Stardust@home

In order to keep this forum from become too large, please post only in this thread from now on if you have a movie with an interesting feature that you would like to share with everyone.


Thank you,
the Stardust@home Team

I really like this one - was worried I might miss a lateral but am happy with this one... http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=45740
Belinda

Here is an interesting slide. I wonder what that peculiar 'starburst' pattern is near the bottom?

The movie 666962V1 had features like writing in arabic

Either someone/thing was not being very gentle with it or let it get wet:
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=40911

Has anyone seen this .38 special?

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=44976

i think the tiny straight objects like this are fascinating. anybody have any idea what they could be?

Best Tracks:
Belinda, http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=45740 [broken link please fix]
dd, http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=19505 [broken link please fix]

My favorites so far, possible Cosmic Snowflake surface craters.
First really interesting one I saw in the StarDust sample data.[broken link please fix]
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=35219 [broken link please fix]
This one is not a circular surface crater, but the features inside the crater are similar.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =2775231V1
But, it's the best one on my list so far

For more discussion on Cosmic Snowflakes

goldrake wrote:

tim_yoda wrote:

goldrake wrote:What is for you?

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=37336 [broken link please fix]

could be an impact crater, there seems to be more in-depth, but focus is too shallow.

If it is an impact crater because of dust, why it isn't not so deep like the examples?
The crater seems very superficial.

Sorry for my english!

Because the surface crater was most likely created by the impact of a Cosmic Snowflake. Newly formed Cosmic Snowflakes are probably less dense than aerogel and contain no dust, just water. So there isn't any dust residue. Only a crater, left by the impact of a Snowflake. The older a Cosmic Snowflake gets, the more dust it collects. The longer the aerogel is left in space, the more dust it collects, too. So, older Cosmic Snowflakes might have a little bit of dust in their craters

icebike wrote:

PolyMath wrote:
I'm also interested to see the answer about the micron scale calibration, seems like when there is a calibration movie it soooo obvious, the tracks seem huge. Then I find myself trying to determine on real movies if a tiny spec might be dust or not.

That is my ulterior motive for posting this thread. To see if anyone is interested in exploring that possibility.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but unless people more knowledgeable than me come forward with rational explanations of what this item is we must pay heed to Occam's Raxor, and are thereby left with the most straightforward explanation, that it is a hair, probably human.

But that opens a whole can of worms about the scale factor.

As of this point in time, its the elephant in the room that nobody wants to notice.

Calm down. To me, it looks like a metal sliver that would come off a lathe or mill. It probably fell off the new microscope they have.

st wrote:i think the tiny straight objects like this are fascinating. anybody have any idea what they could be?

To give my personal opinion, and without seeing the FOV, it resembles a scratch. The end bit there looking different due to the lighting.

Some may remember that Mwhiz built a collage of several images that contained a hair-like objects.



The numbers are the movie numbers in which the parts were found.
Mwhiz stitched the images together to show the entire object.

I'd like to solicit speculation as to what this is.

The first speculation is Hair.

But several sources on the Internet indicate that hair is 70 to 120 microns in dimeter.
Yet calling up any of the images and the micron scale at the bottom will indicate this "hair" is at most 20 microns in diameter.

(One source indicates that the finest body hairs on children might be as small as 17 microns.
But we all know those don't grow this long.)

So, is the micron scale wrong?

If the micron scale is wrong, this item might really be a hair. And if this is a hair, and its a typical human head hair,
(by far the most likely source) then the diameter of the hair shaft is approximately 100 microns.

If so the width of a movie is dramatically bigger than the 100-micron scale printed below each movie.

And that may explain why no one has come up with a movie that looks anything like the large clear tracks of the Calibration Movies,
because the real tracks would be much smaller than expected, perhaps the size of those faint "tracks" that are dismissed
as "inclusions" by Dr Butterworth.

Or is the micron scale correct?

If the micron scale is correctly sized relative to the camera's field of view then this can not be a hair. (At least not a human hair.) Further, if the micron scale is correct, this item is about 1200 microns or 1.2 millimeters long (less than 1/8 inch). Hair is just not that supple.

So that leaves the floor open for speculation as to what it REALLY is.


And the related question is why is the term "micron" used, when the proper term is micrometer.

how about if it's the debris from a scratch?

The material just came to rest on the aerogel.

as a matter of fact, it looks like it fits in the scratch upthread!!!

DustBuster wrote:as a matter of fact, it looks like it fits in the scratch upthread!!!

A little specificity man!!!

Perhaps a Movie id?
I'm not seeing any reference to scratch upthread.

The first post above yours... then the large picture with the straight scratch (?) 2 more above that.

DustBuster wrote:The first post above yours... then the picture with the straight scratch (?) 2 more above that.

So you are speculating that this opaque object is composed of scratched out areogel?