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

Archived here are older posts which are no longer relevant or were redundant.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

Post Reply
niejell
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by niejell »

Aha - check out movie ID 11033A - was a calibration movie.
Clicked on speck and it was correct answer - the speck is really the only thing I saw that could be considered a track.

icebike

Post by icebike »

taterbug wrote:oh and i suppose that backwards "c" shaped thing is a track according to you also?
whoa im startin to sound a little angry....
You just need to explain why that thing above the I in microns get smaller the deeper you focus.

Then you need to explain (like I did up thread) how it is you missed this and own your error.

taterbug
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:32 pm

Post by taterbug »

it was you that said that these tracks get bigger the deeper they go not me

taterbug
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:32 pm

Post by taterbug »

or we could all be wrong and these could just be bubbles in the aerogel
that would be ironic, if we were sitting here arguing over bubbles this whole time

desdema
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:58 pm

Re: Holy crap! 3-in-1!!

Post by desdema »

icebike wrote:
Sign on as a new user and take the tutorials again. There are SEVERAL in there that taper down the deeper they go.. This is the normal behavior of objects slowing down in a viscous media.

Or just watch for the next calibration movie. about 50 percent of them taper down as you focus deeper. I'm supprised you missed this.
The tutorials are available to review without signing up again. As I mentioned in my second post in this thread, I *did* go back and review the tutorials and I found one movie there that I felt supported my view and none that went against it.

I'll agree that whatever you think I'm missing I must really be missing. My calibration movie score is better than most I've seen posted so far though, so I'm not going to sweat it.

taterbug
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:32 pm

Post by taterbug »

are these things what you saw?
http://usera.imagecave.com/Chris654/ScreenHunter_6.jpg
and like i said before this would be funny if they are bubbles
Last edited by taterbug on Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

icebike

Post by icebike »

taterbug wrote:it was you that said that these tracks get bigger the deeper they go not me
No, I said things going out of focus get bigger.

These tracks are not going OUT of focus, they are coming INTO focus way BELOW that point where everything else is out of focus.

What ever it is needs to be investigated.

icebike

Post by icebike »

taterbug wrote:are these things what you saw?
http://usera.imagecave.com/Chris654/ScreenHunter_6.jpg
and like i said before this would be funny if they are bubbles
In a word, YES.

They are the things the original poster saw. It took me several trys to actually see them. I initially doubted him. Now I support him.

If that movie was presented to me in the normal course of searching, I probably would have missed them.

taterbug
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:32 pm

Post by taterbug »

sry i misread earlier and misunderstood your use of the word taper lol i thought you were saying they taper out not in

oh and i was arguing that the dust particles on the top were NOT tracks so we were actually not even talking bout the same thing which causes our argument to lose all validity. now that i have the correct objects circled, maby future readers wont be confused.... as much....
Last edited by taterbug on Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

taterbug
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:32 pm

Post by taterbug »

k now heres one for ya
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=20904
doesnt that look like a rat upside down?
random! :wink:

and im changing my opinion to the third option! bubbles! lol im tired and not thinking strait

DustBuster
DustMod
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Horsetown, USA

Post by DustBuster »

taterbug wrote:or we could all be wrong and these could just be bubbles in the aerogel
that would be ironic, if we were sitting here arguing over bubbles this whole time
True 'dat.
No dessert for you- ONE MONTH!

icebike

Post by icebike »

DustBuster wrote:
taterbug wrote:or we could all be wrong and these could just be bubbles in the aerogel
that would be ironic, if we were sitting here arguing over bubbles this whole time
True 'dat.
Surely the training movies would have made some mention of these bubbles.

There is now a 7 in 1 thread, where there are 7 of these things that show up at sub-surface frames and then shrink.

One would think a bubble would have a narrow top, fatter middle and a narrow bottom, (presuming its spherical as most bubbles are).

But the 3-in-1 and the 7-in-one do not behave that way.

Maybe the Dust team should break out the high rez images of the 7-in-1
and let us know if we should ignore these things or not. It might save a lot of time later.

arsampson
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by arsampson »

Probably not tracks, rather small sub-surface particles which could still have been captured on mission, just not at a high velocity. Optical microscopes have a very small focal depth (depth of view) and those particles are probably just a few microns below the surface, which from the various surface particles present appears to be very flat.

Those rings are the same that you see as you focus down on a particle. Look at the two lower ones and see how they proportionately track each other. The center particle appears closer to the surface as it is almost in focus at the final frame.

These should still be interesting to those studying the samples as they are either low impact collected samples or contaminating particles present in the manufacture or handling of the aerogel.

maria
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:38 am

I have the same question too ( id 42354B , id 44427A )

Post by maria »

I found the same tiny spots in movies 42354B and 44427A. I'm not sure what they are but they do exist below the surface, so I clicked on them just in case...

Glenndrix
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:23 pm
Location: TX

Strange Star Pattern

Post by Glenndrix »

The movie ID is 45791. It doesn't look like the tracks we're trained to look for, but still looks like some kind of impact site. There are 6 cracks radiating from a central point with a bright halo around the point. I can't imagine the aerogel cracking like this, impact or not.

Any explanations for this pattern?

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=45791

Post Reply