MECA-OM Images - Page 19

Previous 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next
Author Message
Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 361



PostPosted: September 20, 2008 3:48 PM 

I just found this blog so haven't had time yet to read all that has gone before. I have only seen one FEM image from Phoenix and that was a test. Is there some special site where FEM images are posted? Is there any info available regarding the FEM current operation? Thanks.

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 362



PostPosted: September 20, 2008 4:58 PM 

HH

Welcome aboard

Is the FEM and AFM the same thing? If they are then 2 AFM images were published, the Test image and then another one a few weeks ago. If you search this site for AFM you would be able to find it and the discussion surrounding it.

Winston

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 363



PostPosted: September 21, 2008 9:04 AM 

Regarding posts 354 by LWS and 346 by Dana, these appear to me to be ascoma, fruiting bodies, some open and some closed.

Compare to:

They open like clams. The lid pops off, exposing the white hymenium underneath. More in August 12 and 24 entries here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/MarsLichen.pdf

For some reason my last post was held as spam.

HH

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 364



PostPosted: September 21, 2008 11:41 AM 

Hi HH

Glad to hear another voice suggesting that many of these images could be interpreted just as rationally as representing biology as they can geology. There are a few others, Mann, Dana sometimes and Horton who sits on the fence most times but sometimes comes out in strong defence of biology.

Yes! There are strong similarities to ascoma in several of the Phoenix images but it is still not clear enough to declare that they are indeed fungal asci, perithecia or whatever. They still might be geological features.

My considered opinion is that we really don't know what they are for sure as the reolution of the microscopy so far is not adequate to make a definitive call but that there are significant suggestions from the images that several of the particles seen might be biological in nature.

Here are two from yesterday's releases

Note the repeating structures. Almost like some "blooms" of flowers. Note the very biological look of the small spheres and filaments that predominantly make up the fuzzy dust. Note the repeating dematiaceous smooth objects that are seen as aggregates and separate spherical objects in the images and are in the same size range as earth ascomata but might be something else.

I think It is yet too early to declare that the particles are anything specific either from the bio side or the geo side. They could be either. I hope the AFM will provide some further evidence that will clarify that issue but I am not holding my breath on that.

In the meantime your views and arguments are very welcome.

Winston


hortonheardawho Author Profile Page


Posts: 3465

Reply: 365



PostPosted: September 21, 2008 11:55 AM 

Some sol 112 accidental 3D of the Martian soil - including this one:

Unfortunately, if you can't "do" side-by-side 3D, you can't see the disk shaped thingie or the long tapering rod.

Sometimes have to rotate the images and / or switch left - right to see the 3D but when you do, some interesting shapes spring out of the picture - like these ones.

danajohnson Author Profile Page


Posts: 1195

Reply: 366



PostPosted: September 21, 2008 12:46 PM 

Nice animation through still, Horace. I have learned from the stacked stills in motion, that the items are sometimes able to attach at one point to the substrate, and yet remain in motion, about the fixed point. That should not be possible at tens of microns, although we might guess that the silicone is still flexible at the low temperature.
I have seen that nylon can be flexible, and not brittle/breakable at the low temperatures of Mars. Those who attribute to organics the inability to remain flexible and functional at cryogenic temperatures should study the alternative truth that some materials are active and capable of motion or flexing at below the temperature of freezing water.
As I mentioned on the YouTube movie linked site comments, you might try using then green channel for shape definition in these, as the color RGB works show better with the green channel extracted and used separated. Just a suggestion, based on a few successes with the stills in color assembled.
You might also loop the display three or four times, as many do not pursue the truth very far before giving up on personal efforts expended.
I really appreciate all the unusual approaches which expand our understanding view of these originals.

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 367



PostPosted: September 22, 2008 12:48 PM 

My reply to LWS message 362 is still held as spam. The moderator must be absent. If it doesn't show up soon I will break it up into small parts and send the to see what got flagged as spam and encode that part in the future so it won't get flagged.

