First interstellar candidate
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
First interstellar candidate
Great news! The first interstellar candidate to be extracted.
Sadly, but perhaps it's just me, I can't be sure from either of the two photos or the description provided exactly where the putative track and particle actually are:
Here... or here... ?
Also, looking at the original VM the ring-shaped feature identified there would normally suggest a piece of as-yet-out-of-focus surface debris to me (given that there is a slight surface slope top-left to bottom-right, though admittedly there's too little depth to be certain).
Meanwhile, if the latter really is a track, then I certainly need to revise my criteria - no bad thing perhaps.
Sadly, but perhaps it's just me, I can't be sure from either of the two photos or the description provided exactly where the putative track and particle actually are:
Here... or here... ?
Also, looking at the original VM the ring-shaped feature identified there would normally suggest a piece of as-yet-out-of-focus surface debris to me (given that there is a slight surface slope top-left to bottom-right, though admittedly there's too little depth to be certain).
Meanwhile, if the latter really is a track, then I certainly need to revise my criteria - no bad thing perhaps.
Re: First interstellar candidate
I guess right there in the middle, your left image.
Makes me happy.
Congratulations to The Team ! ! !
Makes me happy.
Congratulations to The Team ! ! !
-
- Stardust@home Team
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 am
- Location: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab
- Contact:
Yes, the feature on the left is the possible track.
This link should actually mark the correct coordinates of the candidate: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... fied%20yet
Exciting times!
-Bryan
This link should actually mark the correct coordinates of the candidate: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... fied%20yet
Exciting times!
-Bryan
"I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins"
- RUSH
- RUSH
I did in fact suspect so. Now:bmendez wrote:Yes, the feature on the left is the possible track.
(1) can we please see it at much higher magnification so as to compare with the classic "carrot" track?
(2) be shown definite evidence that it relates to the VM ring feature in movie 38843 at 490,196?
(3) also have an optical explanation of the latter's triple-or-more out-of-focus 'halo' evident above-surface, which is something I've come to expect only from surface dust rather than any subsurface track, and certainly don't remember seeing associated with any calibration track?
Sorry to be picky but, as late-great Carl Sagan said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and this could well be quite a significant scientific 'first' if solidly proven. The putative particle will obviously need future analysis in terms of chemical composition etc., but meanwhile I think it would help encourage us dusters if you could share some more of the technical details such as those listed above about this particular find.
John
I was about to come here and post the same thing as jsmaje. It's great the first track has been extracted but we would love to see some pictures that show what a real track looks like. All this time of endless speculation wears you down.
Like do you have pictures taken before it was extracted that show deeper focus or the area to the right, off the edge of the movie?
Like do you have pictures taken before it was extracted that show deeper focus or the area to the right, off the edge of the movie?
-
- Stardust@home Team
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 am
- Location: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab
- Contact:
Hi John,
There should be a movie of the extraction process which should unequivocally demonstrate that the two features are one and the same. I'll see about getting that and some of the other movies of extractions posted. They are really something. The extraction process is completely brilliant.
As to the greater magnification, I belive Andrew's post indicated that the view was at a much higher magnification than is used for the scans. So it doesn't get much more magnified before we start hitting the diffraction limit of the microscope (wavelengths of visible light are 0.4-0.7 microns). We could put up a higher resolution image of that photo, if that would help.
It's quite reasonable to expect that the tracks will not be the same shape as seen for the cometary particles. They are much more massive and impacted with a lower velocity. This possible track looks very much like other tracks I've seen them cut out in picokeystones. The cometary tracks are cut out in regular keystones and these smallest tracks are cut out in pico-keystones. See some examples here:
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1826 (drawing of a picokeystone)
and here: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1687
I'm not sure about the optical effects you mention, John. I'll ask though. I suppose it's kind of like seeing a cube (3D) drawn on a chalk board (2D) is it going into the blackboard or popping out of the black board. When I look at that movie I see the feature as a hole going down and not an aerogel fragment going up. Plus when you go below the surface, the feature definitely looks to be to be in focus below.
At this point, I think it is pretty clear that the feature is a "hole" in the surface, very much like track. But we'll not know if it is really a track with remnants of stardust in it until some x-ray spectroscopy tests are done.
-Bryan
There should be a movie of the extraction process which should unequivocally demonstrate that the two features are one and the same. I'll see about getting that and some of the other movies of extractions posted. They are really something. The extraction process is completely brilliant.
As to the greater magnification, I belive Andrew's post indicated that the view was at a much higher magnification than is used for the scans. So it doesn't get much more magnified before we start hitting the diffraction limit of the microscope (wavelengths of visible light are 0.4-0.7 microns). We could put up a higher resolution image of that photo, if that would help.
It's quite reasonable to expect that the tracks will not be the same shape as seen for the cometary particles. They are much more massive and impacted with a lower velocity. This possible track looks very much like other tracks I've seen them cut out in picokeystones. The cometary tracks are cut out in regular keystones and these smallest tracks are cut out in pico-keystones. See some examples here:
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1826 (drawing of a picokeystone)
and here: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1687
I'm not sure about the optical effects you mention, John. I'll ask though. I suppose it's kind of like seeing a cube (3D) drawn on a chalk board (2D) is it going into the blackboard or popping out of the black board. When I look at that movie I see the feature as a hole going down and not an aerogel fragment going up. Plus when you go below the surface, the feature definitely looks to be to be in focus below.
At this point, I think it is pretty clear that the feature is a "hole" in the surface, very much like track. But we'll not know if it is really a track with remnants of stardust in it until some x-ray spectroscopy tests are done.
