Something shooting the sun? NASA removes images

reply to post by Rob48


I'll give you a couple of strikes per minute. However in space that is quite different. And you should remember that SOHO uses electronics several generations older than what you are used to.

Ya know...I have an old PC from the 90's, and it quite simply won't do what my current machine can...none of it! Vast difference between and old Pentium and a modern i7. Vast difference between the CCD used in SOHO and anything you will find today.

reply to post by tanka418


I never said it wasn't different in space. That was kind of the whole point of how we got onto this topic.

You seem to be arguing on two fronts. On one hand you were saying that there aren't enough cosmic rays on Earth to produce the strikes shown on CCDs (which there are), and then on the other hand you seem to be saying that there are too many strikes on the SOHO detector to be explainable by cosmic rays, even though it is 1.5 million kilometres from Earth in deep space, where the particle flux is hugely greater than it is down here.

Or are you now saying that SOHO shouldn't work at all (which it demonstrably does)? SOHO was designed to carry experiments to measure high-energy particles, so of course it was built to be pretty well hardened.

Edit: Here are the specs for the LASCO CCD.

And the electronics.

Plenty of redundancy built in as well as opto-isolation to minimise the risk of failure due to power surges.

tanka418
Yes, I'm fully aware of the nature of the components used in spacecraft...

Clearly not. You just tried to argue that spacecraft components are not hardened against space radiation. I repeat. You just tried to argue that spacecraft components are not hardened against space radiation.

tanka418
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Take a look at the original (raw) data sometime.

I do so all the time, you really have no idea. That's why I'm as familiar with cosmic ray strikes as I am. They are processed out of Hubble images, but they flood the raw data of individual long exposures. SOHO is tame by comparison.

Rob48
reply to post by hana1

 

It's not a case of accepting what Phage says. It's common sense. Anyone who has looked at SOHO images will have seen dozens of lines just like this and know exactly what they are.

As for the images being "airbrushed", have you any idea of the volume of data coming back from space and being collected in real time?

It must be pretty awful living in such a confused and paranoid state of mind all the time.

It must be pretty awful living in such a confused state of mind that you cannot recognise obvious sarcasm even with the wink at the end.

As for the volume of data being collected and presented to the public in real time, have you any idea what lag is and how much lag there would be transmitting data back to earth? Technically not in real time.

Good try though.
Better luck next time.

Tip: Lookup the definition to a word called sarcasm might help you from getting butthurt over nothing in the future.

You're welcome

SonoftheSun
reply to post by hana1

 

I so knew phage would use cosmic rays & everyone would just accept it like the sheep they are...lol

Perhaps because it makes sense?

There are some good links on this thread to learn a thing or two (or three)..you should try reading them some day..

Baahhhhhhhhhh...

Thanks for the suggestion but I don't need to learn anything since I know what they are and my post was obviously sarcastic in nature.

Rob48
Edit: Here are the specs for the LASCO CCD.

And the electronics.

Plenty of redundancy built in as well as opto-isolation to minimise the risk of failure due to power surges.

edit on 15-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry man, but those links are NOT specifications.

I think we done here. You truly have no idea what I'm trying to say. Not surprised tough...

I would ask; why you accept the "word" / info from NASA, who are not and have never been any kind of authority on electronics over the "word" / info from an organization who IS and has always been considered the world authority on electrical engineering. That would be the IEEE...

It is a very, very good thing that neither of you design electronic systems...

I just gotta ask...What the hell is that business about the opto-isolators? I mean seriously man, opto-isolators in a battery powered device? Really??!!!!!!!!??? If true those were some talented engineers!!! Ya know, I'm supposed to be retired now, but, back in my day (you know...when SOHO was originally designed), we could get "fired" for wasting money, resources, etc. like that. There is no need for opto-isolation in a device like SOHO! Opto-isolators add expense, weight, and latency to the system...all of which are serious errors in spacecraft design as well as electronic systems.

Sorry guys, but, you have demonstrated zero understanding of electronics, and physics here...better luck next time.

ngchunter

tanka418
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Take a look at the original (raw) data sometime.

I do so all the time, you really have no idea. That's why I'm as familiar with cosmic ray strikes as I am. They are processed out of Hubble images, but they flood the raw data of individual long exposures. SOHO is tame by comparison.

