[QUOTE=Prime95;396836]The title hasn't changed in over a year, time to begin another round of changes....[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately "lost prosperity office" is now seared in my head.

Very smooth prime factor of M1497577: 413967618533674438312273239368161 (109 bits)

k = 2[SUP]4[/SUP] × 3[SUP]4[/SUP] × 5 × 37 × 167 × 197 × 1459 × 3637 × 6703 × 492629

B-S is working great for me this year:
[code][Thu Mar 12 01:00:38 2015]
P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=10000000, B2=200000000, E=12.
UID: VictordeHollander/PCVICTOR, M1545007 has a factor: 9694966038406498466146561 (P-1, B1=10000000, B2=200000000, E=12)[/code]k = 3137515246988039040 = 27 × 3 × 5 × 17 × 42,181 × 2,278,866,181
25 digits 83.004 bits

2,278,866,181 > 11x B2(200,000,000)!

My 4th B-S this year!

[code]P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=10000000, B2=200000000, E=12.
UID: VictordeHollander/PCVICTOR, M1526977 has a factor: 22259470830172378348329617 (P-1, B1=10000000, B2=200000000, E=12)[/code]26 digits 84.203 bits
k = 7288738085174949704 = 23 × 73 × 71 × 15,161 × [B]2,467,641,361[/B]
2,467,641,361 >12 x B2(200,000,000)

Lucky son of a gun! Congrats!
I have only 3 or 4 Brent-Suyama hits in lifetime (if I am not mistaken, one was from Kracker's computers, when we were exchanging GHzDays).

M50273 has a factor: 987139826417276834314931283761815154689 (129.537 bits)
k = 2[SUP]11[/SUP] × 3[SUP]3[/SUP] × 53 × 3349996012462457805367581481 (I hope you have plenty of memory for stage 2 :razz:)
Sigma 309170328303138 gave group order 2[SUP]6[/SUP] · 3[SUP]2[/SUP] · 103 · 599 · 1373 · 2129 · 2311 · 6091 · 159793 · 252359 · 16740979, could've been found with t30 bounds instead of t40, but wrong sigmas tested, you can never know.

Congrats! It was a juicy one...

first factor in a while.
M36794633 has a factor: 7547690687957650291279 (found by P-1,72.677 bits))
k=3*7*37*47*523*5370059
Would it have been faster with a B1 of 5370060 or with a B1 @523 and a B2@5370060?

[QUOTE=firejuggler;399275]first factor in a while.
M36794633 has a factor: 7547690687957650291279 (found by P-1,72.677 bits))
k=3*7*37*47*523*5370059
Would it have been faster with a B1 of 5370060 or with a B1 @523 and a B2@5370060?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure B2 cannot exceed the square of B1. This is true for ECM, at least.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;399289]I'm pretty sure B2 cannot exceed the square of B1. This is true for ECM, at least.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand this statement. Why can't B2 exceed square of B1 (for both P-1 and ECM)?

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;399289]I'm pretty sure B2 cannot exceed the square of B1. This is true for ECM, at least.[/QUOTE]

False for both. Why don't you try learning how both algorithms work before making future
pronouncements?