recognize and report. Candidates for unknown pulsars are reported back to the PALFA collaboration for verification, re-pointings etc. These will take longer to be published.

BM

BM

Michael Karlinsky
Michael Karlinsky
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 888
Credit: 23502182
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Maybe someone who

Message 98501 in response to message 98500

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe someone who knows a bit more about the subject might like to comment?

Well, known pulsars are easy recognize and report. Candidates for unknown pulsars are reported back to the PALFA collaboration for verification, re-pointings etc. These will take longer to be published.

BM

Hi,

were there any candidates to report, detected by ABP application, already?

Kind Regards,

Michael

Phil
Phil
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 176
Credit: 1817881
RAC: 0

RE: The top five are

Message 98502 in response to message 98496

Quote:
The top five are (unless I've overlooked someone else)
  • * AEI eScience group ---- 23
    * Caltech OSG team ----- 14
    * ATLAS AEI Hannover -- 10
    * Steffen Grunewald ------ 9
    * Gary Roberts ------------- 8

Ha - that bunch are cheaters, too.....

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4267
Credit: 244933956
RAC: 16243

RE: were there any

Message 98503 in response to message 98501

Quote:
were there any candidates to report, detected by ABP application, already?

There definitely are, but don't ask me about numbers (I'm actually on vacation right now).

BM

BM

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5842
Credit: 109411234493
RAC: 34939190

RE: RE: were there any

Message 98504 in response to message 98503

Quote:
Quote:
were there any candidates to report, detected by ABP application, already?

There definitely are ....


Then somebody should be milking that fact rather energetically for its undoubted publicity value.

Up until now most interested participants have probably been assuming that all so far are just re-observations of known objects. If there are significant genuine candidates for new discoveries, that fact could be used to boost participant numbers quite markedly, I would imagine.

We need a bit of something to get excited about every now and then :-).

Is it too much to ask for a small table of the most interesting 'potential new discovery' candidates for the users to drool over? Even if any particular candidate is not subsequently confirmed, the simple possibility on its own would surely generate a level of interest and anticipation that should last for quite a while.

Cheers,
Gary.

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4267
Credit: 244933956
RAC: 16243

The rules for any publication

The rules for any publication in any form of results obtained from LSC data are pretty strict within the LSC (this applies to the GW search on Einstein@home). I would assume the publishing rules of PALFA being more liberal, but honestly I don't know. Surely a page with such preliminary results would be something that needs to be discussed with the collaboration first.

BM

BM

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5842
Credit: 109411234493
RAC: 34939190

I can understand the caution

Message 98506 in response to message 98505

I can understand the caution in regard to making any sort of statements about results from LSC data without proper consultation and approval from the full LSC body.

I can also imagine that scientists wouldn't want to make premature claims about a 'discovery' that subsequently proves not to be one after all. I wasn't really suggesting something that could be misconstrued in that way. I was thinking more along the lines of the Seti candidate signals of a few years ago where a number were identified as 'important enough' to justify some extra time for re-observations to be made at Arecibo. I recall it generated quite a deal of participant interest at the time, even though it was recognised that the chances were quite slim that anything concrete would eventuate.

At least one would hope that potential new pulsar candidates may have a greater chance of ultimate success. It wouldn't be necessary to disclose any details about the properties of the candidate - just the fact that a candidate of interest now existed and the identity of those machines which had been lucky enough to be involved. People are really encouraged by the thought that their contribution is actually helping advance the cause (let alone the potential bragging rights :-) ).

I'm not trying to get you personally to do anything. I'm hoping that perhaps a scientist may see some value in getting permission to give this sort of extra feedback to the volunteers.

Cheers,
Gary.

Stranger7777
Stranger7777
Joined: 17 Mar 05
Posts: 436
Credit: 417527607
RAC: 33436

RE: I'm not trying to get

Message 98507 in response to message 98506

Quote:
I'm not trying to get you personally to do anything. I'm hoping that perhaps a scientist may see some value in getting permission to give this sort of extra feedback to the volunteers.

Fully agree with this.

Mad_Max
Mad_Max
Joined: 2 Jan 10
Posts: 153
Credit: 2135009635
RAC: 429577

RE: Not all pulsars are

Message 98508 in response to message 98499

Quote:
Not all pulsars are binary pulsars. I think we are looking only for this second type. Is it so?
Tullio

I join question. But will put it in another form: the pulsars that are located at re-opening page (105 at last update) - it's all pulsars detected in the analysis of data? Or just only from binary systems (which is the main goal of the ABP search)?
Or, used search algorithm in general, "not sensitive" to the pulsar is not belonging to binary systems?