Busted!!! You have absolutely no idea of the nature of the data processing those images go through before you ever get to see them! As for having "seen" the original/raw data...you apparently have never seen any...virtually all of the "noise" that appear in the public images that NASA supplies from SOHO, the stuff you are calling "cosmic rays", results from the "amplification" that is applied to the image data. The "cosmic rays" rarely appear in the original data, and some of it is purely processing artifact. Much of what you are calling "cosmic ray" were near dark pixels that have been "amplified"...in this case way too much.

I find myself somewhat surprised, that you as photographers would not object to the level of processing of those images. As a data professional I am appalled.

reply to post by tanka418


I'm by no means an expert of electronics or cosmic rays, but I feel I gotta step in here:

1. What kind of processing is done to the raw images before the public sees them?

2. How can "amplification" and "dark pixels" you mention create long streaks of light?

3. Even if such artifacts are what we see, why would NASA and other professional organisations call them all cosmic rays? Do you believe they just think we're all dumb and will leave it at that?

tanka418

I'm sorry man, but those links are NOT specifications.

Really? And what extra info do you need regarding the CCD that isn't on that link and the related technical notes?

I would ask; why you accept the "word" / info from NASA, who are not and have never been any kind of authority on electronics over the "word" / info from an organization who IS and has always been considered the world authority on electrical engineering. That would be the IEEE...

As you know, NASA didn't build it. LASCO, the part we are discussing here, was built by a consortium consisting of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC; the
Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Lindau, Germany; the
Department of Physics and Space Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England; and the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France. All hopeless amateurs who know far less than some guy who hangs around making "extraterrestrial event" predictions on a slightly flaky message board, clearly.

Sorry guys, but, you have demonstrated zero understanding of electronics, and physics here...better luck next time.

Says the person who, until dragged kicking and screaming into doing a simple calculation, was swearing blind that the cosmic ray flux at the Earth's surface amounted to around 50 strikes a month on a PC! And that the cosmic ray strikes seen on CCDs in Earth couldn't possibly be cosmic ray strikes but were instead simply "noise". Come on, you've grudgingly accepted you were wrong about that, so why are you still keeping up this charade? I thought that once you saw your mistake the penny might finally drop, but no.

I hope to hell you know more about your actual topic of expertise than you do about this, and are less arrogant when you come up against a topic outside your remit, or I would feel very sorry for your clients.

You clearly don't know what SOHO is or why it was launched if you think that it isn't detecting cosmic rays.

tanka418

ngchunter

tanka418
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Take a look at the original (raw) data sometime.

I do so all the time, you really have no idea. That's why I'm as familiar with cosmic ray strikes as I am. They are processed out of Hubble images, but they flood the raw data of individual long exposures. SOHO is tame by comparison.

Busted!!! You have absolutely no idea of the nature of the data processing those images go through before you ever get to see them!

Your ignorant arrogance knows no bounds. So you "know" what I've seen? Wrong. You fail again, and again, and again.

As for having "seen" the original/raw data...you apparently have never seen any...virtually all of the "noise" that appear in the public images that NASA supplies from SOHO, the stuff you are calling "cosmic rays", results from the "amplification" that is applied to the image data. The "cosmic rays" rarely appear in the original data, and some of it is purely processing artifact. Much of what you are calling "cosmic ray" were near dark pixels that have been "amplified"...in this case way too much.

I have seen the raw data, you really have no clue what you're talking about. You have no idea who you're talking to, no idea of just how much I know, but I know this. You don't know what you're talking about. Yes, processing artifacts are sometimes introduced, but this is not that. "Amplification" lol. You mean it's at the bottom of the image's histogram? Congrats, most data in most astronomical images are at the bottom of the histogram. So what? You are NOT an astrophotographer, you do NOT know how to process astronomical images, you are in NO position to declare what is "too much." Now, here are some of my latest works in astronomical image processing:



That last one is a Hubble image, and yes, I processed it myself from the raw data. The raw frames DO contain cosmic rays. Here is one of the raw frames that went into that image (be aware that this image is held in temporary storage space on the server because I requested the image just now, it will be deleted after a period of time):

stdatu.stsci.edu...
Here's a JPG converted from that raw data, no processing, just to show all the cosmic ray streaks which fill the image, some large, some small (and that was just within a few minutes of exposure time, not hours as in the previous cases):
h.dropcanvas.com...

