MECA-OM Images - Page 6

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
LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 101



PostPosted: August 4, 2008 11:19 PM 

Hi r_Lewis

Just thought. Why does'nt it sublime?

Winston

brian Author Profile Page


Posts: 708

Reply: 102



PostPosted: August 5, 2008 3:36 AM 

Winston.
But I think it is a majestic particle which is of intellectual worth. Or did you mean sublimate? Yeah OK, I will sit in the corner facing the wall - sorry.

Not sure about water ice. Certainly the particles(s) do not exhibit any of the characteristics of a water ice crystal under magnification.

KPM Author Profile Page


Posts: 836

Reply: 103



PostPosted: August 5, 2008 6:42 AM 

Reply #89

This is reasons why they are not looking as much as they should:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408033.stm

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 104



PostPosted: August 5, 2008 7:18 AM 

Hi Brian

When one is trying to entertain a visiting friend with a nine year old son who is intent on hogging one's computer and also taking the adults around it is quite easy to go from the ridiculous to the sublime without passing through the sublimation phase. But I will join you in the corner.

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 105



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 1:26 PM 

Hi All

Here are three more of my colourations of sol 69 and sol 70 OM images. The substrates are silicone for one sol 70 image and nanobucket for one sol 69 and one sol 70 image.

Sol 69, Nanobucket substrate

Sol 70 Silicone

Sol 70 Nanobucket

Winston

mann


Posts: 161

Reply: 106



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 2:00 PM 

Thank you for the efforts Winsto. Ive tried to make some myself and the darn things sure are blurry. I cannot get any detail whatsoever.

this is asample image using the Om on earth soil.

Hard to focus on mars i suppose.

I have also tried to make some of the super 3d's, that horton showed me how to make with the rover mi's by using the overlap on the images, but they do not work well as of yet.

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 107



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 5:58 PM 

er, Winston et al, do you "see" the two clear "drops" in the 2nd image of reply 105?

Naaaah. I just need more time away from Mars.

Fred


Posts: 638

Reply: 108



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 6:11 PM 


I be danged, yep

Fred

Fred


Posts: 638

Reply: 109



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 7:56 PM 

Good eyes hort.

Fred

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 110



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 8:20 PM 

Hi Hort / Fred

I think I see them. However, I think that they are just part of the silicone substrate. Check Mann's image at reply #106 and you will see similar "drops" in that Earth OM image.

Mann, where did you get that image? Are they any more that can be used for comparison purposes?

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 111



PostPosted: August 6, 2008 10:06 PM 

Hi All

Here are 4 RGB composites of today's (sol 71) OM releases. There are some interesting small spheres in some that have taken on different colours. There is one reddish dust particle which has some embedded spheres. They are all on Silicone media

Note that I have'nt a clue what the real colours of any of these images are.

Winston

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 112



PostPosted: August 7, 2008 10:59 PM 

Some more OM's released today (sol 72). Here's One. Interesting spots circled.

Lots of spots on this slide that might or might not be biological

Winston

hortonheardawho Author Profile Page


Posts: 3465

Reply: 113



PostPosted: August 7, 2008 11:16 PM 

I'm baaaaack!

sol 72 RAC 3D closeup of soil:

with links to several 3D closeup details.

Er, whos???

If you can't do x-eye 3D, then you can't fully appreciate the total weirdness of this stuff.

( Maybe I didn't stay away long enough. Looks like I picked a good week to start thinking again...)

Brian


Posts: 708

Reply: 114



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 12:28 AM 

Great x-eye. This soil is really cohesive and 'fluffy' in appearance - more so than in the area the MER have observed. The OM does seem to indicate inherent fibrous makeup in some particles. How good is the AFM at scanning pliable material?

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 115



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 12:49 AM 

Hi Hort

Welcome back! Great 3D as usual

Here are 3 more OM RGB's from sol 72. Some ambiguous bio-geo particles; substrates are weak magnet (earlier image) Silicone; Silicone; and Strong magnet. Some bio-looking objects also in strong and weak magnet substrates


Brian; I noted that the latest information on the perchlorates seems to be trending towards strengthening, rather than weakening the case for Viking Life. You should be pleased.

