Is this method worth it?

[Moo_the_cow]

With the help of MikeH, I got this information on sieve gaps:

Range=61-62T

Gap size for 1% factor loss: 63378774, range removed: 20281207680.00, 2.03%

Gap size for 2% factor loss: 140429588, range removed: 44516179396.00, 4.45%

Gap size for 3% factor loss: 175943274, range removed: 55246188036.00, 5.52%

Gap size for 4% factor loss: 232356924, range removed: 72263003364.00, 7.23%

Gap size for 5% factor loss: 301646350, range removed: 92605429450.00, 9.26%

It basically says that skipping a range of 63378774 after every factor is found will give a 1% factor loss, but more than 2% of the 61-62T range will be removed.

I think that it would be more beneficial if someone designs a program to skip a range of 0.1G or so since there will be about a
1.5% factor loss but we would get to skip about 3% of the range.

[garo]

I think that this is just a bad idea! Skipping ranges may speed up the rate at which we get factors but it will be real hard to keep track of the skipped ranges if we want to sieve them in the future and they sure will be worth sieving when we reach 200T

[Keroberts1]

perhaps skipping gaps may become beneficial later i nthe project while the sieving ratio is still beneficial then there is no sense in doing that