No mist, but ice on a mistflower
Click for greater clarity.
On the cold morning of February 6th I found some ice on a dry stalk of the small mistflower plant, Ageratina havanensis, growing in my front yard.
The bubbles and patterns in the ice are intriguing, so if you’d like to look at them a little more closely, click the picture above. For a much closer look at the formation farthest to the right, click the icon below.
And if you’d like a reminder of what one of these plants looks like when it’s fresh and flowering, you can click here.
It seems that French ice bubbles speak the same language as the ones in Texas, something you can confirm in the second photograph from a recent post at L’ancolie bleue (The blue columbine).
© 2014 Steven Schwartzman
Nice!
bentehaarstad
February 24, 2014 at 6:25 AM
This is something you know a lot more about in Norway than I do in Texas, Bente.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 7:42 AM
Interesting that the two icicles on the left seemed to hang straight down. The farther right you go, the more clearly the water tried moving down the stem before finally forming a drop. Hence, the neat shape of the one you highlighted. It’s a beautiful photo.
I went on a quick search to see if I could answer my own question: why do bubbles form in ice? I found this, which is good enough for a Monday morning:
“At the tip of a growing icicle is a pendent drop of water. Typically the water extends several centimeters (about an inch) up into the interior of the icicle from the tip. This tip is composed of randomly growing ice crystals which, once frozen, form an inverted cup, usually filled with water. Occasionally an air bubble enters the cup and drains it of its liquid. Water flowing down the icicle quickly restores the end drop, trapping some of the air and incorporating it into the solid icicle.”
shoreacres
February 24, 2014 at 6:31 AM
I think you’re right that the upward curve of the little branch affected the formation of the ice, with the effect being the greatest where the branch rises the most, namely at the right.
That’s a good link you found. Till now I’d never thought about the way an icicle forms, but clearly other people have. I suspect there are even scientists who’ve tried to describe that kind of growth in mathematical terms. In any case, we can all appreciate the phenomenon with our eyes.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Beautiful, in any language.
Gallivanta
February 24, 2014 at 7:17 AM
That’s a good way to put it.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 8:02 AM
An example of winter’s beauty and persistence.
lensandpensbysally
February 24, 2014 at 7:21 AM
By the standards of central Texas, winter did persist this year, but less than two weeks after this picture we had temperatures in the 70s and now some early flowers have begun to appear.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Another thought…as the ice builds, the thin twig gets weighed down. That would change the direction of the point of the icicle.
Jim in IA
February 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Good point. In this case I think the branch was stiff enough (even though slender) and the ice light enough that there was negligible bending, but I can imagine that in other situations the weight would be enough to make the direction change.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM
You know a lot about optics and vision. Are you able to view 3-D images, the kind you ‘look through’ and fuse. Not the cross-eyed way.
I had some nice icicles out my window. I photographed them from slightly different directions about 3″ apart.
For help…http://www.vision3d.com/3views.html
Jim in IA
February 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Actually from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s I worked extensively in black and white 3-D photography, mounting the left and right halves of each stereo pair side by side on cardboard in their natural orientation. The pieces of cardboard were the size that lets people insert them into the standard old-time stereo viewers and fuse the images. That method, which requires a viewer with lenses, allows most people to see images in 3-D.
When stereo halves are in their natural orientation, I find I’m usually able to free-view them (i.e. look at them without an optical device) and fuse the two halves of a stereo pair, especially with pictures that are vertically narrow, like yours of the icicles. Stereographers call that parallel viewing. With pairs in which the halves have been reversed, however, I’ve never been able to use cross-eyed viewing, which for me causes eyestrain and makes me feel like I’m going to get a headache and or get nauseated.
You might want to do a post on your physics blog that explains the principle of stereo viewing, complete with sample stereo pairs.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM
That’s a good idea for a post. Duly noted.
I have no trouble parallel viewing those stereo pairs from the old days. I find them in antique shops and can spend a lot of time enjoying them.
Jim in IA
February 24, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Wonderful. It’s like the Ice People have hung their laundry on the line.
mrsdaffodil
February 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM
That’s a great way to put it: the Ice People have hung their laundry on the line.
Steve Schwartzman
February 24, 2014 at 1:52 PM