Should we still flag likely inclusions?

[endust]

No they keep showing up randomly. I flagged one last night. It might have been an old movie but somewhere in the forum is a comment by the Stardust scientific team that dust can get included during aerogel manufacture so we can expect it throughout the investigation.

Supposedly the actual stardust will be too small to see in these movies, and thats why we're looking for airbubbles. We wouldnt see an actual piece of stardust, just its track. But starting out, nobody knows what to expect so we need to wait for direction and mark anything thats unusual subsurface

[jcbc]

No they keep showing up randomly. I flagged one last night.

I just flagged one a few minutes ago and saw that I was the 48th to click the focus movie and I also saw the official status and comment for it (first one I have in my list with any comment at all).

Movie 6722976V1 142 48 Not Extraterrestrial inclusions

I've stopped clicking obvious inclusions (solid specks that just appear), but I'm keeping a list of the movie IDs (and dates, in case they change their numbering system again) of those I don't click on. For others that are less obvious (but probably inclusions), I still click on them. Even so, like I said, the above movie is the only one in my list with a comment.

JCBC

[stardust1]

I've stopped clicking obvious inclusions (solid specks that just appear), but I'm keeping a list of the movie IDs (and dates, in case they change their numbering system again) of those I don't click on. For others that are less obvious (but probably inclusions), I still click on them. Even so, like I said, the above movie is the only one in my list with a comment.

JCBC

Hi JCBC,
I personally do just the same as you. My event list contains half a dozen of commented finds of that kind and dozens of similar, not commented yet.
Sorting my event list on those candidates (reaching a confirmation quote up to 50 % and higher!), the only relation to their agreement is their obviousness / visibility.
Thus, my concern is
1. Those inclusions (dots) produce statistical noise which makes it hard, to find the real hot candidates.
2. Those dots multiplicate the overall workload
3. Some of the - in my unexpert eyes - hot ones achieve significant lower confirmation quotes and thus, can only by recovered by studying the forum, not by statistical methods
4. More and more volunteers complain about "negative calibration movies" containing inclusions are scored as wrong.

Therefore I posted some suggestions to clear up that question in the suggestion thread - recently.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... c&start=75

Regards
-stardust1

[endust]

As I posted earlier in this thread, I will continue to mark them as tracks until direction from the scientific team.

[somepoint]

No they keep showing up randomly. I flagged one last night.

I just flagged one a few minutes ago and saw that I was the 48th to click the focus movie and I also saw the official status and comment for it (first one I have in my list with any comment at all).

Movie 6722976V1 142 48 Not Extraterrestrial inclusions

I've stopped clicking obvious inclusions (solid specks that just appear), but I'm keeping a list of the movie IDs (and dates, in case they change their numbering system again) of those I don't click on. For others that are less obvious (but probably inclusions), I still click on them. Even so, like I said, the above movie is the only one in my list with a comment.

JCBC

The same happened to me yesterday. Surely if they've already decided it's an inclusion and not a track - the movie should be removed rather than getting more and more people to look at it when they could be looking at more promising slides!?

[Kelland69]

Elaine,

In answer to your original question, I've recently come across quite a few examples of what appear to be inclusions (one of which has been verified as non extraterrestrial). I've watched over 7000 movies in the last week and I've found about a dozen tiny spots beneath the surface.

I can't be certain of exactly what they are, but I think it's worth clicking on them just in case.

[DustBuster]

To address the original topic subject:

The official word on clicking on 'inclusions' is, as of this date, there is no official word to click or not click. Some items have been positively identified as inclusions (as some have noted in their MyEvents page).

IMHO:
There is no previous data to correlate with and no training reference or guidelines to refer to, so nobody wants to say "stop clicking" these just yet.
Expect the unexpected is the mantra; only the pros can determine exactly what you are looking at. So, do your best; use your imagination; judge each one independently- that's how I go about it anyway.

[LCARS]

The way i've been discriminating is this:

If there are multiple "dots" that focus below the surface at about the same depth, I am considering them to be "non extra terrestrial inclusions" and not clicking them.

If I see only a single "dot" that does not appear to be an obvious inclusion then I will still click it.

Just think, how likely is it that there would be THREE or more particle tracks in one cell...

[jsmaje]

The official word on clicking on 'inclusions' is, as of this date, there is no official word to click or not click. Some items have been positively identified as inclusions (as some have noted in their MyEvents page).

But have they really been "positively identified"? By which I mean actually extracted from the aerogel and analysed, rather than just considered to have the appearance of suspected inclusions.

