Must be in tip-top condition – needed for important modelling exercise at the cutting edge of science.
Must be capable of handling images of 250nm thickness +/- 500nm (best estimate available for target icon, based on 1980s vintage state-of-the-art sticky tape technology).
Click on image to enlarge. (Note: this sequence of steps is essentially the same as that displayed on all my posts (banner) except that it starts with a very faint scorch that is first given extra contrast, then ‘inverted’ with ImageJ software, i.e. light/dark reversed, and then 3D enhanced using the same program).
Must be capable of handling horse-brass size images – especially faint ones at the limits of visibility (see second from left above prior to 3D-image processing). Ability to upgrade to 4.4 x 1.1 metres an advantage, coupled with ease of portability and ability to fit through cathedral doorways.
Must also be capable of handling ancient scorches, including flaking specimens, up to 800 years old.
THIS POST WAS PIRATED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHIN MINUTES OF APPEARING HERE BY DANIEL R. PORTER, AND THEN GIVEN AN INSULTING TITLE! (Yes, I know that English pubs and their offerings featured in my last skit, but how many people will know or remember that?).
I have protested before about that man’s pirating of my content, to no avail, and am considering my options.
Speaking of titles: my next post will be a serious one:
” Part 2 of my response to Paolo Di Lazzaro. More Mickey Mouse science from someone fixated with his flawed radiation model”.
Line-by-line dissection of Paolo Di Lazzaro’s dodgy theory – like watching a train crash in slow-motion…
(Will he ignore this one as well?)
From The Other Site:
daveb of wellington nz
September 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm | #1
It’s good to lighten up occasionally, and Colin’s wit makes a welcome change from the pompous turgid material we see too often from some other contributors.
Has he enquired into obtaining a second-hand high-school lab microscope? That would seem to fit his specification!
OK, suppose I had a microscope to hand. Then what? You can’t just put image fibres under a microscope and get a read off of image thickness. The first step is to strip off image fibres with sticky tape. That I can do, and under a lens one can see short fragments of scorched fibres.
Adhesive tape removes enough scorched fibres from linen to give the clearly visible discoloured area. Note: it is fibres that are removed – not entire threads .
Close-up view of above
It’s the next step that is tricky if one attempts follows the STURP procedure. One has to grab hold of a single minute fibre (not thread remember but fibre, of which there can some 100-200 per thread, so one cannot expect to use just any old tweezers or forceps) pull it away from adhesive, with a view to removing a stripped fibre, leaving the image layer in the adhesive ( I’m seriously impressed!). As far as I can tell from the accounts of that experiment, the only evidence that the image layer was stripped was that observation that the stripped fibre was free of colour, and a “ghost” (coloured?) left in the adhesive, but the latter was too thin to be seen in cross-section. It’s from the latter observation that we have the much-touted 200nm figure, which of course is a pure guesstimate based on the “ghosts” being smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light, but the thickness was never measured directly, and as far as I’m aware no one has ever been able to do that. So it’s a bit tedious to be repeatedly told that all I have to do is get hold of a microscope when at best I can only hope to repeat the STURP procedure and arrive at the same impressionistic non-quantitative answer. Even following that marvel of micro-manipulation probably calls for a high degree of manual dexterity, and may involve an element of luck in getting image layer to separate (centuries of age may have assisted in the case of the Shroud fibres).