Winston

Brian


Posts: 708

Reply: 116



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 2:02 AM 

Now Winston, play nice.
You and others on this forum have an unshakeable faith that there is life on Mars. The definition of faith in this context being a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. Fair enough, nothing wrong with faith provided it does not take the leap to extremism where faith rejects any evidence that the idea is flawed.

My approach to this faith of life on Mars is one of empirical agnosticism. The existance of life on Mars is undetermined but could be proven one way or another as data is analysed.

My approach (and comments) are based on reviewing all possible explanations in context (and I stress in context) and accepting the most likely unless additional data requires a change. The simplest explanation of the importance of context in empirical agnosticism is Levin's water pools on Burns Cliff. Given the context an absolute impossibility.

With respect to Viking results empirical agnosticism notes that perchlorides would not provide the same outcomes as the Viking experiments. It also notes that the other constituents of the sample (ie oxides super or not, chlorates etc)have not been identified and that superchlorides would have been the first identified due to the nature of the sensor.

You have enough unqualified support on this forum Winston, and I am an admirer of your posts. But you need someone like me challenging you, but with the knowledge that if you can show me beyond reaonable doubt then yes - I will believe.

mann


Posts: 161

Reply: 117



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 3:17 AM 

Much better clarity Winston.

You have got to see hortons cross, problem is i know that you cannot. in this case, you cannot get the details, with out cross veiwing, 3d glyph, does not show the who's.

my my i'm LOL looking at the thingies in the image.

the circles do not seem to be warrented.

LWS Author Profile Page


Posts: 3062

Reply: 118



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 8:41 AM 

Hi Brian

Thanks for the comments.

I do not think that I have taken that leap to extremism that you speak of. I think I have pointed out several times that my starting point is the WORKING HYPOTHESIS (not belief) that the Viking LR experiments indeed found life. The alternative working hypothesis is that elusive superoxides, which have never been found on Mars, caused the reactions. Neither working hypothesis has been proven so far. I've been collecting data points on both sides of the equation but particularly on the life side.

I haven't ignored the facts that suggest there is no life, the most troubling of which is the continued failure to find Organics at the surface, but I am still hopeful that some will be found by Phoenix from samples below the surface.

RE. the perchlorides, my point has been that if perchlorides are present in significant quantity and fairly widespread on Mars their presence would not support a chemical explanation of the Viking LR and GEX results but would support a possibility that there might be anaerobic microbes utilizing them as an energy source that could explain the Viking results from the standpoint of biology.

As I've said many times, I really value your enlightened and scholarly views in this ongoing debate and appreciate the effort you have made in researching and pointing out several datapoints that support the anti-life argument.

Mann; The last set of OM images are slightly better than the previous ones however focusing is still off and so the particles are still not clearly demarcated from the surface, particularly on the silicone media.

I don't think i've made any claims about the circled areas except that the particles in them are of a size or shape that suggest to me that the AFM should look at them more closely. I don't think they should be passed of as unambiguous mineral origin.

I see some strange beasties in Hort's last image using a glyph of the image but as you suggested they are probably not as dramatic as can be seen in the original x-eyed view.

Winston

hortonheardawho Author Profile Page


Posts: 3465

Reply: 119



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 9:47 AM 

sol 72 OM RGBOU of fiber:

with link to full animation.

Yet another way to combine images. The brightness of an RGB was replaced by the O ( ambient )and U ( ultraviolet ) brightness exposures.

The net effect is that UV florescent features "brighten up" in the animation.

OK, the 256^2 question: Is the fiber Martian -- or an Earth hitchhiker?

IF if is Martian then what kind of fibers ( other than bioligical ) glow in UV illumination?

Naaah. The "clean room" just wasn't very clean.

You know, we really, really, need a "before sampling" tag in the metadata.

Fred


Posts: 638

Reply: 120



PostPosted: August 8, 2008 10:00 AM 

Hort,

Thanks for the images from all on the net that use them including me. You may not can get all of the dirt off the windows but better for sure.

Fred

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