I showed you a scientific journal article detailing the rate of cosmic ray detections here on earth with a CCD even smaller than mine! Hmmm, who should we trust, the opinion of an anonymous ATS'er who claims to be an electrical engineer but shows absolutely no knowledge of astronomical CCDs or imaging, or scientific studies detailing the fact that yes, cosmic rays DO produce these streaks in images, even on earth!

I guess astrophotography master Michael Covington needs to print a retraction for his next version of Digital SLR Astrophotography as well...

books.google.com/books?id=Agho6QnsrzsC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=cosmic+rays+astrophotography&source=bl&ots=Gi-wcY56Oy&sig=K9AzyFKIIYK-dbEdOWDNZEv2K44&hl= en&sa=X&ei=OJZOU56eENa2yASfwYKIDw&ved=0CIABEOgBMA4#v=onepage&q=cosmic%20rays%20astrophotography&f=false

Figure 11.4

Another published example, by Grant Privett

books.google.com/books?id=4I4dLBZCCDgC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=astrophotography+cosmic+ray&source=bl&ots=Z9BEf9roRM&sig=To2J3NsQiA60gifJW1nuM_a05lM&hl=en& sa=X&ei=FpdOU9vMNYOiyATyo4DIBw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=astrophotography%20cosmic%20ray&f=false

And oh look, he mentions (and shows) the Hubble raw data as well. Yes, as you can see above, you can examine the raw data prior to any processing. So according to you, this publisher needs to print a retraction or correction as well. Better get cracking, you've got a lot of writing to publishers to do so that you can set the record straight...


It is stunning the level of ignorance you have displayed, but I am fast realizing that ATS is becoming a hive for ignorance, and supports ignorant claims even when shown to be false. There was a time when threads like this one would find themselves in the hoax bin for having been proven to be hoaxes, but not any more.

Rob48
Really? And what extra info do you need regarding the CCD that isn't on that link and the related technical notes?

All of the technical specifications for a start. You know...how big is, what is the "scale" of the integration (how many nanometers). What voltages and currents are required / expected... little stuff that actually tells us "how" it works.

For instance: what is the thickness of the insulating film between "pixels"...how big are the "pixels" (charge coupling cells).

Then we can go on to how is it configured in the circuit (electrical configuration), how is it logically integrated with the rest of the electronics / processing system?

A whole plethora of issues that you will never think of that have direct effect on the performance, and operation of the part.

tanka418

Rob48
Really? And what extra info do you need regarding the CCD that isn't on that link and the related technical notes?

All of the technical specifications for a start. You know...how big is, what is the "scale" of the integration (how many nanometers). What voltages and currents are required / expected... little stuff that actually tells us "how" it works.

For instance: what is the thickness of the insulating film between "pixels"...how big are the "pixels" (charge coupling cells).

Are you really asking about the sensor size and the pixel size, both of which are in the second sentence of the link? Clearly you didn't bother to read it at all!

-----

Each of the LASCO telescopes uses a front-side illuminated, 1024x1024 pixel CCD manufactured by Tektronix for recording images. The imaging area is a 21.5 mm square, and each pixel is a square, 0.021 mm per side. The device is operated in the Multi-Phase-Pinned (MPP) mode. While the MPP mode reduces the full well, it keeps thermally generated noise (dark current) to a minimum. The noise immunity of the MPP implant also helps to avoid the effects of noise generated by energetic particle radiation. The quantum efficiency of the CCD is about 0.3-0.5 in the 500 to 700 nm spectral region.

The flight candidate CCDs have very few defects, less than 10 hot or dark pixels over the entire array, and no column defects. Since the full well capacity is between 150,000 and 250,000 electrons, and the read noise of the output amplifier is approximately 5 electrons, a dynamic range exceeding 30,000 is possible. Both vertical and horizontal charge transfer efficiencies (CTEs) are better than 0.999999 for signal levels greater than 0.1 of full well. At low signal levels (0.01 of full well), the CTE drops to about 0.999995.