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2118
Credit: 61407735
RAC: 0

RE: I join question. But

Message 98509 in response to message 98508

Quote:

I join question. But will put it in another form: the pulsars that are located at re-opening page (105 at last update) - it's all pulsars detected in the analysis of data? Or just only from binary systems (which is the main goal of the ABP search)?
Or, used search algorithm in general, "not sensitive" to the pulsar is not belonging to binary systems?


On the LIGO site, Scientific Collaborations, there is an article on the Crab Pulsar and how LIGO measured its possible emission of GW basing upon the observations made by the Jodrell Bank Radiotelescope. AFAIK the Crab Pulsar does not belong to a binary system. But can Arecibo see it, or is it outside its range?
Tullio

Benjamin Knispel
Benjamin Knispel
Joined: 1 Jun 06
Posts: 148
Credit: 4981579
RAC: 0

RE: I join question. But

Message 98510 in response to message 98508

Quote:
I join question. But will put it in another form: the pulsars that are located at re-opening page (105 at last update) - it's all pulsars detected in the analysis of data? Or just only from binary systems (which is the main goal of the ABP search)?
Or, used search algorithm in general, "not sensitive" to the pulsar is not belonging to binary systems?

The pulsars on the re-detection are all pulsars we have re-detected in the analysis. In fact most of them are not in binary systems. This does not reflect any shortcoming of the search pipeline but just the fact that there are not that many binary pulsars out there. The binary radio pulsars that Einstein@Home is designed to look for are potentially even more rare. The shorter the orbital period gets (which is what E@H is good at detecting better than any other search in the world) the fewer systems are expected to exists. This is, because the closer the binary gets the shorter the time it spends at this orbital separation.

Some background with respect to publishing potential candidates on a webpage: after some simple inspections of overview plots we have to run a careful (preliminary) post-processing on all the results that are reported back from client machines to identify any candidates. This post-processing code is not in its final version, so I would be careful to call anything from that a definitive candidate.

The biggest difficulty is actually that man-made signals (so-called radio frequency interference or RFI in short) do look like pulsar candidates although they are none. We did have a part our strongest candidates (which potentially included RFI) checked by colleagues in the collaboration. No interesting new candidates emerged from that check. Note, that we will go to weaker signals with the final post-processing code on the full processed data set.

We're also working on some ideas for new search methods to improve the robustness against RFI which should allow us to dig much deeper into detetor noise to identify weaker candidates.

So, bear with us for some time while we keep improving the post-processing. Don't forget that all you volunteers out there are doing an excellent job: your computers do detect pulsars aplenty (we're likely to get the 200th re-detection this week), and some of them are actually really weak (e.g. J1929+1955)!

Cheers, Ben

 

Einstein@Home Project

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2118
Credit: 61407735
RAC: 0

I am glad to learn that my

I am glad to learn that my question was a legitimate one. I have seen in the News Forum at SETI@home a link to a paper describing how to eliminate ("blank") interference coming from Puerto Rico radars. But you surely know it.
Tullio

Benjamin Knispel
Benjamin Knispel
Joined: 1 Jun 06
Posts: 148
Credit: 4981579
RAC: 0

The radar blanking is done at

The radar blanking is done at Arecibo for other observations but cannot be used for the pulsar searches because of detrimental side effects. We have to do all of this after the data have been taken. Also, this is not just airport radar, but a plethora of other sources that cannot be blanked "in hardware". For SETI things are different and you can simply blank out the radar.

Cheers, Ben

 

Einstein@Home Project

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6534
Credit: 284734192
RAC: 103342

Ok. So : - we've thus far

Ok. So :

- we've thus far picked up a lot of the low hanging fruit. Subsequent (re-)detections are going to be harder. Possibly these may represent a different subset of pulsar behaviours, ie. not merely more distant ones of similiar type ??

- binary pulsars, as detected, are the brief ( in cosmic time ) final fizzle on the short piece of remaining fuse before a bang!!

- anthropogenic sources for various reasons mimic celestial ones. Hmmmmmm .... I guess the ionosphere ( Heaviside etc ) is less than helpful here. Does the moon, or other 'nearby' objects, bounce human RFI significantly ?? Jeez, all those communications satellites .... resonant/reflective space junk in low earth orbit ??

- re-detections have refined the parameters of known pulsars ( plus being a simple orthogonal check on existence ) ??

- (e.g. J1929+1955) : quite slow, and I guess the first derivative is negative = is slowing down, plus the second derivative is positive = rate of slowing is going to zero ( less negative ). So it's really running out of choof then .... one 'soon' for the 'graveyard' ???

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal