MECA-OM Images - Page 5

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 ... 23 Next
Author Message
mann


Posts: 161

Reply: 81



PostPosted: July 25, 2008 9:36 PM 

You are forgiven Smile Well done on 73, I keep checking out all the odd grains. I have no time to make images at the time , but would like to look alot closer at this stuff. Are all of these particles magnetic?

brian Author Profile Page


Posts: 708

Reply: 82



PostPosted: July 25, 2008 10:33 PM 

Hi there Winston,
The OM images of this particular substrate in Image 73 are noted as rotation 13411, witj a red, a blue and a green LED exposure. When checked on the linked table 13411 correlates to wheel designation OM 57 - sure enough a Strong Magnet. Not sure what your rotation 12942 at reply 77 designates, I can't find reference to it.
I like the fact that they preovide their baseline weighting for colour of 0.8 (red), 0.9 (green), and 1.0 (blue). But I also note their caveat on LED use in that this type of coloring can lead to artifacts when a particular LED reflects off a shiny surface, giving the false impression of a pure red, green, or blue feature.

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 83



PostPosted: July 26, 2008 12:25 AM 

Hi Brian

My reply 73 image was indeed using a strong magnet substrate with rotation 13411. That rotation is noted in the table which only goes up to images taken up to sol 30. The rotation for my reply 74 image is given in the image header and elsewhere but is not found on either the rotation wheel nor the table. It appears that that table would have to be updated to include many of the recent sol 57 and 58 OM releases. It appears to be just happenstance that the substrate of my reply 73 image was indeed referenced.

There are a number of statements in the document and elsewhere about the use of "before" and "after" images. However, I have not been able to find the "before" images for any of the releases that I and others have coloured. It is therefore possible that some of the discrete objects seen on those colourations might be artifacts in the substrates since no "before" images were available for comparison.

For example. A number of OM images were taken before sol 30 but none of those have been released as raw images so far. e.g. on sol 15 some "before" images without samples were taken and on sol 17 some "after" images with samples were taken. Similarly on Sol 25 some "before" images without samples were taken and on sol 26 some "after" images with samples were taken. None of those images appear to have been released so far. Indeed, only one "before" image seems to have been released so far. That is one that has been processed and is included in the NASA document that you referenced in your reply #78.

I will hold my judgement until some "before" and "after" images are released, but I have a few concerns re. the OM being able to truly resolve images that may be of the typical sizes of largish spores (c. 10-30 uM) in the presence of mineral grain particles of similar sizes.

Thanks again for your assistance and interest.

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 84



PostPosted: July 26, 2008 1:12 AM 

Brian

I just checked the page with the table again and all reference to rotational position 13411 is gone. It has a 3411 rotational position but that is reference, not to OM 57, but to OM 27, luckily both are strong magnets.

I'm almost certain that I saw the 13411 rotational position and OM 57 when I first checked that document.

Winston

brian Author Profile Page


Posts: 708

Reply: 85



PostPosted: July 26, 2008 3:31 AM 

Hey Winston.

You did. 13411 is on the second page of the table against OM 57. I would have expected the OM designation and rotation to have a fixed relationship as defined in the table vertical axis. But what would I know, I can't even figure out why they have both an alpha numeric and a numeric designation for the same position.

The before shot of the substrate you posted is above and to the left on the Phoenix OM thumbnails page. It is the one with the grid line labeled 05. Do a flicker and you will see all your artifacts in the before image.

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 86



PostPosted: July 26, 2008 9:10 AM 

Brian

Thanks again. I didn't realise that there were 2 pages to the pdf table. However it still goes to sol 30 only and there is no reference to the sol 12942 rotational position so I don't see a way yet to identify the substrate for that image. It seems as if the numbering system for the rotational position that links the substrate is quite obscure and perhaps unnecessarily so. Why could'nt they provide a number in the label that identifies the substrate? Why go to the necessity to have special tables to do this when they should be able to embed that information in the label for the image? Or have they done this already? Anyone knows how the label is decoded? That info has been published for the SS images. Why not the OMs?

Thanks again for the heads up on the "before" image for the 12942 rotational position. I suspect the substrate for those images was probably the textured substrate. If so, it's difficult to see how that substrate could be used to identify ambiguous and possibly non-mineral particles.


Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 87



PostPosted: July 26, 2008 7:01 PM 

2 more of my OM colourations from the sol 58 releases. I suspect that the substrates for these images might be the nanobucket one since that is the closest to the given rotational positions for the images.