[...]

The CCD camera was designed to be very conservative in the critical spacecraft resources of power and mass, using about 5 watts power, and weighing about 3 kg. The CCD is operated at -80 C. It is susceptible to condensation, and needs to be kept very clean. Thus, the camera electronics are housed in a compartment separated from the CCD, and vented to the box exterior. The CCDs are cooled by passively radiating heat to deep space. A temperature of -80 C was chosen to reduce the effects of permanent proton radiation damage to the bulk silicon, which causes a drastic drop in the ability of the CCD to transfer charge. The CTE can then drop to 0.999, which would virtually destroy the image quality. The effect of this CTE difference is that for a point in the center of the array, the photoelectron charge packet would be reduced by 64% for a CTE of 0.999, compared to only 0.1% for the nondamaged CCD. Providing a mechanical shield only reduces the damage effects by a factor of about 3-6 for a reasonable shield thickness, which is insufficient, but cooling to below -70 C can avoid almost completely the CTE damage produced by radiation effects.

The camera accepts commands to initiate various setup parameters, to initiate the clearing cycle, and then to initiate readout. The readout rate is 50,000 pixels/sec, or about 22 sec for a full image readout. The camera provides all of the clock signals and voltages required by the CCD and the analog signal processing chain. The camera can also control the CCD. Unwanted lines can be dumped at the rate of 0.060 msec per line. Thus any line on the CCD can be accessed within about 60 msec. Additional capabilities of the cameras include setting the number of cycles for clearing, setting slow or fast line dumping, reading out of any one of the four CCD chip output ports, and setting of certain voltages for radiation damage compensation. While it is possible to use any of the CCD output ports and their associated electronics lines for an image readout, the camera design has resulted in the readout electronics associated with the CCD chip "D" output port having the best noise performance, less than 1 DN (Digital Number) without the CCD in place. The best output port on the CCD chips generally has a noise performance of 1 DN also, but this is not necessarily from the chip D port. The readout line with the best combined readout electronics noise and CCD port noise performance will be used until a failure occurs, forcing the use of another port.

The analog signal processing amplifies the output of the CCD (about 1.5-2.0 x 10E-6 volts per electron) by a factor of about 30, and uses the usual double-correlated sampling technique to sample the photoelectron charge packet. In this technique, the CCD output is measured just prior to injection of the electron charge packet, establishing a reference level. The CCD output is again sampled after the charge packet is injected, and the difference from the reference level is measured. The analog signal is digitized to 14 bits by an analog- to-digital converter, with a quantization step of about 15-20 electrons. The noise of the entire process is less than 10 electrons, so that the entire dynamic range of the system is the full 14 bits, or about 16,000. Note that this does not cover the full dynamic range that the CCD can achieve. Since the total system noise has been measured to be about 25 electrons, the noise will be dominated by photon noise.


Now, I am not going to pretend that I understand every word of that, but from what I know of image sensor technology I get the gist. I am sure that as an electrical engineer that will be bread and butter to you.


Oh and not to mention this:

I mean seriously man, opto-isolators in a battery powered device? Really??!!!!!!!!???

Yes, really. Just like Hubble, just like the Mars rover missions... With your EE background, were you really not aware that optocouplers are commonly used in spacecraft? I shouldn't really be surprised, I suppose.

Really I don't know what your aim is on this thread. You have consistently been wrong about just about everything.

You claimed that there is no such thing as an astronomical CCD: wrong

You claimed that spacecraft hardware isn't radiation hardened; only military/nuclear hardware: wrong

You claimed that a CCD in a camera on Earth cannot record hundreds of strikes in a few hours: wrong

You claimed that SOHO would be rapidly disabled by particle flux: wrong

You claimed that the streaks shown on the SOHO images are not cosmic rays: wrong

Now you are claiming that you know how to build a spacecraft better than people who build spacecraft for a living!


Have you ever heard the expression "When you're in a hole, stop digging"?

