Guest posting from Hugh Farey (yipee – another science bod!): here’s a snapshot of his current studies of scorching and uv fluorescence.

One does not have to be acquainted with  “Shroudology” for very long to pick up the received ‘doctrines’ (I hesitate to call it received wisdom).  Prominent among those doctrines is the mantra that the Shroud image can’t possibly be a thermal imprint (“scorch”) from a hot template. Why not?  Because the 1532 burn holes with their scorched margins fluoresce under uv light – a red colour we are told – whereas the Shroud image is ‘non-fluorescent’. What’s more, the entire fabric of the Shroud shows a weak fluorescence that is quenched in the regions where there is body image. Ipso facto, the Shroud’s body image cannot be a thermal imprint. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Some of you may be familiar with physics-trained Hugh Farey, who has been doing experiments recently with scorching of linen, and use of an ultraviolet lamp to check changes in fluorescence that may or may not accompany scorching from hot metal.

Yesterday he kindly sent me photographs of some of his current experiments. In the next day or two I will display his photographs here, together with his accompanying comments. Any thoughts of my own  regarding Hugh’s findings will appear as comments, provoked or unprovoked by others’ observations and conclusions.

1)

Background fluorescence. A series of pieces of linen placed one by one on a china plate in an oven for ten minutes, with the oven (and plate) having had time to warm up to the next temperature for ten minutes between each sample. Sample 1. Uncooked! Samples 2 - 8: 180C - 240C in 10C steps. After taking them back to the lab, they were all lightly brushed in one corner with a red hot spatula. The fluorescence due to the spatula iv visible on Samples 1 and 2, but pretty well masked by the rest.

Fig. 1:  Visible scorching versus background fluorescence (left and right respectively). A series of pieces of linen placed one by one on a china plate in an oven for ten minutes, with the oven (and plate) having had time to warm up to the next temperature for ten minutes between each sample. Sample 1. Uncooked! Samples 2 – 8: 180C – 240C in 10C steps. After taking them back to the lab, they were all lightly brushed in one corner with a red hot spatula. The fluorescence due to the spatula iv visible on Samples 1 and 2, but pretty well masked by the rest.

HF1a OvenScorchVis

Here’s an ‘enlargement’ of the left hand photograph (well, it’s actually the image file as received, before my misjudged attempt to create a twin-set).

Here's a better view of the uv fluorescence picture on the right of the 'twin set' with some extra contrast and brightness.

Here’s a better view of the uv fluorescence picture on the right of the ‘twin set’ with some extra contrast and brightness.

2)

Molten Lead. A blob of molten lead poured onto eight layers of linen and allowed to cool. The UV 'fringe' very obvious where the scorch is dark, intruding into the middle as the scorch becomes less visible.

Visible scorching vesus uv fluorescence (left  and right respectively). A blob of molten lead was poured onto eight layers of linen and allowed to cool. The UV ‘fringe’ very obvious where the scorch is dark, intruding into the middle as the scorch becomes less visible.

From Hugh:  “I’m sorry if the experiments look as if they were done on a bit of old floorcloth! The stripy patterns, particularly on the visible light photographs, are due to moire interference which is sometimes inevitable when compressing a photo for the web. The cloth is actually an ordinary 1/1 weave. Perhaps I should also say that all the photos were taken without flash, but the UV ones were exposure-enhanced to the maximum allowed in iPhoto.”

Second instalment: Thur 20 Dec

HF2  BasRelief2Vis

3) My version of your horse brass experiment, but the bas relief placed on a hotplate, the cloth over the top, and then silica sand poured over the top of that to hold it down and fill in the valleys. The first attempt (BasRelief2) is on setting 2 on my hotplate (about 130C).

Sorry, Hugh – your picture transforms to ripples when I upload and insert. Don’t ask me why.

As above, but with added contrast and adjustments to brightness and mid-range values

As above, but with added contrast and adjustments to brightness and mid-range values

This was me playing around, Hugh, to show that an image was there, even at 130 degrees C, which could be made visible with extra contrast(see faint yellow- brown) But there’s the same ripple effect. Is it due to having sent a portfolio via email (image compression ?). Maybe try sending one of them single retaining as many of the original’s pixels?

3) My version of your horse brass experiment, but the bas relief placed on a hotplate, the cloth over the top, and then silica sand poured over the top of that to hold it down and fill in the valleys. The first attempt (BasRelief2) is on setting 2 on my hotplate (about 130C) and the second (BasRelief4) is at setting 4, which is about 250C, but its difficult to measure. (BasRelief4 will have to come separately as Hotmail is getting touchy about overload. Watch this space!)It looks as if I might have just caught the UV only temperature on BasRelief2, as the visible image is so poor I can't even tell which way up is it!

Here’s  the second attempt at setting 4, which is about 250C, but its difficult to measure. (
It looks as if I might have just caught the UV only temperature on BasRelief2, as the visible image is so poor I can’t even tell which way up is it!

Same as above - but under uv light

Same as above – but under uv light

Oh, and here, as an afterthought, is the template from which Hugh's superb imprints were obtained.

Oh, and here, as an afterthought, is the template from which Hugh’s superb imprints were obtained.

Now that’s what I call a (bas relief) template. French physicians please note!

 

 

Advertisements

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.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Guest posting from Hugh Farey (yipee – another science bod!): here’s a snapshot of his current studies of scorching and uv fluorescence.

