For 15e, technically, yup.
Tom, Greg ?

I've just queued four numbers, which should kept the grid fed for several days :smile:
3349427^37-1 is FF in FactorDB.

Here are the final two "slow to sieve" xyyx numbers remaining in that project with y<41. Both seem appropriate for 14e, as you see fit. Thanks.


C202_149_37
C224_147_40


[code]
n: 1007971295262707014821092524861085964860194904508722096469786769187866830944994845923624768081143826970500335639461287138401330034882423551055314703624829882526519474010553740564468659150489838884784463
# 149^37+37^149, difficulty: 235.23, anorm: 1.48e+038, rnorm: 7.82e+044
# scaled difficulty: 240.09, suggest sieving rational side
type: snfs
size: 235
skew: 4.2031
c6: 1
c0: 5513
Y1: -10942526586601
Y0: 1603404513114153724313506335083015711557
rlim: 37800000
alim: 37800000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 59
mfba: 59
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


[code]
n: 28268016775281394675661797065353893461024405560108590300553169664620437066771499197448652291101454944107695809606813238007626579527350057082853589122206396128337431238334280637565714942399883736907450199396747678527424997899
# 147^40+40^147, difficulty: 239.41, anorm: 3.98e+039, rnorm: 5.02e+044
# scaled difficulty: 239.41, suggest sieving algebraic side
# size = 5.181e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.095e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 239
skew: 1.2583
c6: 1000
c0: 3969
Y1: -70632088586703
Y0: 562949953421312000000000000000000000000
rlim: 47200000
alim: 47200000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

[QUOTE=debrouxl;426502]Sean: alright.

XYYXF: indeed, I'd consider queuing C233_128_67 and C185_150_37 after 3000 additional curves at B1=11e7, and C193_146_35 after 1000 additional curves at B1=11e7
[/QUOTE]

C233_128_67 survived 3000 curves @B1=11e7 with no factors found.

This one needs some test sieving - it would "normally" be too small, but it has big coefficients. Maybe it's still too small. It comes from a P189+1, but because of the structure of the P189 it is

[URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000825077234"]2426789^31+3162104763[/URL]

[QUOTE=debrouxl;426502]Sean: alright.

XYYXF: indeed, I'd consider queuing C233_128_67 and C185_150_37 after 3000 additional curves at B1=11e7, and C193_146_35 after 1000 additional curves at B1=11e7 :smile:
[/QUOTE]

C185_150_37 has survived 3000 curves of ECM @B1=11e7 with no factors found.

[QUOTE=swellman;427171]Here are the final two "slow to sieve" xyyx numbers remaining in that project with y<41. Both seem appropriate for 14e, as you see fit. Thanks.


C202_149_37
C224_147_40

[/quote]

Thanks for queuing these two. Both of these were ECM'd to t50 by yoyo@Home.

[QUOTE=XYYXF;426434][b]C172_145_36[/b], 7600 curves at B1=43M
Sextic (difficulty 226): (145[sup]6[/sup])[sup]6[/sup] + 36*(6[sup]48[/sup])[sup]6[/sup] = 4407612197603657835372217347030574421197174031327075617 * C172

[b]C213_150_38[/b], 7600 curves at B1=43M
Sextic (difficulty 226): 5625*(75[sup]6[/sup])[sup]6[/sup] + 16*(2[sup]18[/sup]*19[sup]25[/sup])[sup]6[/sup] = 15732718408061 * C213[/QUOTE]And those are too small I guess? :)

Yeah, these are small-ish and wouldn't feed NFS@Home's clients for a long time :smile:

[QUOTE=debrouxl;427865]Yeah, these are small-ish and wouldn't feed NFS@Home's clients for a long time :smile:[/QUOTE]

Does "too small" apply to 2426789^31+3162104763 in #401, too? I thought the big coefficients might push it into the "small but not too small" range,

I notice C224_147_40 [url=http://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching.php]has a note saying "needs more ECM"[/url]. Using 0.21*235 difficulty = 49.35, but I'll be glad to run some curves @B1=11e7.

How much more ECM?