Page 1 of 1

Inclusions - the conclusion?

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:42 pm
by jsmaje
Forgive me for opening a separate topic on this and cross-posting, but I've been pursuing this issue for some time:
I wrote: :D Hooray!!!!
At last, some official advice about inclusions in Bryan Mendez's latest Update:
We are working on updates to the tutorial . The biggest update, still in the works, is some new direction on how to deal with inclusions in the aerogel. We are now confident that they should not be confused with real interstellar dust tracks and are asking volunteers to ignore them much as you would other artifacts like scratches, etc.
So - "Should we still flag likely inclusions?"
Answer - NO! (as long as you're sure that's what they are :wink: )
But personally, I'm going to find it difficult to break the habit of (what seems like) a lifetime.
A case of clicking 'just in case'? What do others think?

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:13 pm
by the moon
I'm gonna have to keep clicking on some things that I know are probably inclusions but could also be tracks. I have my own rules of when not to click on inclusion looking things. Like if there's more then 1 in the movie, or if it doesn't appear until very deep under the surface, or if it goes out of focus deeper down. But the rest of them I click because they could be small tracks.

Re: Inclusions - the conclusion?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:13 am
by Pleiades
jsmaje wrote: But personally, I'm going to find it difficult to break the habit of (what seems like) a lifetime.
A case of clicking 'just in case'? What do others think?
I agree, I'll still click just in case until the "new direction on how to deal with inclusions" is defined. Of the eight events that I have that "passed cut 1", at least one I felt was an inclusion.

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:24 am
by jsmaje
Oh boy, now I really AM confused!
Pleiades wrote:Of the eight events that I have that "passed cut 1", at least one I felt was an inclusion.
and
the moon wrote:I have my own rules of when not to click on inclusion looking things. Like if there's more than 1 in the movie...
I understand the logic of the moon's strategy (though personally decided to click nonetheless), and having reviewed the 30 "Passed cut 1/ possible interstellar dust particle" movies now in my list, at least 10 (>30%) do in fact show multiple subsurface specks.
Two examples: 8492127V1 and 5085629V1.

I, too, think that these will most likely turn out to be inclusions in the end, but it seems the team are still interested in them.

So, to repeat - "Should we still flag likely inclusions?"
Answer - :?: :? :?:

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:38 am
by the moon
jsmaje wrote: So, to repeat - "Should we still flag likely inclusions?"
Answer - :?: :? :?:
Of course not, the real question is, how do we tell likely inclusions from tracks? The answer is, very carefully, and based on what I see on the forum in general, I don't believe the average duster can clearly make the distinction even after the team makes a detailed tutorial about it. So I don't know where that leaves us.

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:00 pm
by jsmaje
the moon wrote:... the real question is, how do we tell likely inclusions from tracks?
Exactly. My confusion arises from the latest updated determinations. I just hope the new tutorial guidelines will cover all the various issues involved in deciding 'liklihood'.

For example, that of multiple 'tracks'. Presumably, according to your criteria (the moon), you would have voted against 8492127V1 on that perfectly understandable basis (or would you?), yet they've passed it at cut 1 for some reason (could it be they consider one track might still be genuine / that particles could come in groups / that they fragment on impact and embed without leaving tell-tale signs....?? Who knows? It would be nice to be told!)

Frankly, I'm surprised there are so many cut 1's now. The great majority of mine (including 8492127V1) I would happily have seen dismissed as inclusions, given what we've learned about identifying them so far. Before the update the great majority of my 'hits' reviewed were judged "probable inclusion(s)", and I think that was most people's experience. Now it's more like 50/50 (30 possible IS vs. 31 inclusions in my case)!

Hence my confusion. Could it be the three undergraduates they've recently recruited to help out that are playing safe, or that they think their original determinations may have been over-hasty? As far as I'm concerned, I'm still clicking on the same sort of things.

No conclusion other than confusion on inclusions just yet.......

... the real question is, how do we tell likely inclusions f

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:26 pm
by Howie
... the real question is, how do we tell likely inclusions from tracks?

There is a rule I have used and in past posts, been told I may not be right, but it seems to work for me!

We know the rule a track has to appear out of nowhere, below the surface, Ok, I move the focus up and down, again and again, and this is what I check for:

On a good focus movie, NON TRACKS have a circle before and after the thing you think is a track!!!!!!!!!! A track, comes up without a circle at or just below surface and then starts a circle below further suface focus and could disappear if focus is allowed to go further...if not you have to judge bad focus or click it to let them look!!!

