A different sort of SOHO image

While I was examining SOHO image, writting my article on cosmic rays I found this odd thing.

It is from the C3 Imager, taken 01 Jun, 2012 at 01:30hrs. The "structure" is top and right.

On magnifying the image in photoshop I noticed what "looks" kind of like a "shadow".



The shadow is circled in red. And, as you can clearly see, the noise pattern is rather different , and this difference "seems" to be a shadow cast by the "object".

Cosmic rays, and solid objects I can understand, but this; this makes little sense. It would appear that an bject is casting a shadow onto space? How does that work?

ANd, no Phage; this isn't cosmic rays, though the "object" might be. But then I don't really care about the "object" right now, I want to know how it casts a shadow!

By the way, I "think" I know its not a shadow, just lookin for other idea.

Well...I wish I could provide some knowledgeable feedback however I haven't a clue. I am posting to so I can see what other think though. Very intriguing for sure.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda


Which picture did you take into photoshop. And yes its interesting. I take some of the Soho images into Gimp at times.

I just noticed your other thread, will take a look.

What now, a flying guitar UFO?

Originally posted by Imtor
What now, a flying guitar UFO?

lol I didn't see that. Too interested in the "shadow" i guess.

But, yeah! Why not? As long as their "Rock n' Roll" is good.

Actually that "structure", but for its apparent shadw could be just a very rare combination of cosmic ray "streaks" and "strikes", From the size of the nearly "saturated" areas it would seem they contained "some" energy.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda


If this is an object, and is casting a shadow, what is the object casting its shadow on?

Sorry hit enter to soon.
As you pointed out, it cannot be casting it on space, or at least I don't believe it can.

if what i'm looking at is the edge of the sun's circumference, then that object, if it where an object, would be the size of 2 earths.

It is from the C3 Imager, taken 01 Jun, 2012 at 01:30hrs

Are you sure? I don't see it.


But since it seems to be behind the occulting disc arm it would be reasonable to assume it has something to do with the processing of the image. If you can provide the actual date/time of the image we can have a look at the raw image.

Originally posted by Phage

It is from the C3 Imager, taken 01 Jun, 2012 at 01:30hrs

But since it seems to be behind the occulting disc arm it would be reasonable to assume it has something to do with the processing of the image. If you can provide the actual date/time of the image we can have a look at the raw image.

I'm sorry I thought I did give the image data; LASCO C3 2011 06 01 01:30

As for the "object"; I think is several different phenomena all in the same area. This too would be a quite rare event. Howecer it is the area to the right of the "object" that I find curious. It is almost like a shadow, and, the typical background noise is less in this region as well.

Appologies all. I typed the wrong date for this image. I should pay better attention sometimes.

the image is 01 JUN, 2011 01:30 hrs

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
On magnifying the image in photoshop I noticed what "looks" kind of like a "shadow".

OMG ITS DA COSMIC FLUFFY BUNNY WHO HOPS AMONGST THE STARS!!

First, here is the raw image from here (click for full size):
sharpp.nrl.navy.mil...

The dynamic range is very high, in order to show any detail of the corona, the image must be highly processed. This is done with an automatic process. But one thing is immediately obvious, the pylon (arm) which holds the occulting disk which blocks the Sun casts an obvious shadow across the frame. Notice that no stars are visible behind the arm.

Now, here is a crop (enlarged 2x) of the 1024 x 1024 version of the processed image from here:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...


Here is a crop of the same area from the raw image:


Notice that the cosmic ray appears in front of the occulting disk pylon. This alone is enough to demonstrate that it is something which has occurred within the imaging device. Notice again that that no stars appear in front of the pylon. It also seems that the strike has produced some secondary particles (electrons maybe, judging by the "wiggle").

Now, here is an animation of the two. The effects of the image processing required to bring out details of the corona are obvious. Notice the "noise" in the processed image where the raw image shows nothing but black. The processing software "knows" there shouldn't be anything in the shadow of the pylon but there is, so it extrapolates, in this case it has extrapolated from the cosmic ray hit and produced a "ghost" of it.


The same effect is seen whenever a cosmic ray strike occurs within the shadow of the pylon.

reply to post by Phage


Sounds rather ... poorly engineered!

By the way, the text link at the top (above your image) doesn't return useful data.

I can understand what your area saying. However, what I don't understand is the requirement of the "pylon" not any software extrapolation. Grade school engineering would almost seem to exclude such insipid idea as the need for a "pylon", and with it the extra software overhead.