  1. Hugh Farey says:

    I’m sorry if the experiments look as if they were done on a bit of old floorcloth! The stripy patterns, particularly on the visible light photographs, are due to moire interference which is sometimes inevitable when compressing a photo for the web. The cloth is actually an ordinary 1/1 weave. Perhaps I should also say that all the photos were taken without flash, but the UV ones were exposure-enhanced to the maximum allowed in iPhoto.

  2. colinsberry says:

    The pictures look perfectly OK to me, Hugh. No one expects ‘hot from the presses’ research to look like polished works of art. Be that as it may, I have added your comment to the tail end of the posting.

  3. colinsberry says:

    In just over a week, it will be the anniversary of my first posting on the Shroud, Hugh. I’m preparing a post to mark the occasion, which will list my various epiphany moments, if that is not too grand a term.

    What would you say have been your own epiphany moments since starting your experiments? I’d be interested to know, as no doubt will others, how your views on the ‘fluorescence question’ (especially) and other key issues and points of contention have been influenced by your recent ‘hands on’ approach.

  4. Hugh Farey says:

    Well, I started experimenting in about 1978, so there have been a few, but I think the single thing that started me off again after a long pause – and made me use the shroud as an inspiration for children – was Guerreschi’s and Salcito’s discovery that the water stains didn’t match the burn holes; so obvious that a child could have noticed, and yet unobserved for so long even on the ‘most studied artifact in history’ as it’s sometimes called. It just made me want to question everything, and try to notice something of my own that nobody else has spotted!

    Latest news – I soaked a piece of linen in soapy starch and hung it to dry on a bush, then dropped it over a bas relief over which I’d poured a weak ammonia solution, roughly a la Rogers. For a start the contact places just absorbed the liquid into big round splodges (I think Roger’s only used vapour), and for a second there was absolutely no change in colour when the cloth dried out. But here’s the killer, on warming the cloth gently afterwards, it did go slightly brown – AND FLUORESCED JUST LIKE A SCORCH! Ho ho ho, how I laughed…

    I tried emailing Thibault with the address you gave me but I don’t think it can have worked, so if you’re reading this Thibault, mine is hughfarey (at) hotmail (dot) com.

    And finally. Quite by accident I labelled a piece of linen with a different pen today, and guess what – pink fluorescence all round the edges! On the off chance that maybe the pink on the shroud was actually formed by an organic solvent rather than heat, I tried a few I had in the lab, with no success, and even set fire to a piece of pine and then smothered it with cloth, hoping the resin might make it fluoresce pink. No joy yet, but I’ve a few things still to try. Maybe the nuns tried gluing the scorched fabric together before they patched it?

  5. colinsberry says:

    There’s a wealth of fascinating comment there, Hugh, and much food for thought. I’m especially intrigued by your ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking as regards the pink fluorescence of the 1532 burn marks, and the possibility that it might be due to something other than the scorching per se, like an attempted repair.

    Are you familiar with the peculiar literature on the Belgian Lier copy of the Shroud as regards the “poker holes”? There is some ambiguity there re what was perceived by the copyist, i.e. burn holes or blood stains? Were the burns an attempt to obliterate some unwanted blood stains? Might the same be true of the 1532 burn holes?

    Here’s one I did earlier with a link to the Belgian paper.

    Heat-degraded blood -> porphyrin – > pink fluorescence?

    PS I have checked and rechecked my email inbox and outbox. The address I gave you was exactly as given to me, so there must be a bug somewhere.

  6. Hugh Farey says:

    Gosh. I find The Van Haelst article extraordinarily difficult to read. However, this quote is interesting: “The burn marks of 1532, caused by a CLOSED fire, with a lack of oxygen, [which we now dispute – HF] reflect a dark REDDISH colour.” I wonder if this is in turn from Pellicori’s paper, or was he at the 1978 investigation? I ask because a dark reddish colour is in fact what you see if a cloth does not fluoresce at all, and is caused by the dark red visible light that is inevitably part of an ultra-violet lightbulb, however well shielded. Maybe the whole pink fluorescence thing is a myth?

  7. colinsberry says:

    “Maybe the whole pink fluorescence thing is a myth”.
    May I quote you on that? (After all, what’s one more myth among so many?)

    Here’s the beginnings of another quotable quote, one which I made up just 30 seconds ago: “Shroudology – enshrouded in myth… ” OK, so it needs a bit more adding to it. Give me time, give me time…

  8. Hugh Farey says:

    Well, it may be all explained in Pellicori and Miller 1981. Thibault, where art thou at this time?

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

      Hi Hugh,

      I am back. Sorry, I had too much work to look at my emails.
      I now have seen yours.
      I’ll send you the paper right now.

      Thibault.

  9. colinsberry says:

    I see that Dan Porter has highlighted this post of ‘yours’ on shroudstory.com, Hugh, and a Good Thing too. However, I’ll be travelling for the next few days with only occasional internet access, so won’t be around to read comments, far less to respond to them promptly. Here’s wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas.

  10. colinsberry says:

    Thanks Adrie. Belated Season’s Greetings and a Happy (and Insightful) New Year both to you and to my handful of regulars.

  11. Pingback: Baked-In Creases. Really? | Shroud of Turin Blog

  12. Pingback: Does thermally-induced scorching of linen ALWAYS produce fluorescence under uv, rendering it invalid as a model for the Turin Shroud? Answer: most definitely NO. | The Shroud of Turin: lightly-toasted flour imprint? The blog that separates the science fro

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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