Starship Asterisk*

Boomer12k wrote:
The amazing thing to me is they appear to be very "fluffy". Like a Cotton Candy Machine or something. The winds must be really whipping!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_candy wrote:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Candy_Nebula]The Cotton Candy Nebula[/url] [b][color=#FF00FF]as seen by Hubble. Credits: Sun Kwok and Kate Su (University of Calgary), Bruce Hrivnak (Valparaiso University), and NASA[/color][/b]

---

<<Cotton candy (US, India, Canada), candy floss or candyfloss (UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa), or fairy floss (Australia) is a form of spun sugar. Food coloring can be used to change the natural white color. There are many flavors, including strawberry, lemonade, blueberry, lime, grape, orange, watermelon, pineapple mango, and more.

Cotton candy was first recorded in the 16th century. Machine-spun cotton candy was invented in 1897 by the dentist William Morrison and confectioner John C. Wharton and first introduced to a wide audience at the 1904 World's Fair as "Fairy Floss" with great success, selling 68,655 boxes at the then-high price of 25¢, half the cost of admission to the fair (equivalent to $6 today). Joseph Lascaux, a dentist from New Orleans, Louisiana, invented a similar cotton candy machine in 1921. In fact, Lascaux patent named the sweet confection “cotton candy” and the fairy floss name faded away, although it retains this name in Australia.

Typical machines used to make cotton candy include a spinning head enclosing a small "sugar reserve" bowl into which a charge of granulated, colored sugar (or separate sugar and food coloring) is poured. Heaters near the rim of the head melt the sugar, which is squeezed out through tiny holes by centrifugal force. The molten sugar solidifies in the air and is caught in a larger bowl which totally surrounds the spinning head. Left to operate for a period, the cotton-like product builds up on the inside walls of the larger bowl, at which point the machine operator twirls a stick, cone, or their hands around the rim of the large catching bowl, gathering the sugar strands into portions which are served on stick or cone, or in plastic bags. The product is sensitive to humidity, and in humid summer locales, the process can be messy and sticky.>>

mwhidden wrote:Is it really accurate to say that the north pole "precessed" into sunlight? I would assume it came into sunlight due to the tilt of the axis and it's position in orbit. Precession is a different phenomenon, isn't it?

Chris Peterson wrote:

mwhidden wrote:
Is it really accurate to say that the north pole "precessed" into sunlight? I would assume it came into sunlight due to the tilt of the axis and it's position in orbit. Precession is a different phenomenon, isn't it?

It's arguable that the terminology isn't strictly incorrect, since in common usage "precession" is sometimes used to describe the sort of cone created when a tilted body revolves around something else. But that's not the scientific usage, and given that this is a scientific site, I agree with you that "precession" is a poor word choice.

http://aas.org/archives/BAAS/v31n4/dps99/451.htm wrote:
Ring plane crossings and Saturn's pole precession.
P.D. Nicholson (Cornell), R.G. French (Wellesley), A.S. Bosh (Lowell)

<<The predicted precession rate of Saturn's pole, due principally to the indirect solar torque on Titan, is -0.738" yr-1, corresponding to a period of 1.76~My (French et al. [1993] Icarus 103, 163). Analysis of subsets of Voyager, ground-based (28 Sgr, July 1989) and 1991 HST occultation data led to best-fit annual rates of -0.63''±.23'' (French et al. 1993) and -0.41''±.19'' (Bosh [1994] Ph.D. thesis, MIT). The latter is only 55% of the predicted rate. Precise observations of Saturn's ring plane crossings provide an independent method for determining the planet's axial precession rate. Combining the known pole position at the time of the Voyager encounters with the observed time of ring plane crossing on 22 May 1995, Bosh et al. [1997] (Icarus 129, 555) derived an annual rate of -0.52''±.07'', consistent with the occultation results and again significantly less than the predicted value.

An analysis of 22 reported times of ring plane crossing, extending over a period of 280~yr, leads to a very similar estimate of the pole precession rate of -0.51''±.14''~yr-1, which is completely independent of the occultation data (Nicholson & French [1997] BAAS 29, 1097). The most important observations are those made with HST in May and August 1995 (Bosh et al. 1997; Nicholson et al. 1996 [ Science 272, 509]), at Pic du Midi in 1966 (Dollfus 1979 A. & A. 75, 204), and at Johannesberg and Yerkes in 1907/08 (Innes 1908 MNRAS 68, 32); Barnard 1908 Ibid 68, 346). The time used for the 10 August 1995 crossing is that reported for the west ansa (20:20±8~min UT), as the east ansa was partially obscured by the F Ring at this time. It now appears that the low precession rate is primarily a consequence of Titan's proper inclination of 0.32\circ, which leads to a slow variation in the torque exerted on Saturn with a period of ~00~yr, Titan's nodal regression period. At the present time, the torque is close to its minimum value. The nutation model of Vienne & Duriez [1992] (A & A 257, 331) in fact predicts an average precession rate of -0.50''~yr-1 over the last 100~yr, 68% of the secular rate and in excellent agreement with the observations.>>

neufer wrote:"Precession" is the wrong word choice.

quigley wrote:"Fascinating."

Why does this phenomenon not occur on our own planet? Would we have to live on a gas giant.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:

quigley wrote:
"Fascinating."

Why does this phenomenon not occur on our own planet? Would we have to live on a gas giant.

We do have polar vortices on Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

potoole wrote:Can someone provide a sense of scale? I'm guessing this shot is about the diameter of the Earth, is that about right?