Howie

Re: ... the real question is, how do we tell likely inclusio

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:08 pm
by jsmaje
Howie wrote: There is a rule I have used and in past posts, been told I may not be right, but it seems to work for me!
... On a good focus movie, NON TRACKS have a circle before and after the thing you think is a track!!!!!!!!!! A track, comes up without a circle at or just below surface and then starts a circle below further suface focus and could disappear if focus is allowed to go further...(my italics)
Really? When was the last CM you saw that de-focussed at depth?

Re: ... Really???

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:55 pm
by Howie
jsmaje wrote:
Howie wrote: There is a rule I have used and in past posts, been told I may not be right, but it seems to work for me!
... On a good focus movie, NON TRACKS have a circle before and after the thing you think is a track!!!!!!!!!! A track, comes up without a circle at or just below surface and then starts a circle below further suface focus and could disappear if focus is allowed to go further...(my italics)
Really? When was the last CM you saw that de-focussed at depth?
***********************************************************
I meant real movie not CM, the CM's are positive end test results!
Inclusions are not the same...they differ...

When I have time I will try to give a couple examples for all...
Howie

Re: ... Really???

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:19 pm
by jsmaje
Howie wrote: I meant real movie not CM, the CM's are positive end test results!
Inclusions are not the same...they differ...
Precisely my point. That's why I'm confused that they're now passing at 'cut 1' what we've previously been led to believe were likely inclusions, yet have recently been told to ignore!

Inclusions - the conclusion?

Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:52 pm
by jsmaje
Here I go again - look at these from the end my list: Although I voted for all of these, they all look precisely like what we have now been led to regard as 'inclusions', and as such now unworthy of logging. Also notice that each of these movies has multiple (2-6) subsurface specks, which has also been suggested as a criterion by many people for exclusion.

All three have nevertheless recently been passed at cut 1, yet have been variously designated:
  • (i) "possible interstellar dust particle"
    (ii) "probable inclusion"
    (iii) "bad focus, cannot evaluate, will rescan"

Example (iii) undoubtedly starts just below surface, but in all other respects all three are pretty much indistinguishable to me.

I've not given the above movie numbers and designations necessarily in the same order. Does anyone care to guess which movie was judged in which way, and explain why (other than the team suddenly becoming ultra-careful)? :roll:

inclusions

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:11 pm
by lee barry
JS......I looked at those three movies...and I'm sorry but it's my opinion that none of them contain a track....

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:43 am
by jsmaje
I agree Lee - they all look like multiple inclusions to me, not tracks, although I logged them anyhow. (BTW, 2147163V1 / "probable inclusions", was not in fact passed at cut 1 - my mistake :oops: ).

My problem remains: why have they nevertheless passed 129795V1 as "possible interstellar dust particle"? Note that it has 3 distinct nearby specks (a criterion used by some to immediately suggest inclusions). Just what do they see in that movie that's so different from the other two :?:

[And why are they now referring to particles in the designations anyway, when we've been told often enough it's their tracks we're looking for :roll: ]

lumps

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:34 am
by Groundling
I am now treating "inclusions" as lumps in the batter.
At first they said that the origin of the inclusions was unknown, but as I wander around with searches on Aerogel, I find that they are faults(lumps?) in the formation of the matrix.
That leaves us with these particles that can be found anywhere and at any depth. I no longer "throw out" something just because of another possible incusion at that level. An inclusion will go out of focus very quickly but our problem is when it shows up at the bottom of the focal range.
I think the difference now is that The Team may not be interested in the "inclusions" themselves, but we should make a decision on what the object is.
Everyone is treating possible tracks very conservatively including the judgement team.
Groundling

Objects of interest. Inclusions or otherwise.

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:19 pm
by Reichelt
Suggestion:
How about adding a button for submitting "Objects of interest, inclusions, anomalies, etc". Albeit this is not the main focus of the study, however, I think I remember reading that anything out of the ordinary would be of interest as well or "you never know what you are going to find". By adding this button to submit what we believe is/are something other than tracks we could save a bit of time for the teams and still feel we are contributing by pointing out these anomalies.

I also find it difficult not to point out something interesting, even if I doubt it is a track. This will give me and others with this 'urge' an outlet. Certainly there is some value in identifying these movies of interest. Perhaps some grad student in the future will wish to do his Thesis on the anomalies of the Stardust project?!

=jeff