Why haven't any tracks been found yet?
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
GelDelve,
Wow! You really epressed this well! This is an example for me of the unexpected part of the expect the unexpected! I never thought of anything like this. I wonder if an impactor would be big enough, hard enough or fast enough to damage the collector. Interesting. I look forward to seeing how your theory may come into play.
After long thought, I came up with all the specs as just being dust bunny poop. I'm tellin' ya, those bunnies have to come from somewhere!
Wow! You really epressed this well! This is an example for me of the unexpected part of the expect the unexpected! I never thought of anything like this. I wonder if an impactor would be big enough, hard enough or fast enough to damage the collector. Interesting. I look forward to seeing how your theory may come into play.
After long thought, I came up with all the specs as just being dust bunny poop. I'm tellin' ya, those bunnies have to come from somewhere!
From dust we come
I don't think that's the answer; In my events, I'm finding that even the tiniest specks, buried in the most obscure places, and so small you can hardly see them, are still getting a good deal of agreements on them. It proves that we are looking everything over extremely carefully, and I personally don't think any track could possibly slip by us unless it were literally atoms across.D. We have not looked long and hard enough yet
I vote that the biggest problem hampering our speed is that people aren't being trained to locate the particles if they're there. All the tests and calibration movies are so obvious that you'd have to be blind to miss most of them. I can often tell, just from the picture type and quality, when I'm viewing a calibration movie.
F) Because not enough people have recognized My Pet Track as being of interstellar origin, despite my having posted it twice (once to low-angled tracks and once to I think I may have found...).
Well, I have no shame, so I'll plug it here, too:
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6979778V1
Well, I have no shame, so I'll plug it here, too:
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6979778V1
Well among the other interesting information in the short paper from the recent update post,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/1457.pdf
the most revealing thing I think is that they anticipate that the real IS tracks will be as big, if not bigger then even the largest calibration movie tracks. This does not bode well for reasons B and C. If it's true, that would mean any track will be very obvious, and we certainly haven't seen anything like that yet.
Other interesting info from the paper if you're too lazy to read it:
All the calibration movies are made from a single track, resized and rotated many times. This surprised even me, all this time I thougtht there was at least 10 different tracks that merely all looked similiar. But when I took another look at the CMs today, they are in fact all the same track.
Oh and apparently, while you're dusting, you are no longer a human being, but rather a large multichannel instrument. It's strange, I don't feel any different.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/1457.pdf
the most revealing thing I think is that they anticipate that the real IS tracks will be as big, if not bigger then even the largest calibration movie tracks. This does not bode well for reasons B and C. If it's true, that would mean any track will be very obvious, and we certainly haven't seen anything like that yet.
Other interesting info from the paper if you're too lazy to read it:
All the calibration movies are made from a single track, resized and rotated many times. This surprised even me, all this time I thougtht there was at least 10 different tracks that merely all looked similiar. But when I took another look at the CMs today, they are in fact all the same track.
Oh and apparently, while you're dusting, you are no longer a human being, but rather a large multichannel instrument. It's strange, I don't feel any different.
Update of 13 Mar 2007
Only the multiplier will be larger...from the paper:the moon wrote:Well among the other interesting information in the short paper from the recent update post,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/1457.pdf
the most revealing thing I think is that they anticipate that the real IS tracks will be as big, if not bigger then even the largest calibration movie tracks. This does not bode well for reasons B and C. If it's true, that would mean any track will be very obvious, and we certainly haven't seen anything like that yet.
These track diameters correspond to particles sizes
of ~ 0.3 − 1.5μm, using the tracktoparticle diameter value
(~ 9) reported by Burchell et al.[2]. (This ratio is likely to be
larger for the SIDC since the aerogel densities are lower and the
velocities are higher than in the Burchell et al. experiments.
If the new multiplier is 10 then a 0.2μm particle will make a track only 2μm which is close to our smallest CM tracks we see now.
The other fact that was new to me was the distance we see down into the aerogel tile, which is stated as 200μm as movie depth. Therefore at times we can see 2% into the 1 centimeter thickness aerogel tile. I myself had thought 1.2% earlier. Each movie frame bites ~ 5μm and not the 3μm that I had thought earlier.
Wow! Each movie frame bites only 5 microns? That's the width of a red blood cell! I fervently hope when the bad focus movies are retaken, that they increase the depth to 10 microns at least! I don't think it will affect our ability to identify tracks, and it should allow almost all of the movies to include the surface and enough depth to find or exclude a possible track. In fact, as was mentioned in the suggestion thread, they could probably start doubling the depth between focus levels now and get a much better yield for the tiles that remain. Any other opinions?
Re: Update of 13 Mar 2007
We used a single image of a submicron carbonyl iron grain
that was fired into an aerogel collector using the Heidelberg
tandem Van der Graaf dust accelerator at 20 km sec− 1
Can somebody tell me please, is there a difference between 20 km sec−1 and 20 km/sec ? If yes, what difference?
that was fired into an aerogel collector using the Heidelberg
tandem Van der Graaf dust accelerator at 20 km sec− 1
Can somebody tell me please, is there a difference between 20 km sec−1 and 20 km/sec ? If yes, what difference?
Yeah, if it is possible, to double the depth would be great! But I guess, there are good reasons for the current 5 microns steps.scopdrvr wrote:In fact, as was mentioned in the suggestion thread, they could probably start doubling the depth between focus levels now and get a much better yield for the tiles that remain. Any other opinions?
Yes, the answer is no.greuti wrote:Can somebody tell me please, is there a difference between 20 km sec−1 and 20 km/sec ? If yes, what difference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metres_per_second
greuti, I believe it's like a doctors prescription, can only be read by certain people. km per sec, or km/s is same as km s-¹ or km·s-¹.
The -¹ gets rid of the /
My guess is that this can be blamed on acceleration
m/s/s becomes m·s-² (superscript or exponent)
Also informative SI
[edit] Edited to place exponent in place of -1[/edit fjgiie]