And if the team were well aware that manufacturing defects could cause such features (as has been stated), why no mention in the Tutorial, and why no micrographs demonstrating their 'inclusive' nature in contrast to the genuine tracks? Is it because they are indeed difficult to distinguish from the smallest of tracks (i.e. too small to see a clear 'hole' in the middle, at least at the movie resolutions made available to dusters)?

I'd really like to see official comment as to exactly what such 'inclusions' are actually made of, and how they can arise during manufacture, if that is indeed what they are.

Meanwhile I'll keep clicking away...

[LCARS]

Inclusions are easy to spot if the movie has a good focus depth because they don't generate a wake shock in the gel from the surface to their depth, they simply "reside" below the surface.

A particle less than 1 micron in diamter travelling at 30000km/hr WILL generate a wake shock in the gel several microns wide and THAT is what you are looking for, not the particle itself, which should theoretically be too small to "see" at the scale of the VM. A TEM would probably be necessary to see a particle that size.

[DustBuster]

But have they really been "positively identified"? By which I mean actually extracted from the aerogel and analysed, rather than just considered to have the appearance of suspected inclusions.

No. They have been identified on the MyEvents page as such- I guess the word positively was not accurate- I should have said "official status".

[Mighty Pete]

I think you have to watch here. This movie is a prime example:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =5948223V1

There is two inclusions.. My theory is there is a track between the two spots. The left one is the impact and the right one is what's left of the dust.. You can't see the track cause of the lighting and the poor jpg quality..

How much you want to make a bet if they view it lighting wise like this movie the unseen track shows up?

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =4384261V1

[the moon]

Lol arggg you again with the invisiable track theory!!

Anyway, here's how I deal with inclusions. I do click some of them because I believe that smaller tracks will look exactly the same as some of these things the team is labeling as inclusions. If you could zoom in further you would see they aren't in fact solid dots but bubbles. But of course most would still be dots because they are inclusions, I'm just saying some might not be.

So here's my criteria for when I click on dots that appear below the surface.
1. If there's more then one object below the surface and they look kind of the same, I don't click.
2. If the object comes into focus below the surface and then goes back out of focus even further down, I don't click. Unless there is a lateral track leading to it.
3. If the object is very deep, like if the surface is at the top bar and it doesn't appear until the last bar or two, with no sign of it any higher up, I don't click.
4. If it passes all those tests, I have a winner. This includes objects that haven't come into focus yet by the lowest frame, but are obviously under the surface.

[stardust1]

Lol arggg you again with the invisiable track theory!!

0 % agreement, regarding the style, regarding the case: 50 %. There are really very deep intriguing features in some movies (unfortunatly not in the shown samples above). Some of them have already been commented by officials. (e.g. this 150/5 sample http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... ight=#7426) But I would not click them if they were "invisible"

100% agreement regarding the samples shown above (no track! where? what?)

Anyway, here's how I deal with inclusions. I do click some of them because I believe that smaller tracks will look exactly the same as some of these things the team is labeling as inclusions. If you could zoom in further you would see they aren't in fact solid dots but bubbles. But of course most would still be dots because they are inclusions, I'm just saying some might not be.

So here's my criteria for when I click on dots that appear below the surface.
1. If there's more then one object below the surface and they look kind of the same, I don't click.
2. If the object comes into focus below the surface and then goes back out of focus even further down, I don't click. Unless there is a lateral track leading to it.
3. If the object is very deep, like if the surface is at the top bar and it doesn't appear until the last bar or two, with no sign of it any higher up, I don't click.
4. If it passes all those tests, I have a winner. This includes objects that haven't come into focus yet by the lowest frame, but are obviously under the surface.

100 % agreement.
I decide on exactly the same principles so far (but assumedly not with the same eyes).
-stardust1

[Driven1]

I've noticed within this thread that some people have developed certain criteria for determining whether there are inclusions or possible tracks within a focus movie. I was using the same criteria as many have stated that they are using. I got to thinking about one of those points though and decided that it was bad practice.

When seeing multiple specks near the bottom of focus (2 or more) I was automatically assuming inclusions and would click "No Track."

Here's why I've stopped doing that. What's to say that one of those isn't possibly a track?

I've slowed down considerably and looking more carefully while viewing these to be sure I'm not missing a possible track.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Stardust has the mental capacity (or the time at 30,000Km) to pick a clean spot to penetrate Aerogel.

Just thought I'd bring that up. Food for thought.