Horace

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 368



PostPosted: September 22, 2008 2:27 PM 

HH
I also suspect that the moderator is absent. Send an email to the Owner, Mark Carey. You'll normally get a quick response from him. His email address should be on the Blog's main page.

Winston

hortonheardawho Author Profile Page


Posts: 3465

Reply: 369



PostPosted: September 22, 2008 9:31 PM 

sol 114-114 OM54 rotation:

Here is a puzzle: This sample cell has been repeatedly imaged in what I call the "AFM format". Surely an AFM scan would require a totally rigid subtrate. But - splish splash - this one is a slippin' and a slidin' all over the place. What's gong on?

Well I got a couple of thousand goddamn questions, you know. I want to speak to someone in charge. I want to lodge a complaint. You have no right to make people crazy! You think I investigate every OM image there is? Huh? If this is just rocks, how come I see everything in such detail? I've never been here before. How come I know so much? What the hell is going on around here? Who the hell are you people?

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 370



PostPosted: September 22, 2008 10:11 PM 

Hort

Very nice images and animation at reply #369. Seems to me that the particles have not moved significantly (neither the large nor the small ones) It seems that the stage has been moving or the camera lens has been placed in different positions over the substrate stage. I wonder if they are trying for some 3-Ds on the sly?

I hope they can get some AFM images of particles in this area. I know the conventional wisdom is that these are mineral magnetic particles but I wonder if they don't have some organic stuff attached to them. I would also dearly like to see those larger dark smooth blobs up close with their seemingly embedded spheres and all.

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 371



PostPosted: September 22, 2008 10:15 PM 

OOps

A slip there. It is a silicone substrate so my argument above does not hold as far as magnetic materials on this substrate are concerned. except that those particles are commonly seen on the strong and weak magnet substrates as well.

Winston

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 372



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 1:34 PM 

This is in regard to LWS reply 362.

Thanks Winston. Yes, I meant AFM not FEM. I've made the same mistake before too. I can only attribute it to old age or incompetence.

HH

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 373



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 1:36 PM 

This is in regard to LWS reply 362.

I can only find the following AFM press images:

Sol 45, 2008-07-10:

http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=33441&cID=303

Sol 79, 2008-08-13:

http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=0&cID=222

HH

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 374



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 2:02 PM 

This is in regard to LWS reply 362.

The Sol 79 attribution above seems to be in conflict with a mention of a good Sol 64 image and Sol 68 image here:

htt p://spaceu rope.blo gspot.co m/2008/08/phoenix-mission-afm-update-with-da niel.ht ml

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 375



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 2:09 PM 

This is in regard to LWS reply 362.

Other articles of interest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7408033.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/7408033.stm

Everything I've posted above looks to be at least a month out of date. I think it is incredible such a fantastic instrument has such a low priority. I hoped maybe you folks had some new info on all this. Scanning the site, it doesn't appear so, unless I missed something.

HH

Barsoomer Author Profile Page


Posts: 344

Reply: 376



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 4:31 PM 

My guess is that technical problems have prevented them from getting any AFM images worth showing. The quality of the one image that was released was not very good.

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 377



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 4:40 PM 

Hi Barsoomer, HH

I also suspect that technical problems might be the reason for lack of information along with the very low priority given to the AFM studies as deduced from the BBC blog. However, hope springs eternal in the human breast and I am hoping that there will be something said on this matter at Thursday's NASA TV progress report and press conference.

HH; Other places to check for recent news are the Unmanned Space Flight blog and Emily Lackadawalla's Planetary Society Blog.

Winston

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 378



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 10:06 PM 

Thanks for the info. You folks do some great photo work here! I'd like to lear how to include small photos in posts here.

It appears references to jpegs on other sites works:

http://www.lichen.com/bigphotos/Dbaeomyceslg.jpeg

However, is there a way to include jpgs or pngs in your posts? Thanks.