LightningStrikesHere

sparky31

Urantia1111
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

Folks, please stop deferring to Phage. He is here to convice you that NOTHING is happening EVER. Evaluate the evidence YOURSELF and stop being willingly spoonfed whatever Phage decides is the truth. Ffs, its like a cult with his loyal followers.

no offence phage but its true,its like every post and someones saying wheres phage to clarify this,unless your the messiah then your like the rest of us,you don,t know and people should learn this. cmon people hes just a poster like us,he doesn,t know everything,have ur own opinion and stop going phage has said it deffo aint true so i got to believe it. jesus

Right! I would rather believe logic over ...say a giant death ray hitting the sun?


SMH......

JUST SAYING ;-)

You are right, IMO they are stoking up the sun, and getting ready to put a big pot on top of it, filled with water and vegetables, and then guess what?? YES in you go, they are gonna make some nice stew out of us all, thats the other side of this story.
Like others here, I am not sure what the hell we are all supposed to be seeing, and as for thinking there is other life forms out to help us, why would they? what the hell makes us so important? what makes us worth saving? and what for? unless of course WE ARE an experiment in progress by some other life forms... I find Phage very informed and at least his reasoning is credible, and on this occasion I agree with his theory, it makes much more logical sense than some giant other world craft firing beams or lasers into the sun... Oh dear I said that too loud, here come the white coats...........

reply to post by flipflop




Not saying it's not possible ! Heck i would welcome such an event.. However PHAGE provided enough evidence to support theory ,it seemed logical to me ;-)

Rob48
Yes, really. Just like Hubble, just like the Mars rover missions... With your EE background, were you really not aware that optocouplers are commonly used in spacecraft? I shouldn't really be surprised, I suppose.

You're funny! Spacecraft are better served with copper for both signal and power distribution. There are no bandwidth issues that copper transmission of data can't handle. Copper is more reliable, uses fewer parts and most importantly, fewer connectors.

But I guess you would have difficulty with power, and signal transmission systems. So we won't go there.

Really I don't know what your aim is on this thread. You have consistently been wrong about just about everything.

You claimed that there is no such thing as an astronomical CCD: wrong

Sorry...I didn't say that. You thought I did, but, that is not what I said at all. I said there are no astronomical CCDs. Oh look there you misunderstand again! You see...when you refer to a "CCD" you are talking about a specialized computer system that is capable of capturing images. Commonly known as a "Digital Camera".

When I talk about a "CCD" I'm talking about a Charge Coupled Device...and only the CCD (device). The machine you are mistakenly calling a "CCD" does what it does because it has a CCD (device) in it to allow the digital sampling of image data.

That data must them be processed into an image format that is compliant with your PC.

You claimed that spacecraft hardware isn't radiation hardened; only military/nuclear hardware: wrong

Again, no. I said that kind of hardware is typically reserved for military. BTW that is part of "why" military electronic hardware is a few years behind the industry. The hardening process isn't done to all electronic components, and thus, the selection of components available for use is limited, and, typically, older.

You claimed that a CCD in a camera on Earth cannot record hundreds of strikes in a few hours: wrong

Yes you are correct you may record many secondary cosmic rays. However, virtually none of them originate in space, nor are they "alpha particles". These secondary "cosmic rays" are far less harmful, and are not the typical "cosmic ray" found in space.

You claimed that SOHO would be rapidly disabled by particle flux: wrong

Yep, I sure did! Further, IF the particle density was what you think it is; the system would have failed in its first moments of operation. Which, by the way, it almost did!

You claimed that the streaks shown on the SOHO images are not cosmic rays: wrong

Again: YEP I sure did! Those streaks that measure anything over 20 - 30 micrometers; are not cosmic rays...I'll let ou figure out "why", and I promise its not too deep.

Now you are claiming that you know how to build a spacecraft better than people who build spacecraft for a living!

That would be yet another misinterpretation.

Your reading and comprehension skill seem to need some work.

Have you ever heard the expression "When you're in a hole, stop digging"?

Hmmmmm...sees like you should take your own advice.

tanka418


You're funny! Spacecraft are better served with copper for both signal and power distribution. There are no bandwidth issues that copper transmission of data can't handle. Copper is more reliable, uses fewer parts and most importantly, fewer connectors.

