Enhanced video of cloud chamber glow

[Jon W Mooney]

Hi all,

Reference postings: Unidentified object in a cloud chamber

I brightened up the video, grayscaled it and posted it in a higher quality
format. I think this shows that the movement of the glow is correlated to
the condensation trails (i.e. trails form, end or change direction at the
positions that the glow changes direction) and therefore, it is more likely
that the glow originates in the plane of the cloud chamber floor and less
likely that it originates in the plane of the front glass of the chamber.

The enhanced video is http://www.jwmooney.com/moonpup.avi

It is 25 Mb. I've got an even better enhancement but it takes up half a
gig.

Put your video player on repeat play to help pick out the condensation
trails.

One new observation: the glow appears to "squash" on the first "bounce."

Thanks for your comments and help!

- Jon

[Murray Arnow]

acoustics@jwmooney.com wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Reference postings: Unidentified object in a cloud chamber
>
>I brightened up the video, grayscaled it and posted it in a higher quality
>format. I think this shows that the movement of the glow is correlated to
>the condensation trails (i.e. trails form, end or change direction at the
>positions that the glow changes direction) and therefore, it is more likely
>that the glow originates in the plane of the cloud chamber floor and less
>likely that it originates in the plane of the front glass of the chamber.
>
>The enhanced video is http://www.jwmooney.com/moonpup.avi
>

There still appear to be too many variables to make a conclusion. More
questions:

Do you see the trails without the video camera and the its lighting setup?

Do the trails still appear without the "source" buttons?

The recording appears to be made with a handheld device. Is it possible to
make the recording using a more stable platform; such as, a tripod?

[Jon W Mooney]

Murray Arnow wrote:

>
> There still appear to be too many variables to make a conclusion. More
> questions:
>
> Do you see the trails without the video camera and the its lighting setup?
>
> Do the trails still appear without the "source" buttons?
>
> The recording appears to be made with a handheld device. Is it possible to
> make the recording using a more stable platform; such as, a tripod?

Hi Murray,

Agreed, this needs a controlled experiment as a follow-up.

Considering just the existing video, where do you say the logic fails?

1) glow correlates with appearance of condensation trails
2) condensation trails are in plane of chamber floor

therefore

3) glow is likely in the plane of chamber floor

Thanks again for your help.

- Jon

[Murray Arnow]

acoustics@jwmooney.com wrote:
>Murray Arnow wrote:
>
>>
>> There still appear to be too many variables to make a conclusion. More
>> questions:
>>
>> Do you see the trails without the video camera and the its lighting setup?
>>
>> Do the trails still appear without the "source" buttons?
>>
>> The recording appears to be made with a handheld device. Is it possible to
>> make the recording using a more stable platform; such as, a tripod?
>
>Hi Murray,
>
>Agreed, this needs a controlled experiment as a follow-up.
>
>Considering just the existing video, where do you say the logic fails?
>
> 1) glow correlates with appearance of condensation trails
> 2) condensation trails are in plane of chamber floor
>
>therefore
>
> 3) glow is likely in the plane of chamber floor
>

The problem I see is that these trails don't behave like condensation
trails. Condensation trails typically persist from many seconds to
minutes. The trails in the two videos disappear almost immediately. I also
can't tell from one view if the trail is in a plane. My first impression
was a helical trail. Also, I'm not sure why you say glow. Can you see the
trails with the lights off?

My wild guess as to what you're recording is variations in the index of
refraction, and what you are seeing is something like the shimmering one
sees down a road on a warm and sunny day.

[Jon W Mooney]

>
> The problem I see is that these trails don't behave like condensation
> trails. Condensation trails typically persist from many seconds to
> minutes. The trails in the two videos disappear almost immediately. I also
> can't tell from one view if the trail is in a plane. My first impression
> was a helical trail. Also, I'm not sure why you say glow. Can you see the
> trails with the lights off?
>
> My wild guess as to what you're recording is variations in the index of
> refraction, and what you are seeing is something like the shimmering one
> sees down a road on a warm and sunny day.

It's not clear to me that you see both the "glow" and the condensation
trails. ("Glow" may not have been the best choice of names.)

What I call the "glow" is the bright spot that appears to travel in a
backwards N pattern, across the 8 inch width of the cloud chamber. The
"glow" was not visible except through the camera lens. It may be a
variation in the index of refraction (that's a pretty good wild guess).

The condensation trails are separate from the "glow." There is one that
appears at the bottom of the N about 1 second after the "glow" passes that
point. It is about 1/4 inch long and lasts maybe 1/2 second. There are
two V shaped condensation trails that appear at the top of the N. These
are each about 1 inch long and last several seconds. These condensation
trails were visible to the eye and were seen to form just above, and then
fall to the floor of the chamber (they seemed to be composed of large
droplets which immediately fell to the floor of the chamber).

- Jon

[Murray Arnow]

acoustics@jwmooney.com wrote:
>
>It's not clear to me that you see both the "glow" and the condensation
>trails. ("Glow" may not have been the best choice of names.)
>

I don't see any "glow."

>What I call the "glow" is the bright spot that appears to travel in a
>backwards N pattern, across the 8 inch width of the cloud chamber. The
>"glow" was not visible except through the camera lens. It may be a
>variation in the index of refraction (that's a pretty good wild guess).
>
>The condensation trails are separate from the "glow." There is one that
>appears at the bottom of the N about 1 second after the "glow" passes that
>point. It is about 1/4 inch long and lasts maybe 1/2 second. There are
>two V shaped condensation trails that appear at the top of the N. These
>are each about 1 inch long and last several seconds. These condensation
>trails were visible to the eye and were seen to form just above, and then
>fall to the floor of the chamber (they seemed to be composed of large
>droplets which immediately fell to the floor of the chamber).
>

I don't see anything you describe. Unless you can run this experiment
under more controlled conditions, it's a waste of time for me to analyze
what you are seeing. I have asked a number of questions in this thread
which weren't answered. When you are able to answer those questions, maybe
we can proceed.

[Jon W Mooney]

Murray Arnow wrote:


>
> I don't see any "glow."
>
>
> I don't see anything you describe.

Actually, that's very useful information for me. Thank you for saying it.

- Jon

[Spud]

> Jon W Mooney wrote:
> > Murray Arnow wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any "glow."
> >
> > I don't see anything you describe.
>
> Actually, that's very useful information for me. Thank you for saying it.

I went through the video frame by frame and it looks like a reflection
caused by a wristwatch or something similar.

Spud

[Jon W Mooney]

Spud wrote:

>
> I went through the video frame by frame and it looks like a reflection
> caused by a wristwatch or something similar.
>
> Spud

That was my initial perception also.

But I also see several condensation trails that appear to be highly
correlated in both time and apparent position with the "reflection." And
since condensation trails only form close to the floor of the cloud
chamber, that is strong evidence that the "reflection" also travels along
the floor of the cloud chamber.

Unfortunately, no one else in this newsgroup has posted that they too can
see the condensation trails. I can point out the condensation trails to
other people on this side of the screen and they all have said, 'Oh yeah, I
see it now.' so I think the problem is that the signal to noise ratio
(acoustics talk) of the video is low.

I want to perform controlled follow-on experiments as others have suggested
here. Since the camera seems to be an important part of the experiment I'm
concerned that the results will still be limited by the low signal to noise
ratio of the picture.

Thanks,

- Jon