Clarification... origin of calibration movies
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:28 pm
Clarification... origin of calibration movies
Sorry if this question has been answered... but are the calibration movies from the actual probe or a simulation from other hi-speed particle tracks (ie aerogel on high altitude balloons &c.)?
I thought I saw somewhere that Van der Graaf accelerators had been used to speed them little buggers up to 20Km/s but I can't find the link
Thanks!
I thought I saw somewhere that Van der Graaf accelerators had been used to speed them little buggers up to 20Km/s but I can't find the link
Thanks!
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:28 pm
Thanks for that... which means that really and truly none of us have any ideas what a trail would actually look like in this scenario - meaning that a lot of us could be missing a lot of specimens - this could mean that we are all looking for the wrong thing completely - perhaps impacts of the cometary material could be totaly different due to the unfamiliar dynamics of the impact and composition of the particles.
Some particles may be moving in parallel and are resting on the surface, some may just embed slightly below, some may actually create the carrot tracks, I dunno - I am just wondering if any of us are looking for the right thing, that's all.
It might be appropriate for the researchers to seek out a few actual tracks so that perhaps we coud get a better feel for what to look for - we are all groping in the dark here!
I wonder about thet particle size, for example - is it the same sort of size as the dust collected in hi altitude probes? Are they silicates? Sulphides? water ice?
Do we actually have a feel for the impact speed of these particles?
Just a few questions... !
Any ideas?!
Some particles may be moving in parallel and are resting on the surface, some may just embed slightly below, some may actually create the carrot tracks, I dunno - I am just wondering if any of us are looking for the right thing, that's all.
It might be appropriate for the researchers to seek out a few actual tracks so that perhaps we coud get a better feel for what to look for - we are all groping in the dark here!
I wonder about thet particle size, for example - is it the same sort of size as the dust collected in hi altitude probes? Are they silicates? Sulphides? water ice?
Do we actually have a feel for the impact speed of these particles?
Just a few questions... !
Any ideas?!
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:28 pm
Interesting to note that this thread has had quite a few views but only one reply - no one any thoughts on this issue? I am mindful that we may all be looking for the wrong sort of tracking in the aerogel!
Could it be that a lot of surface spotting and debris is in fact the very material we are looking for?
I appreciate your thoughts!
Could it be that a lot of surface spotting and debris is in fact the very material we are looking for?
I appreciate your thoughts!
"I have the most excellent proof that x^3=y^3+z^3, however my signature is too small to contain it..."
-
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:17 pm
I should think that trusting the judgement of the people that are running the show is in order. If they think there should only be 1 in 40000 movies with tracks, then you shouldn't be flagging one in five. If they feel the tutorials will at least get us reasonably prepared then so be it. We are waiting on updated feedback.
There is, however, little reason to think that they are completely wrong or haven't thought of the things you have.
As a moderator of a science debate community it's astounding to see how often people think they have completely obvious solutions to scientific problems. It amazes me that these people think that they, with no training or background in teh area, believe they could come up with such a simple idea that had been missed by everyone who knows better.
Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Not on your life.
As for us here, what you bring up is possible, but without having a reason to think so, we might as well do what they believe is best (and maybe throw in some helpful little suggestions now and then )
There is, however, little reason to think that they are completely wrong or haven't thought of the things you have.
As a moderator of a science debate community it's astounding to see how often people think they have completely obvious solutions to scientific problems. It amazes me that these people think that they, with no training or background in teh area, believe they could come up with such a simple idea that had been missed by everyone who knows better.
Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Not on your life.
As for us here, what you bring up is possible, but without having a reason to think so, we might as well do what they believe is best (and maybe throw in some helpful little suggestions now and then )
Je ne peux pas regarder la Mer sans me demander qui vit au-delà de cela.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:05 am
Actually, people should be flagging 1 in 10, since these will be cal movies with tracks. Provided they are not checking in advance if a move is a cal or not, they ought to be able to tell if they're seeing stuff that's not there.
Based on the events I've clicked, I guess most people are getting about 1 in 10 wrong. This is still fine for detecting 'interesting' things, especially when you consider that the database can also factor in click locations and user accuracy.
Based on the events I've clicked, I guess most people are getting about 1 in 10 wrong. This is still fine for detecting 'interesting' things, especially when you consider that the database can also factor in click locations and user accuracy.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:38 pm
They also may have wanted to limit the number of micro tracks from the bigger ones. Maybe it is easier to get the bigger particles out of the gel? I can make some hypothesis about it. Certainly they would not want to slow down their work. Bigger nice formed tracks are definitely easier to notice and probably verify their validity. Just some thoughts.
Here: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html you will find the Stardust site at Nasa. It contains at least some off the answers to your questions.
And since this is a first on actual stardust collection: Expect the unexpected
And since this is a first on actual stardust collection: Expect the unexpected
Just dusting...
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:28 pm
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:19 am
- Location: St. Petersburg Florida
- Contact:
All of the 15 suspected particles that I've found have been much smaller than the sample photos provided. Whether they're at the same scale is another question. The cal photos may be magnified somewhat to ensure that nearly everyone could see the particle hits in the tutorials. I have been noticing that the cal movie particles seem to be getting smaller.entropydave wrote:For example, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to whether the particles are/would be much smaller than the Mir samples?
Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is. - Vince Lombardi
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:28 pm
hi entropydave, i posted what i think about the particles here http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... .php?t=542
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:28 pm