HH

Horace Heffner


Posts: 16

Reply: 379



PostPosted: September 23, 2008 10:22 PM 

Hi Barsoomer, LWS,

It does indeed look like there are technical problems, especially the heat problem. There are also other speculations as to why there is lots of mention of activities and few results, especially with regard to chemistry, namely a delay for peer review and publication. There are also the usual conspiracy theories, some of which already are proven false.

google (mars phoenix president briefing life)

HH

danajohnson Author Profile Page


Posts: 1195

Reply: 380



PostPosted: September 24, 2008 3:14 PM 

We have OM images of a functional quality, giving information on the larger particles. It is a real sad state to see so many instruments appearing to not be functioning well, but that may be problem in future years this far north on Mars, and may or may not indicate a hold-back on release of the original content. I do believe a response on the weeks contents should be obligatory, even if not a daily commentating on the progress and content of appearances.
Future missions will show whether the process will become more or less transparent to interested lay people and amateur/professionals outside the mail-lined industry under contract.
I was so pleased to see the appearance of basic science released to all in some of these recent missions. Better equipment design and future missions will tell the history of science dissemination in near real timing. Public exposure does not prevent published professional research with the results. There may be a study underway of the economics of the early distribution.
The AFM may work best with a graded mix of material when controlled by robotic, indirect, instructions.
I applied a alteration of the early image Stu displayed, seen in enlarged size at replies #345-350 range, and tried to compensate for the spheroid and stem non-symmetry offsets which make it look much like cultured bonsai miniature. Simply using the X,Y, and Z orientation, I was able to rotate bring the item around to give a near perfect matching of what the 3D visualisation interprets as an axis and a large main double helical growing structure. I thought the upper 'bowl' shape was a circular concavity, with the off angle taller tip a singular pointed extension. This slightly differing viewpoint from the single flat plane image, gives a dualism of the tip as a core to periphery spiral of counterclockwise, both in nearly perfect matched measure. The main spheroid body appears in original lighting to have a counterclockwise spiral of highlights, base to top, however, in the 3D lighting changes I can easily give a fairly strong clock-wise highlight main elevated pattern as well. The item, whatever the content shows elaborate 3D symmetry of basics within the lobe, and the apparent spiral(s). The two tips are unmistakeably spiralled counterclockwise despite lighting changes. While all this may be a 'trick' of view, lighting, and lack of real 3D imaging, I have corrected myself about the presence of a unmatched single pointed tip. It almost certainly has two tips, probably planar or sheet-like, and very well metered, but still appearing slightly out of symmetry between parts of the overall structure. If formerly organic, this has great organization retention, and detail in a substitution process. If mineral, it is nearly unbelievable in the combined parts as seen. If growing or formed recently, it has much the same apparent makeup, and surface texture about the parts, and appears to have an elaborate control to the parts and design which would preclude a mineral singly. Mineral substitution may have happened. That would satisfy the surface texture and tonal/coloration sameness seen.
It appeared to me in the animations that the item was top heavy, as in a less dense base stalk or stem.
This overkill of many images of one particle may offend some, but there seems to be long term value in using similar techniques to study the other particles. I'll make additional topic(s) for any other particles. This seemed a 'corrected' view of the particle.
.
The original in very large size. Looking for someone to better this.
.

.
The finished 3D rotated and tilted plane, giving a dual set of matching tips, side lobes, central geometric shaping, and the twisted base to spheroid shapes. This 3D imaging reduces accuracy to basic shapes, and isn't necessarily better than a direct view, but allows me to correct the perspective and viewpoint. It works in this image. Slight variable angles, and lobe shapes. Lighting in this is artificial, mixed with the original 3D interpretation from the original lighting, showing both spirals vaguely.
.

.
A side-to-side flipped mirroring of the original pattern. Shows how the clock-wise alternative spiralling would appear.
.

.
I'll present other images on another topic for that item. I thought it best to correct the concept of a dual versus single tip, the way lighting show a counter-spiralling effect in both directions on the basic spheroid, and show that the appearance is not always what appears in single images.
Thanks for the comments, hoping someone has better observations of this, or these.
While the Salton Sea area has some larger sized Goethite dual spiral examples, I'd like to see any examples on Earth of anything similar to this item.
Some additional images at the host with these.
sincerely, danajohnson0

Previous 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys