Review: The 2 highest-rated candidates.

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

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:40 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

Post by wonderdogxyz »

I would have marked alpha as no track or bad focus and the second as no track. Both seem to be surface features to me.
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:37 am

Re: To Click or Not To Click

Post by Pleiades »

DiamondGirl wrote:I would consider both Alpha and Beta to be "Bad Focus" movies (as a number of other folks have also noted).

I think the key thought to remember is that, although the image looks flat to us, it could actually be angled (as noted in our training slides) and therefore one portion of the slide can be in focus but as you move the mouse that part could go below surface while another section is just coming into focus. Both of these appear to be this case to me.

The question is, does that also apply to 6355541V1 and 5507828V1?

I wasn't the first one to find these, but was excited by them when I did find them. In my opinion, since everything around them (on all sides) goes out of focus (or below surface), it would seem to rule out the possibility that this is a BAD FOCUS or angled slide. But the possibility did come into my head that there were elevated points around them making these appear to be below surface when in fact they were not.

What do YOU think? :)
6355541V1 has my vote as a possible particle. Clearly the surface comes into focus first then the trail seems to come into focus gradually from left to right slanting upward as though the particle embeds deeper into the aerogel. Actually a faint trail like disturbance seems to appear just after the surface focus level then gradually transitions into the final trail that contains more solid looking particles that resemble inclusions. Just my 2 cents. :D
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:51 am
Location: Australia

Post by renu_krs »

in my view, the alpha one is terror dust, not the IS particle. beta would be IS particle. Not sure.
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:08 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by squid »

I agree with most of what has been said. The "ALPHA" movie appears to be come kind of bubble or inclusion, although I would likely have tagged it "bad focus" since you can't get below the thing enough to see if it stays in focus. However, since there is an inclusion that comes into focus at the same depth, I may have marked it "no track" depending on mood.

The "BETA" one I would have marked "bad focus" for sure since the focus changes across the slide, indicating a sloped gel surface and again, the microscope is unable to focus sufficiently below the point of interest to verify that it is a track.
Darin Cowan
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:19 am
Location: France

Post by thiery »

None of them, certainly would have clicked on bad focus, because looks like, but focus not really good...

Now, gonna read other's answers
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:10 am
Location: State of New York

Would not click either of them

Post by jlczuk »

I would not have clicked either of them because the telltale black circle is not in focus moving down through the gel. I would have clicked bad focus for both.
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands

The 2 highest-rated candidates

Post by fflo »

On Aug.28, 2006 I gave my opinion on ALPHA and BETA.
Sinds then I didn't pay attention to this thread, but today I got a "Topic Reply Notification" and browsed through the pages.
My List of Data Viewed contains presently 207 Events, and none of these have more than 55% of Agreements, most of them much lower!
Although I didn't count the numbers of "yes" and "no" in this thread, I think that it illustrates adequately:
1) The statistics in the Number of Agreements;
2) The decision to engage as many people as possible in this search for the unknown was well taken, i.e. the preference of humans above (non-existing and not yet possible) computer-programs.

Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:42 am
Location: Carlsbad, CA

Post by LarryG »

I would have NOT clicked on either of them.

Both appear to be slanted surfaces with surface occlusions and focus problems without any real field of view depth into the aerogel.

Now for a real candidate: ... d=568405V1 - it even appears to have an impact crater at the surface.

Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Post by DiamondGirl »

LarryG wrote:Now for a real candidate: ... d=568405V1 - it even appears to have an impact crater at the surface.

Hi, Larry.
I actually think this one looks more like an inclusion. I see the larger rings (what you noted may be an impact crater) that then zoom into a focused point with nearly all the spots that have been determined to be inclusions.

Also, at the very extreme bottom-most level of the focus, I see the spot start to go back out of focus, which for me would support that it's not a real track.

These are the tough ones to determine though, and I think that it's better to err on the side of caution and click it if you're not sure. After all - you never know. :)

the moon
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:34 am

Post by the moon »

LarryG wrote:Now for a real candidate: ... d=568405V1 - it even appears to have an impact crater at the surface.
This one has 4 inclusions in it, definitely no track.
Post Reply