If anybody cares...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Fig. 2, Table VI.

We recently crunched quartz to 3.3 quadrillion atoms or a 43 micron
diameter ball - 2.8 GHz Xeon and 1.8 GHz Opteron CPUs in Linux gave
identical data - up from 0.33 Quad and 20 microns. The graphic fit to
parity divergence, CHI, tweaked in the fourth decimal place, slope and
intercept. 15 Quads is cooking right now, or 71 microns diameter.

The native 32-bit source code is being ported to 64-bit and is being
parallelized for a dual-Opteron box. If this goes through, we go for
42 quadrillion atoms or a 100 micron diameter ball (1/10 millimeter)
in a CPU-month. That is a classical physics mass to even the most
skeptical pundit. No surprises vs. scale can hide.

If we can get into an 8-Opteron box, 4 CPU-weeks does 205 Quads or a
170 micron diameter ball. In a world dripping with bull****, the
Gifted across the globe still shout defiance. Appreciation goes out
to four code poets in four different countries who offered to toss
some unused CPU-time Uncle Al's way - and boasted that the code could
run faster.

If anybody has a big cluster not otherwise engaged or needs a burn-in
for new equipment, I expect to have a program that will flex every
transistor in every CPU but not bother other components. All I ask in
return is the data generated. An Opteron running 32-bit code
massively outperforms a Xeon running at 156% of Opteron clock speed.
Windows is 40% slower than Linux in all iron and we abandoned any
thought of it.

No more "Intel Inside" for Uncle Al. Go AMD.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Uncle Al wrote:

If anybody cares...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Fig. 2, Table VI.

We recently crunched quartz to 3.3 quadrillion atoms or a 43 micron
diameter ball -

snip

So what does your model look like if you do the real world
version incorporating 1000 ppm randomly incorporated
impurities?

Uncle Al wrote:
If anybody cares...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Fig. 2, Table VI.

We recently crunched quartz to 3.3 quadrillion atoms or a 43 micron
diameter ball - 2.8 GHz Xeon and 1.8 GHz Opteron CPUs in Linux gave
identical data

One would hope that digital computers running the same code would give
the same results as each other (to within limits of the precision of the
data types employed).

BTW, I find "experiment" a bit of a strong term to describe a numerical
simulation. I like to call them Numerical Simulations, Brute-Force
modelling, or lettuce mathematics (the Monte Zuma method).

As for switching to 64-bit code; overrated. What's commonly forgotten
is that the general design of the processor improves with time, not only
the register sizes which for floating point number-crunching aren't so
important; time taken to load the data into the registers is a
high-order perturbation in comparison with the time taken to manipulate
it. For instance, I'd rather use a 32-bit PowerPC unit than a 64-bit
UltraSPARC 1[*], despite the latter having bigger bittage.

Graham.
[*]Frankly I'd rather use an M68k than an US1: the 68k parts tend to die
on their ar53s less often.

I nead a jell or hardner for oil.
U are blowing 10 million out your ass .
Turn a tanker of oil into a solid that wount spill and Ill dump 10
million in your lap.
By now you should know what gravity is IDIOT.

Make that 50 million bucks.
Turn oil into a solid by mixing somthing with it and 50 mil belongs to
you.

Bill Vajk wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

If anybody cares...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Fig. 2, Table VI.

We recently crunched quartz to 3.3 quadrillion atoms or a 43 micron
diameter ball -

snip

So what does your model look like if you do the real world
version incorporating 1000 ppm randomly incorporated
impurities?

Poor little Vajk - it's the onomatopoeia that got you, eh git?

CHI resists decrease given sparse noise: impurities, vacancies,
interstitials, dislocations, mosaicity. Parity divergence is
primarily generated by lattice space group. Log(1-CHI) =
-2log(radius) + k. K cannot be larger than 6.2. It is obvious to a
grade school child - though probably not explainable to you, Vajk -
that utterly scrambling the atoms in a centimeter quartz test mass
would change the resultant CHI by about one part in 10^9 as long as
the resulting crystal structure was periodic and retained its space
group. The chemical composition is irrelevant - mass is mass. QCM
assigns graph colors, and we believe QCM,

http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
Review.
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
The math ad software as such.

Pookie pookie, fool.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Uncle Al wrote:
If anybody cares...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Fig. 2, Table VI.

