"I think I've found a track, what do you think?" A

[LeeRyder]

ok dustbuster..since your a mod.. we're gonna take your word for it here.

I HIGHLY sugest though that the training reflect what your looking for though these neither act nor appear anything like what I've seen in any of the training vids (and I am 95%!).

something is seriously wrong here if these are truly what you are looking for. these types of marks are literally all over the place. If this is what you guys really want, prepare to be innundated

[T.Adam]

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=41879

and

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=41490

[stefal]

Hi Folks

I can't see anything that looks like what we are supposed to be looking for, based on the training and callibration movies.

cheers

Steve

[UnreferencedVariable]

Wow, I've passed over quite a few potential tracks if this what we are supposed to be looking for. I've been looking for the classic dark outline that appears out of the smudges when zooming below the surface.

[DustBuster]

Please do, but be diligent. The images in the tutorial are not from the same aerogel samples that we are looking at. These were created elsewhere and used as approximations of what you might expect. Number 11 is much closer to what we've been looking at/seeing.

Consider the tutorial as more accurate description of how to look. We are looking for items that come into focus below the surface. Once you identify something, then you can analyse it more closely to see if it truly appears to be a 'track'. The tell-tale sign of shrinking ring fits the description of "looking down through a hollowed out carrot". Depending on the focus range of the FOV, you may even be able to spot a particle at the end of the carrot-shape.

[/url]

[desdema]

Watch as the surface items go out of focus- then the described items start as faint rings that slowly get smaller until the end of the focus range.

I'm with the group who don't think that everything under the surface automatically equals a track (including the examples raised in this thread), and it's particularly due to the "faint rings that slowly get smaller". Where in any of the tutorials/calibration movies has this been part of the track behavior? Every example I've seen has only a very vague cloudy/hazy appearance just before the track becomes distinctly visible all at once. But the faint ring narrowing down to a spot is exactly what we see with the vast majority of activity at the surface and so I've been assuming stuff with rings is a type of debris that we aren't looking for.

I think it would be incredibly helpful if someone official would come in and offer their take on some of the questions being raised in this and other threads. There are a lot of grey areas and all it would take to steer most of us in the right direction is a little official input. (*Is* DustBuster officially tied to the project? In my previous experience with forums, mod status does not always equal official source even if the forum itself is official. So far I've only been able to identify annaz as an official source here in the forums.)

[DustBuster]

[quote="desdema]I'm with the group who don't think that everything under the surface automatically equals a track[/quote]

Who said everything under the surface was a track?

But the faint ring narrowing down to a spot is exactly what we see with the vast majority of activity at the surface and so I've been assuming stuff with rings is a type of debris that we aren't looking for.

again... were talking about items below[/] the surface not at surface level.

(*Is* DustBuster officially tied to the project? In my previous experience with forums, mod status does not always equal official source even if the forum itself is official. So far I've only been able to identify annaz as an official source here in the forums.)

No. Nor have I implied it in any way. As I explained to Lee in a PM:

I am one of seven moderators in the Community forum... which means I delete spam, quell bickering, edit personal barbs and try to answer what I can. I get the announcements/information from the posts like everyone else and have questions like everyone else. We were selected by the StarDust Team to assist in these capacities- Is there something I said that made you think otherwise? If so I apologize, but I don't think I've made any comments that extended beyond what anyone else is posting.

[LeeRyder]

it's cool I think we're just..confused as to who is who, who does what and who "knows" what lol.

[niejell]

Very small speck, comes in focus at the bottom of focal range. I see at least one of those every 100 or so - hope its something noteworthy. Any offical word on these?

[LouisaNumpty]

Sorry I can't see anything likely but I could be looking at it wrong!

[T.Adam]

nope

[DustBuster]

Maybe this will help!

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... roupcp.php

[Schlockading]

Moved from Community.

-Schlockading

[icebike]

In the upper left corner:

Hi Damien, and welcome!

I believe what you are seeing is "artifact" (dust, yes, from space, not likely). Notice how, when you focus further "down", the particle becomes blurred. This suggests that the particle resides right near the surface of the aerogel. Considering that the space dust was travelling 1,000's of MPH (or KPH, for that matter), such a short track for such a relatively huge particle is highly improbable (remember, it is highly unlikely that we'd be able to see the particle itself even if we could focus at that level - they're really tiny).

I disagree. The item in the upper left corner shows a track, and we are looking at it sideways, rather than "down the soda straw". Further, there was one of these posted in the samples page. Have you LOOKED at the samples page?

The particle does become blured, after you focus BEYOND it. But this particle is not on the surface because all of those go out of focus before this one becomes focused. Its clearly a shallow particle.

Further, you have no way of knowing how much aerogel this particle passed thru to get where it is, or what its terminal velocity was.

Damien was right to mark this. It needs further inspection.

[replicant]

This one looks very close to a classic calibration movie, but it's actual..only wish I had discovered it rather than just agreeing:
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=35139