-Bryan
"I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins"
- RUSH
- RUSH
This post doesn't really have a point, I'm just thinking out loud.
First, for kicks, here's the old thread where we discussed the track about a year and a half ago.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1020
As you can see, most people thought it should be a bad focus movie because it doesn't focus under the surface where the track is, I agree. So you can see why me and John are a little confused.
Next, these look close to the same size to me, the one is something like 3 or 4 times bigger, and yet the movie is from phase I when the movies were lower magnification.
Again confusing how they can be the same thing if one was taken at much higher magnification.
First, for kicks, here's the old thread where we discussed the track about a year and a half ago.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1020
As you can see, most people thought it should be a bad focus movie because it doesn't focus under the surface where the track is, I agree. So you can see why me and John are a little confused.
Next, these look close to the same size to me, the one is something like 3 or 4 times bigger, and yet the movie is from phase I when the movies were lower magnification.
Again confusing how they can be the same thing if one was taken at much higher magnification.
Yes due to the small speck at 425/130 near the "track" that indicated no even surface. But today after we got that many inclusions, it could likely be a real track beneath a smooth surface here.the moon wrote: First, for kicks, here's the old thread where we discussed the track about a year and a half ago.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1020
As you can see, most people thought it should be a bad focus movie because it doesn't focus under the surface where the track is, I agree. So you can see why me and John are a little confused.
@jsmaje: The "out-of-focus halo" effects (for several movies particular) can be seen at subsurface features too - especially by inclusions. So because we have here most likely a real track (and not an implemented calibration track that was taken by other conditions), it is the same effect as seen from the surface dust in that movie 9471219V1.
But as the moon implied, 38843 (containing this first extracted track, from phase 1) and 9471219V1 (aka ALPHA during phase 2) are in fact the very same movie, just given different numbers!greuti wrote: ... it is the same effect as seen from the surface dust in that movie 9471219V1.
Hence the re-ignited issue of how reliable dusters' evaluations might actually be regarding surface or subsurface judgements, and the need for more technical feedback.
John
Last edited by jsmaje on Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Looks a lot like you.
Indeed yes, and the majority would surely agree that is on the surface, as they did regarding Alpha.fjgiie wrote:Doesn't this movie look a lot like Alpha?
Meanwhile, I suspect greuti may be onto something! The track in question might not in fact be Alpha itself (490/196) but, by serendipity, that smaller speck just 90µ away from it at 425/130..!
It certainly starts close to the surface and lasts several bars to the bottom, perhaps more than might be expected of any inclusion. It also lacks the above-surface out-of-focus haloes evident around Alpha and the surface dust bottom-left which I questioned above. And one lesson from the project so far is that any interstellar particles are likely to be much smaller than originally expected (hence the very subtle phase 2 CMs even at 4x magnification).
This is why I ask for precise evidence regarding just which surface feature in the movie relates to the extracted track, while being concerned whether they might ever be sure (Alpha, if on the surface, could perhaps have been dislodged during the extraction process, for example).
Good stuff though - something to get our teeth and minds into again.
John
Re: Looks a lot like you.
There are some ring features that appear in a new light nowfjgiie wrote:Doesn't this movie look a lot like Alpha?
By this one I think there are three evidences that it's rather surface dust than a track. The distinct one below of it and two faint specks at 75/25 and about 375/325 that come at/in the same time/picture in focus, i.e. sadly just in the last picture.
Wow, that would be great! And btw. I would like to ask too: If the movie of the extraction process shows it from another perspective, is there still a possibility to get a good/better VM movie from this track when it is back from ESRF?bmendez wrote:There should be a movie of the extraction process which should unequivocally demonstrate that the two features are one and the same. I'll see about getting that and some of the other movies of extractions posted. They are really something. The extraction process is completely brilliant.
-
- Stardust@home Team
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 am
- Location: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab
- Contact:
Well the bad news is that I have been away from the office for a few weeks for family reasons, and have been rather out of touch. The good news is that I am back and will get to work next week on getting some info for everyone about this topic.greuti wrote:Bryan, are there any good or bad news about getting and posting the movies of the extraction process?
Sorry for the delay.
Thanks,
-Bryan
"I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins"
- RUSH
- RUSH
More interesting extraction news, though unfortunately the candidate numbers are not hyperlinked from the blog.
Nor are they accessible via the Events viewer.
I also met problems with their links on the Candidates page until I realised they were opening on a separate web page which can remain invisible until switching tabs (IE7).
Otherwise, one can use this direct URL, substituting the number for the dots (the last bit is essential):
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... &type=real
Of those listed besides 38843 (Alpha), I think it's no surprise that 48469 & 129070 proved to be debris, and 16490 an inclusion. 834150 does seem possible, but if the next target, 134954, turns out to be anything other than surface artefact I'll despair of ever being able to distinguish dust from track (I was going to say I'll eat my hat, but since I haven't got one that would be silly).
John
Nor are they accessible via the Events viewer.
I also met problems with their links on the Candidates page until I realised they were opening on a separate web page which can remain invisible until switching tabs (IE7).
Otherwise, one can use this direct URL, substituting the number for the dots (the last bit is essential):
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... &type=real
Of those listed besides 38843 (Alpha), I think it's no surprise that 48469 & 129070 proved to be debris, and 16490 an inclusion. 834150 does seem possible, but if the next target, 134954, turns out to be anything other than surface artefact I'll despair of ever being able to distinguish dust from track (I was going to say I'll eat my hat, but since I haven't got one that would be silly).
John