Good grief, do you still not get it? It's not about bandwidth, it's about protection! Go check the parts list for just about any deep space craft. The whole point of using opto-isolators is to ... wait for it... isolate components from unwanted and potentially harmful current. Now, can you imagine why that might be useful when you have a whole bunch of sensitive systems in an environment with lots of energetic particles around? Or would you rather link everything up with copper wire so that if one bit gets zapped, the whole lot gets zapped?

You keep telling us you know about electrical engineering but just about everything you write shows that you don't. I have a degree in chemistry, not physics or engineering, but even I can see why optocouplers are used. Why can't you? I can just imagine you going up to the engineers like Harry Enfield, saying "Ooh, you don't wanna build it like that, you wanna build it like this! You don't wanna be using optocouplers, you wanna nice bit of copper wiring in there. Bish bash bosh, lovely!"

Sorry...I didn't say that. You thought I did, but, that is not what I said at all. I said there are no astronomical CCDs. Oh look there you misunderstand again! You see...when you refer to a "CCD" you are talking about a specialized computer system that is capable of capturing images. Commonly known as a "Digital Camera".

When I talk about a "CCD" I'm talking about a Charge Coupled Device...and only the CCD (device). The machine you are mistakenly calling a "CCD" does what it does because it has a CCD (device) in it to allow the digital sampling of image data.

You don't need to use all those "quote marks" like you are talking to first-year students who don't know what a CCD is. We know what CCDs are, and the phrase "astronomical CCD" is widely used in the industry to describe the CCD with the associated cooling system and image output. Do you quibble when people refer to a "microwave" rather than a "microwave oven"?

Again, no. I said that kind of hardware is typically reserved for military. BTW that is part of "why" military electronic hardware is a few years behind the industry. The hardening process isn't done to all electronic components, and thus, the selection of components available for use is limited, and, typically, older.

Fill in the blanks: Part of the hardening process, of course, is to isolate sensitive components, for example by the use of ___________s instead of copper wire. Clue: they include an LED and a phototransistor.

Still stuck? Here's another clue: Isocom Limited is a leading Manufacturer of HIgh-Performance IC Optocouplers providing isolation for High-Voltage Power Systems in radiation hard environments with Space, Satellite, High-Performance Military and High-Rel Commercial Infrastructure applications.

Again: YEP I sure did! Those streaks that measure anything over 20 - 30 micrometers; are not cosmic rays...

Hmm, you are changing your story now. Only those longest ones, eh (some of which I will accept may be caused by reflections from dust particles)? May I remind you that you previously wrote: virtually all of the "noise" that appear in the public images that NASA supplies from SOHO, the stuff you are calling "cosmic rays", results from the "amplification" that is applied to the image data. The "cosmic rays" rarely appear in the original data, and some of it is purely processing artifact. Much of what you are calling "cosmic ray" were near dark pixels that have been "amplified". Now suddenly it's only the longest streaks that are not cosmic rays and you are ignoring the rest?

Your reading and comprehension skill seem to need some work.

You failed to find the CCD specs which were in sentence 2 of the files I linked. Physician, heal thyself.

Yeah, weird sun phenomena is happening a lot more than when I was a little kid. This morning I noticed at around 930am that a cloud immediately to the right of the sun was kinda glowing neon-blue or sorta purplish, lit up a tip of the cloud while the rest of the cloud was natural white/grey. I also saw the best meteor of my life last week. How did I know it wasn't a crash landing alien ship? Because it wobbled like other meteors or comets I've seen. But god damn that was the most beautiful meteor I'd ever seen. It glowed like an angel.

Like I was typing before. Lots of strange sun phenomenon. I ain't gonna let the critics or naysayers or skeptics change that. I know something is up with the sun.

reply to post by Asynchrony


What do iridescent clouds and meteors have to do with the sun, exactly?

Rob48

Good grief, do you still not get it? It's not about bandwidth, it's about protection! Go check the parts list for just about any deep space craft.

No actually, it is you that doesn't get it. I'm an EE, I deal with this stuff professionally, with great success for nearly 40 years now. You do what?

In computing systems, it is always about bandwidth. But then again, I guess there's not much sacrifice considering, and we didn't know much better back in the day.

You failed to find the CCD specs which were in sentence 2 of the files I linked. Physician, heal thyself.

You have yet to provide the manufacturer and link to the datasheet of the CCD (device).