Antibes market, Saturday 1st December 2012

Aujourd’hui je suis en France, la belle France, à Antibes pour être précis, dans la Vieille Ville, pour être même plus précis. Là il y a un marché le samedi. Regardez ce que je viens de trouver, fabriqué en laiton. Est-ce que vous pouvez deviner ce que je vais faire avec ça quand je rentre chez moi, moi, Monsieur Le Scorch ?

Update:  14th November 2013

Here I am almost a year later, and have finally got round to testing my new challenging template, prompted by a comment from David Goulet on Dan Porter’s site (click on the #75 below to access).


November 13, 2013 at 10:50 pm | #75

If anyone is doing another heated statue experiment, I’d be interested in seeing the result when using a statue with a minimum of three levels of contact – approximating the three levels of the body in the Shroud (top hand, bottom hand, lower trunk). Spatulas and coins are a good start but an object with more detailed 3D would be very helpful.


Here’s a series of pictures taken in my kitchen just a few minutes ago. I’ll post them “as is” and then add captions later.

Heat template

Heat template

First attempt on left. Loin cloth gave excessive scorch due to high relief. Increase thickness of backing cloth (right) to get more even imprinting.

First attempt on left. Loin cloth gave excessive scorch due to high relief. Increase thickness of backing cloth (right) to get more even imprinting.

Template and contact scorch image side by side

Template and contact scorch image side by side

Scorch image after 3D enhancement in ImageJ

Scorch image after 3D enhancement in ImageJ

Close-up of 3D-enhanced image.

Close-up of 3D-enhanced image.


About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
Image | This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Antibes market, Saturday 1st December 2012

  1. Hugh Farey says:

    Careful. I had a dear little pony, until its leg melted off in one of my shroud experiments…

  2. colinsberry says:

    It’s the arms that are going to need detaching from my latest template, Hugh, then placed you-know-where. Will that upset the iconophiles? Or will they accept that it’s just market brass, and all in the cause of science?

  3. colinsberry says:

    So what do you think about David Roemer’s ideas, Hugh, that are getting the oxygen of publicity on Dan Porter’s site right now? I refer to his claims that star formation and biological evolution are processes that decrease entropy and, ipso facto (!) contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I’ve met that kind of logical non sequitur before (or so it appears to me), e.g. in climate change debates (“back-radiation contradicts the Second Law”) but Roemer says he was awarded a PhD (in physics as I recall) from New York University! Am I missing something?

    I mention Roemer with a degree of hesitation. Is it just me, or is there something of the vexatious litigant about him…?

  4. Hugh Farey says:

    Well, between you, me and the thousands of devotees of this blog, I’m not convinced by Roemer’s ideas, and neither, it seems to me having read all his correspondence, is anybody at all whom he has contacted for support, scientific or clerical. My knowledge of Boltzmann’s law, or any other of the technicalities concerning entropy, is not detailed enough to demonstrate comprehensively where Roemer’s ideas fail, and I’m not sure that he would accept such a demonstration even if I could.
    In his second paragraph of his Dec 2, 11:24 comment he says that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to interacting particles, and hence does not apply to stars. I don’t understand what he means by this. If a chemical reaction involves interacting particles, then he’s plain wrong, but perhaps I misunderstand his definition. He then states that it is equally true to say that evolution does, and does not, violate the second law. I don’t understand that at all.
    Next he sets up an Aunt Sally which he claims is the source of some misinformation – and I don’t understand that either – and finally derides a peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Physics, which does not, it seems to me, actually say what he construes it to. His statement that the sun heats things up which causes disorder not order strikes me as naive. Perhaps I misunderstand him there too.
    In fact, as I write this this, I feel emboldened to do what I was intending not to, and to try to ask him for clarification.
    I wonder what the subject of his doctorate was…

  5. colinsberry says:

    Thanks Hugh. I’m glad I’m not the only one who is nonplussed by the man’s ideas – and that’s putting it mildly.

    Just two observations. His claim that the Second Law applies only to non-interacting particles is a new one on me. A law is a law, and is supposed to relate to phenomena without knowing the details of mechanism, certainly not at the atomic or sub-atomic level. I went to the wiki entry on the Second Law to see if I could find a clue. There is a section there on attempts to rationalize the Second Law, and it includes a theoretical treatment that starts by assuming ideal gas behaviour (i.e. non-interacting particles) in which Boltzmann makes an appearance. Methinks that our friend has maybe conflated a law on the one hand, and a mechanistic analysis of that law. They are of course separate things.

    Secondly, he cannot make an exemption for “chemical reactions”. What is chemistry if not interacting particles? Again, I think the Second Law is blind to whether one is dealing with interacting or non-interacting particles, whatever the context.

    As for the particular context of star formation, where is the problem? Certainly there is a decrease in entropy when hydrogen atoms are attracted to each other under gravitational attraction, and a further decrease when they fuse to form helium nuclei. But those entropy decreases are more than negated by the entropy increases that accompany star formation. There is the gradual acquisition of kinetic energy when the hydrogen atoms/molecules are attracted to each other, with collision, followed by conversion of kinetic energy to heat and light radiation. The latter streaming off into space must surely represent an increase in entropy. Then you have the emission of heat and light when nuclear fusion occurs – again – another increase in entropy that makes the overall process for the complete system a large positive one, more than compensating for the decrease in entropy due to particle condensation.

    Similar considerations apply to evolution, with the difference that the entire shebang is solar-powered, and results in constant release of waste heat and gases that drives the process, more than compensating for the increase in molecular order and organization.

    Yup, I’m also wondering what was the subject of that PhD…. I thought one had to attend lectures as well as do research for a State-side doctorate….

  6. Max Patrick Hamon says:

    Brass you said it was in? Enjoy it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s