7 in 1 or just earth dirt?
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
7 in 1 or just earth dirt?
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=42028
At first I was excited but then I have seen a lot of post where people are dismissing small anomalies as dirt in the aerogel.
I have also noticed it seems like many of these small specks have movie numbers in the low 40000-43000 range.
-
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:17 pm
I see specks. The rings are the specs going out of focus. If you run the cursor up and down on a movie, you'll see oodles of circles shrink and grow, that is going from out of focus to focus to out again.
The key, I believe is finding things that remain in focus in a few layers. Think cross sections. If what you see (and many others have made similar posts) are tracks, then they don't need to ask a hundred thousand people to help.
I can't understate their estimates of numbers. If there are in fact only about 40 (yes yes some of you complain that this is just an estimate but it is THEIR estimate, I should think they know what they are doing) then the chances of any one movie containing a track is one in 40 000 (assuming no overlaps in the imaging - which could/should have been done to help reliability).
If what you have highlighted there are in fact tracks, then there are literally millions of them, anyone can find them, and we can stop and go do other things now.
Again for the multiple finds. If these things are so rare, how likely is it that 7, 9, or 15 things in the same field are actually all these particles.
The key, I believe is finding things that remain in focus in a few layers. Think cross sections. If what you see (and many others have made similar posts) are tracks, then they don't need to ask a hundred thousand people to help.
I can't understate their estimates of numbers. If there are in fact only about 40 (yes yes some of you complain that this is just an estimate but it is THEIR estimate, I should think they know what they are doing) then the chances of any one movie containing a track is one in 40 000 (assuming no overlaps in the imaging - which could/should have been done to help reliability).
If what you have highlighted there are in fact tracks, then there are literally millions of them, anyone can find them, and we can stop and go do other things now.
Again for the multiple finds. If these things are so rare, how likely is it that 7, 9, or 15 things in the same field are actually all these particles.
Je ne peux pas regarder la Mer sans me demander qui vit au-delà de cela.
That's a great explanation Orion XDOrion_0169 wrote: The key, I believe is finding things that remain in focus in a few layers. Think cross sections. If what you see (and many others have made similar posts) are tracks, then they don't need to ask a hundred thousand people to help.
Tao is the Qualia of the Universe
Re: seahunter
That's the question, Stardust or Earthdirt?
rick5050 wrote:looked at your sample movie. obviously there are particles below the surface of the aerogel. the question is how did they get there? does anybody know?
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
They're surface particles
You'll notice that the particles will be in focus at the surface as you Focus Down they blur. If a new track were actually in this slice of Aerogel, you would see it come into focus clearly as you Focused down while the surface particles would all be blurry. There are no tracks in this movie. If there were a track present, you would find it at or very near the bottom of the focus range.
A lot of the movies that I have viewed also have either totally poor focus or poor focus range.
The surface should be relatively clearly focused at or very near the center of the Focus Range Bar on the right of the movie. The surface normally shows a lot of dirt particles, cracks, dings, scratches, etc.
If the surface comes in clear near the top or bottom of the focus range, then it was not photographed properly. Movies where the surface focuses very near the top of the range are still usable for finding tracks. Those where the surface focuses at or near the bottom of the focus range are not and should be definately marked as poor focus.
You may also see, from time to time, a movie where the slides were photographed at an angle. What you'll see is that one side of the surface will go out of focus while the other side comes into focus as you focus down. These are unusable and should be marked as poor focus.
There are also some movies where towards the bottom of the focus range the picture suddenly changes to what appears to be a totally different slide. It is. These should also be marked as poor focus.
So with all that said, you should find actual tracks focused cleaarly very near the bottom of a good movie. Everything else should be out of focus.
Hope that clears it up for some of you.
A lot of the movies that I have viewed also have either totally poor focus or poor focus range.
The surface should be relatively clearly focused at or very near the center of the Focus Range Bar on the right of the movie. The surface normally shows a lot of dirt particles, cracks, dings, scratches, etc.
If the surface comes in clear near the top or bottom of the focus range, then it was not photographed properly. Movies where the surface focuses very near the top of the range are still usable for finding tracks. Those where the surface focuses at or near the bottom of the focus range are not and should be definately marked as poor focus.
You may also see, from time to time, a movie where the slides were photographed at an angle. What you'll see is that one side of the surface will go out of focus while the other side comes into focus as you focus down. These are unusable and should be marked as poor focus.
There are also some movies where towards the bottom of the focus range the picture suddenly changes to what appears to be a totally different slide. It is. These should also be marked as poor focus.
So with all that said, you should find actual tracks focused cleaarly very near the bottom of a good movie. Everything else should be out of focus.
Hope that clears it up for some of you.
Re: seahunter
Not that I'm an 'expert' or anything - but it's possible that those particles below the surface got there during the original manufacture process of the aerogel. Granted, I'm sure it was made in a 'clean' environment-- but considering how small of particles we're looking at here, I'd think that it was possible a few snuck through.rick5050 wrote:looked at your sample movie. obviously there are particles below the surface of the aerogel. the question is how did they get there? does anybody know?
jmho, of course....