I don't have a clue what the real colours might be. There are some interesting small particles amongst the larger ones. And, are we seeing a fairly large representation of clay particles in the samples?

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 88



PostPosted: August 3, 2008 1:15 AM 

Hi Hort

65 new OM images were released today. Some look very interesting. Will try to colourize on Monday or so as I'll be very busy with house guests tomorrow.

Winston

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 89



PostPosted: August 3, 2008 7:29 PM 

Sigh.

The AFM should be looking at this little bit of Mars as we speak.

Am I going to have to cut short my trip back to earth and start "thinking" again?

NOOooooo!

( Looks like I picked a bad week to give up imagej. )

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 90



PostPosted: August 3, 2008 9:40 PM 

Hi Hort

This is a rough colouration of your image above

The particle of interest is kind of large for the AFM but I agree that it should be imaged by the AFM.

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 91



PostPosted: August 3, 2008 11:13 PM 

Hi All

Anyone moticed the fragile, cottony like nature of those blobs that have been caught in several of the OMs? Anyone noticed that several of them seem to have small spheres embedded in them?

There are some other OM images with provocative spherical spots and with chains of spots that I am hoping to colourize. Several of them have been illuminated with just one coloured LED (Blue) so I can't do the colours.

Winston

mann


Posts: 161

Reply: 92



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 2:10 AM 

thanks Winston.
I see the odd branching shapes that dana highlighted in the first batch.

The cottony natured centery goodness, Seems to be the stuff SOD CLODS are made of.

Dos'nt blue fire up the ice?

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 93



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 8:16 AM 

Winston, I am sure every member of the Phoenix team has noticed the "cottony" nature of the soil clumps in the OM.

But it seems that the all the scientists on the team want to be a Maxwell and not "just" a Faraday.

And surely you know old boy, it is not proper ( sniff, sniff ) to notice anything on Mars until there is a plausible "they're just rocks" reason for the observation.

brian Author Profile Page


Posts: 708

Reply: 94



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 9:19 AM 

Nooooo! A fibrous silicate mineral. No wonder the regolith is such a good insulator. Asbestos. Nah probably not.

But it does look a lot like the (possibly)interstellar dust particles collected by Wallis et alat high altitude. Scanning electron-microscope but very similar.

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 95



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 10:36 AM 

Brian, thanks for the ( Earth ) high altitude "fluffy" dust ball image!

Once again highlighting the fact that whatever is happening on Mars is closer to what happens in a vacuum than what happens on the surface of the Earth.

Er, I presume the "dust grain" ( a thousand times smaller than the Mars OM "cottony" objects ) was analyzed for organics and found wanting?

Fred


Posts: 638

Reply: 96



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 12:13 PM 

Brian,

Good find. I will file this under the, “It looks like file.” Was this indeed interstellar dust or Earth fines at high levels? If so It would seem reasonable for it to collect on Mars. This does of course open up Pandora’s box in respect to planetary development.

Fred

mann


Posts: 161

Reply: 97



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 12:24 PM 

sometimes gypsum, gets the "root-like" look.

I'm glad brian sees the fibrous quality, holding the mass together.

Insulater? hmm the soil seems to composed of small layers, or plates, as seen in the images, on the sides of the trenches. It would be nice to get one of these "plates", on to the OM, to get agood look.

r lewis Author Profile Page


Posts: 202

Reply: 98



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 7:43 PM 

The fluffy bit in re 90 is a snowflake, or more accurately a frost flake. It is water cie crystals growing in situ on the whatever it is detector in re 90. The ice crystals come right out of the air, same process that grows snowflakes in clouds and frost in your freezer. Relative humidity and temperature are just right for frost formation. In fact, in a couple of months, a frost layer a meter thick is going to form and BURY phoenix. the frost is going to form right out of "thin" air, quite literally.

r lewis Author Profile Page


Posts: 202

Reply: 99



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 7:44 PM 

PS, the fluffy appearance is from the crystal structure of water ice. Think of it as the same thing as a snowflake, which is exactly what it is.

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 100



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 8:15 PM 

r_Lewis

Sounds very reasonable!!

All

There's a new NASA news release on the Craig COvault revelations situation here

It explains a lot but leaves a lot unsaid.
I have to go out now but will return to this in a few hours. LOts to speculate about.

Winston

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 ... 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