Did anyone find a CLEAR track?

Discuss your experiences with and ideas about Stardust@home here.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

lucix
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Florence, Italy

Did anyone find a CLEAR track?

Post by lucix »

Why the tracks I found are all almost invisible, small and not clear, so different from the ones in the calibration movies?
Did anyone find a CLEAR track?

geckzilla
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:05 am

Post by geckzilla »

I'm betting there'll be champagne and headlines when the first real clear one is actually found. :)

WeBeGood
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:26 am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: Did anyone find a CLEAR track?

Post by WeBeGood »

lucix wrote:Why the tracks I found are all almost invisible, small and not clear, so different from the ones in the calibration movies?
Did anyone find a CLEAR track?
Although all the links in the discussion pages are currently broken, an example of what your talking about would be nice.
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com

Driven1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:27 am

Clearest Track seen

Post by Driven1 »

This is the clearest I've seen so far that resembles the tracks in the training and calibration movies...

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =9806342V1

Focus down to the bottom of the focus range and you will easily see it. This is not a calibration movie. It's the real deal.

leggat
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:24 am
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by leggat »

That looks real nice, Driven, but the surface at the bottom of the image never once comes into focus, not even at the lowest focal depth, while at the top of the image the surface is barely in focus, and then passes out of focus. It's either a bizarrely slanted bit of the aerogel, or somebody bumped the camera. kidding, but I'm sure they'll definitely look at it, but I would have hit bad-focus myself, which they re-image anyhow.

keep truckin'

PocketLint
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:02 pm

bad focus

Post by PocketLint »

I think that is bad focus.

The big dark spot that comes into focus at the end of the range is the surface. It seems that when the gel gets folded like that, the scanner that took the pictcure set the focus to the high point of the folded gel. so when you focus down to the end of the range, you end up seeing the real surface.

You will notice that it goes out of focus within one frame of the movie so I doubt it is a track.

geckzilla
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:05 am

Post by geckzilla »

Edit: I'm not a scientist and these are just my own thoughts. I could be completely wrong.

Driven, that does not look like an inclusion or a track to me. It seems like a bit of dirt in a sunken part of the gel.

I made an animated GIF of Movie 3462823V1 to show inclusions. I think this is a very good example movie because it shows a few different types of inclusions we've been seeing.

It's 1.29 MB so give it some time to download if you get a slow connection. Or, right-click, save.
Image

Anyway, on the lower left quadrant is a typical inclusion. They look kind of elongated sometimes.

The upper right quadrant shows a small inclusion... I'm not sure what the white spot is directly under it. It might just be a defocus artifact.

The lower right contains a very, very small inclusion. You may not be able to see it if your monitor is low contrast or not sharp enough.

At the end of the movie you can see some more which are only just starting to come into focus but don't quite make it.

There's a couple more in there still that I didn't circle. You have to view the interactive movie to catch them.
Last edited by geckzilla on Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

DustBuster
DustMod
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Horsetown, USA

Post by DustBuster »

Hi geekzilla.

When posting information like that with the movie 3462823V1 above, please try to make it clear that the observations you are making are entirely your own speculation, as nothing has yet been verified (inclusions included).
You may be absolutely correct, and I tend to agree with your thoughts, but neither of us are scientists trained in this area and we should refrain from making statements that could be interpreted by others as facts.
Another example; those who don't speak/read English, won't understand any of the text but may see the movie and assume it is verification of a find or a training movie.

Thanks!
No dessert for you- ONE MONTH!

Driven1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:27 am

Thanks for your thoughts

Post by Driven1 »

You could all be right, very well right, you know you've got a right to say.

I took that all into consideration when I was looking at it. I did see the fold and how it focused near it and took that into consideration.

Unfortunately, there was no other Surface features to guage by other than the chip in the upper right corner. When focused on it, if you look at the fold closely, there are some small scratches visible towards the center of it. This was all I had to go by in finding the Surface Level. I also realize that the part of the fold that was in focus at the same time as the chip may be the "peak" of the fold. It was one of those "Flip a coin" movies. Yes, It could very well be a "Bad Focus" Movie. So rather than dismiss it, I felt it would be better to mark it, just in case. If they do look at it and determine it to be the actual surface or just an inclusion of some sort, that's ok. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Edit...

Oh, and Geckzilla, great job on the .gif! Wouldn't it be nice if "someone" picked up on that for training purposes? :wink:
Last edited by Driven1 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

karinagw
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:59 am

Post by karinagw »

Here's one that 44 of the 87 people who have viewed it have reported:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =4530096V1

It's an almost perfect circle that appears in the lower right hand quadrant while everything else is unfocussing.
/k

benj1989
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:32 am
Location: Opwijk -Belgium
Contact:

Post by benj1989 »

I would have marked it to,
notice that they are 2 of them

karinagw
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:59 am

Post by karinagw »

If you're talking about that faint one in the top left, I honestly don't think I did notice it at the time. I was too busy thinking to myself that they had finally gotten a calibration movie subtle enough. I nearly fell over when I saw that it was a real movie
/k

benj1989
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:32 am
Location: Opwijk -Belgium
Contact:

Post by benj1989 »

I meant the one a little on the right of the bigger one

geckzilla
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:05 am

Post by geckzilla »

DustBuster wrote:Hi geekzilla.

When posting information like that with the movie 3462823V1 above, please try to make it clear that the observations you are making are entirely your own speculation, as nothing has yet been verified (inclusions included).
You may be absolutely correct, and I tend to agree with your thoughts, but neither of us are scientists trained in this area and we should refrain from making statements that could be interpreted by others as facts.
Another example; those who don't speak/read English, won't understand any of the text but may see the movie and assume it is verification of a find or a training movie.

Thanks!
Sorry. You're right. I put a bold disclaimer at the top so hopefully no one gets confused even if they don't speak english very well.

ps, it's geck, like gecko, though I guess I am kind of geeky.

Orbinaut
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:10 am

Post by Orbinaut »


Post Reply