I've also noticed in many of these images there are "dead" spots that seem to remain in the active map. There are also "hot" (always on) that seem to remain in the active map.

My problem, perhaps, is that I am an optimistic engineer, I truly want to think that other engineers are doing their job right. Then I see s*** like this, I all but throw my arms in the air from the exasperation.

Where did you hear about the "pylon"? I can almost hear the argument in the engineering meetings over this. The use of a "pylon" is contraindicated in an application such as this. So, I think I gotta see some docs.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Grade school engineering would almost seem to exclude such insipid idea as the need for a "pylon", and with it the extra software overhead.

Fine, you go talk to the engineers who designed the coronagraphs. I'm sure they could benefit from your alien engineering expertise what with all the size, weight, and power constraints. What "extra software overhead"?
solar.njit.edu...


BTW, It's a "fits" file. It is the raw image format. I'm surprised that an expert like you wouldn't know that. I'm surprised that an expert like you would make so many assumptions while knowing virtually nothing about what you are talking about or even bothering to find out.

reply to post by Phage


I never said I was an expert! Ionly said I was a retired hardware / software engineer.

A "fits" file? ....... There; thats better.

FITS : Flexible Image Transport System.

Now there is widely used protocol! Do you know where to get more of the "fits" files? I noticed it has been implemented in my current "favorite language" (well ... the one I use most) C#, and a lace I may be able to get the libraries.

So ... if the insurance companies, print shops, banks, etc. can "ste off" just a wee bit, I'll build something that will allow me (us) to look a bit deeper into the data. Prolly take 6 - 8 weeks though considering my schedule

By the way, next time you want to "link data"; please insure it is in something more than machine readable form.

And, when you wish to criticize someone for "being expert"; kindly include your own credentials.

I don't know what your qualifications are in any given subject, however, my bservation is; that while you do provide good input in a great many cases. You always seem to push (perhaps a bit too hard) a main stream scientific view. In many case it does work, and well. In others it makes you seem a bit overbearing, and condescending.

ETA: Phage, thanks for this additional information. While I will continue to be a pain in your A$$ on some things, I do want to thank you for helping to clear this up. I do not agree with nor condone the engineering practices employed, but, that is nothing new (I've had many a discussion over the relative merits of differing engineering approaches for some 40 years. so its nothing new )

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

By the way, next time you want to "link data"; please insure it is in something more than machine readable form.

I did, I provided a png version of the file....just for you.

In many case it does work, and well. In others it makes you seem a bit overbearing, and condescending.

Oh, really?
Who said this?

Grade school engineering would almost seem to exclude such insipid idea as the need for a "pylon", and with it the extra software overhead.

My problem, perhaps, is that I am an optimistic engineer, I truly want to think that other engineers are doing their job right. Then I see s*** like this, I all but throw my arms in the air from the exasperation.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

By the way, next time you want to "link data"; please insure it is in something more than machine readable form.

I did, I provided a png version of the file....just for you.

Yes, just for me...oh and everyone else too. FITS is not a part of the standard install for any OS.

In many case it does work, and well. In others it makes you seem a bit overbearing, and condescending.

Oh, really?
Who said this?

Grade school engineering would almost seem to exclude such insipid idea as the need for a "pylon", and with it the extra software overhead.

My problem, perhaps, is that I am an optimistic engineer, I truly want to think that other engineers are doing their job right. Then I see s*** like this, I all but throw my arms in the air from the exasperation.

I did, and if you can not understand what I said, then perhaps we should end this conversation right now, as there is nothing to be gained. And, I shall presume that you are NOT an engineer (of any sort).

The issues I have with this "machine" and its engineering, while perhaps not openly stated, should be clear enough. There are, within our little sample, more than adiquate example of "poor" engineering, to illustrate my point in that respect.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Yes, just for me...oh and everyone else too. FITS is not a part of the standard install for any OS.

Which is why I converted it. I also provided the link to the raw data for those who are better versed in the topic. Isn't that proper protocol?

The issues I have with this "machine" and its engineering, while perhaps not openly stated, should be clear enough. There are, within our little sample, more than adiquate example of "poor" engineering, to illustrate my point in that respect.

Rignt, not openly stated. Instead you denigrate the engineers who designed it. But that's fine because I'm sure you could do much better.

reply to post by Phage


Actually, Phage; Yes, I could do much better. It took me all of about 20 seconds to fid a way of eliminating any beed for a "pylon". And, I would have had the presense of mind to assemble it in a real clean room.