What you do is over my head.

But if you or anyone else hasn't heard about the playstation 2

Scientific Computing on the Sony Playstation 2
http://arrakis.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ps2/index.php

Do click on the cluster link.

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Graham Lee wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
If anybody cares...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Fig. 2, Table VI.

We recently crunched quartz to 3.3 quadrillion atoms or a 43 micron
diameter ball - 2.8 GHz Xeon and 1.8 GHz Opteron CPUs in Linux gave
identical data

One would hope that digital computers running the same code would give
the same results as each other (to within limits of the precision of the
data types employed).

BTW, I find "experiment" a bit of a strong term to describe a numerical
simulation. I like to call them Numerical Simulations, Brute-Force
modelling, or lettuce mathematics (the Monte Zuma method).
[snip]

The calculation qualifies test masses with which to perform the
experiment. If the parity Eotvos experiment gives net output, then
the Equivalence Principle is counterdemonstrated and all metric
theories of gravitation are WRONG at their founding postulate. Affine
theories take over.

General Relativity is a metric theory of gravitation.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Littlemanwearingbigboypants whines:

Bill Vajk wrote:

So what does your model look like if you do the real world
version incorporating 1000 ppm randomly incorporated
impurities?

Poor little Vajk - it's the onomatopoeia that got you, eh git?

You do far better in your liberal arts comprehension than you
do in science even where you're wrong as you are here (again.)
I suggest you're trying to work outside your area of competence.
You're a classic example of an unemployable discovering Peter's
principle in real life. Have you given full consideration to
moving into a halfway house?

CHI resists decrease given sparse noise: impurities, vacancies,
interstitials, dislocations, mosaicity. Parity divergence is
primarily generated by lattice space group. Log(1-CHI) =
-2log(radius) + k. K cannot be larger than 6.2. It is obvious to a
grade school child - though probably not explainable to you, Vajk -
that utterly scrambling the atoms in a centimeter quartz test mass
would change the resultant CHI by about one part in 10^9 as long as
the resulting crystal structure was periodic and retained its space
group.

And there's the rub you have steadfastly refused to address.

Depending on the impurity and its attachment it becomes
impossible to continue the periodicy. With at least 1000 ppm
errors, per your own admission, your project is doomed other
than as a mathematical exercise as has been repeatedly
pointed out to you, yet you continue in your trollish
crankish ways.

Try introducing an outlandish shape with a matching side into
a Penrose tiling scheme and subsequently to recover. You simply
can't do it. The problem grows even more difficult in three
dimensions.

Your impurities don't suddenly appear as surrounded matter
AFTER you grow the crystal. They're there and participate
in the crystal growing process, with significantly
destructive consequences.

The fact is, once you violate the periodicy you have no way
to be certain what the subsequent geometry is. Try modeling
with the random introduction of 1000 ppm anomalous
*attached* impurities of various sorts and see where that
takes you.

Does your chirality concurrently die? Under what circumstances
would it revert to the normal (non chiral) crystal structure
as you grow your impure crystal? What happens if you have 2
or 3 impurities closely attached?

Why do you continue to ignore this problem? Is it because
you don't know where to begin to address the issues?

The chemical composition is irrelevant - mass is mass.

Bzzzztttt! It isn't a simple problem of chemical composition.

QCM assigns graph colors, and we believe QCM,

http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
Review.
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
The math ad software as such.

Pookie pookie, fool.

Look in the mirror if you wish to observe a fool.

Allowing that testing chiral specimens is a good idea, first
demonstrate (prove) you can provide the necessary specimens.
You've avoided that issue far too long. I don't care about
your dreamland computer based simulations so long as you
avoid the real world problems which it presently appears
annihilate your dreams of grandeur. Show the world how it
really works, if you think you're competent to do so.

You've not offered any evidence that the specimens will
actually be the product you promise with a lot of
arm waving and, so far, no support.

Despite a good memorization scheme of the things of science,
till now you're far more crank than scientist. Can you make
a better showing anytime soon?

Now unce Al just went over the line and became a crackpot.
spupidity plus stupidity is just stupid.
equivalance is mass and energy are interchangable and identical to
conservation and Uncle dumbass thinks he will prove conservation WRONG !
dumbass ,,you should be working on oil