I tried four 74 to 75 with already known factors and all four were successful so I'm now quite confident that this boils down to bad luck. Thanks again.

[QUOTE=chalsall;397773]Just so everyone knows, I've updated the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]Workers' Overall Progress[/URL] report to include TF'ing to 74 and 75 (and >75). As before, you can click on the column headers to see who's doing what to where. For [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/75/"]example, those going to 75[/URL].

I'm afraid it makes the table rather wide, but I know people have been wanting this data exposed.[/QUOTE]

It's all cool! Thanks, Chris.

[QUOTE=kladner;397812]It's all cool! Thanks, Chris.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for double checking. :smile:

Only a few years ago economic policy was (wrongly) set because of a simple mistake in an Excel spreadsheet....

[QUOTE=chalsall;397817]Thanks for double checking. :smile:

Only a few years ago economic policy was (wrongly) set because of a simple mistake in an Excel spreadsheet....[/QUOTE]

And then there's a telescope mis-ground, missions (including commercial flights) failing based on confusion between metric and English systems, and wah dee doo dah. :davieddy:

[QUOTE=kladner;397821]And then there's a telescope mis-ground,[/QUOTE] Not so much. It had more to do with that mirror (and the smaller mirrors) and instruments being out of whack with each other because the company that delivered the mirrors was used to delivering [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan#Design"]spy satellites[/URL] that the telescope was derived from. The same grinding program was used for it as the sat's.

Years ago when I mentioned it and the fact the shuttle's cargo bay was design to fit a KH sat, to a friend that had a high level security clearance and had done early work on the STS, they were surprised that I knew about the KH sats. I talked to them again recently and mentioned that the Hexagon (KH-9) program was declassified, this surprised them again.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;397823]Not so much. It had more to do with that mirror (and the smaller mirrors) and instruments being out of whack with each other because the company that delivered the mirrors was used to delivering [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan#Design"]spy satellites[/URL] that the telescope was derived from. The same grinding program was used for it as the sat's.[/QUOTE]

My understanding (very likely wrong; no "insider" knowledge) is that a planned test on the ground which would have cost ~$1M was skipped for budgetary reasons.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;397736]Would any of you mind giving me a couple of the exponents that you've found factors for in 74 -> 75? 0/300 is a bit concerning and I'd like to check that my hardware isn't rejecting 75 bits for some reason.[/QUOTE]
In case you want a few more:
[CODE]66275567
71627797
71900449
74025781
74031313[/CODE]

This morning the Workers' Overall Progress report is showing I have done 2 TF >75. I don't recall doing anything this far; it would be an 8-hour job.

[QUOTE=Chuck;397911]I don't recall doing anything this far; it would be an 8-hour job.[/QUOTE]

[CODE]+-----------+----+----+---------------------+---------------------+----------------+
| Exponent | F | T | Assigned | Completed | GHzDays |
+-----------+----+----+---------------------+---------------------+----------------+
| 332350043 | 73 | 78 | 2013-02-27 19:42:34 | 2013-02-28 11:44:32 | 178.4373626709 |
| 332309843 | 73 | 79 | 2013-04-02 12:43:18 | 2013-04-03 19:45:39 | 362.6746215820 |
+-----------+----+----+---------------------+---------------------+----------------+[/CODE]

Rats; I forgot about my little fling with the 332M exponents. Sorry about the false alarm.

[QUOTE=Chuck;397931]Sorry about the false alarm.[/QUOTE]

No problem. Trivial query.