Response of my thermally-imprinted models of the Man on the Turin Shroud to an allegedly crucial test with ultraviolet light.

If arriving at this site for the first time, you may wish to see the two preliminary postings in this 3-part series. The first described the performance characteristics of a simple uv lamp purchased for these studies, tested on bank notes, fluorescent marker pens etc and the reasons for doing so. The second showed that simple one-stage modelling of the Turin Shroud body image with heated metal templates to give negative, 3D-enhancible images did NOT produce fluorescence under uv. That contradicted the STERA President’s  claim made directly to this investigator/blogger in early 2012 that ALL “scorches” are fluorescent and thus irrelevant to the non-fluorescing Turin Shroud body image. In fact it was HIS reference system, namely the charred edges of the 1532 burn holes that allegedly fluoresce red under uv light that was irrelevant, not being the kind of low-temperature scorch  (200-250 degrees Celsius approx) that are relevant to thermal imprinting (as distinct from partial or complete carbonization) of linen.

This is the third posting in the series, in which the new ‘flour imprint’ model for the Turin Shroud displayed in this site’s banner, developed mid 2015, is now tested for uv fluorescence.  It comprises a sequence of 9 photographs obtained yesterday (1st Jan 2016) with brief captions, brief conclusions. There is no need to describe the new Mark 2 technology, since the three simple steps (flour imprinting, oven-roasting and soap/water washing) are all reprised in the photos that follow.

1. Ready to go Jan 1 2016. Olive oil, white flour, laundered linen lined up on table.

1. Ready to go Jan 1 2016. Olive oil, white flour, laundered linen lined up on table.

 

2. Imprinting initially oil-smeared  hand, then coated with dry white flour,  onto wet linen to get negative image.

2. Back of hand including all 5 digits  smeared first with olive oil, then dusted with dry white flour. Wet linen then draped on top and pressed down firmly with free hand to obtain negative contact imprint. 

 

3.  Imprinted linen, dried on hot radiator, then transferred to fan oven,  partly supported, partly suspended as shown.

3. Imprinted linen, dried on hot radiator, then transferred to fan oven, partly supported, partly suspended as shown. Horse brasses from the Mark 1 modelling being used merely as weights.

 

4. As above after 10 mins of  gentle roasting in circulating  hot air only  (no red hot electric elements).

4. As above after 10 mins of gentle roasting in circulating hot air only (no red hot electric elements).

 

5. Toasted flour imprint  of this blogger's hand shows absolutely no fluorescence whatsoever under uv lamp. Fluorescent marker pen ink serves as internal reference.

5. Toasted flour imprint of this blogger’s hand shows absolutely no fluorescence whatsoever under uv lamp. Fluorescent marker pen ink serves as internal reference.

 

6.  Cut out a small  sample for washing off surface encrustation with soap and water to leave the fainter, arguably more TS-like final 'ghostly' image (proposed as a valid model based on studies thus far).

6. Cut out a small sample for washing off surface encrustation with soap and water to leave the fainter, arguably more TS-like final ‘ghostly’ image (proposed as a valid model based on studies thus far).

 

7. Excised sample for washing draped over bar of soap.

7. Excised sample for washing draped over bar of soap.

 

8. Soap-washed sample after drying under uv lamp, with unwashed sample for reference.

8. Soap-washed sample after drying under uv lamp, with unwashed sample for reference. Only the washed  linen fluoresces, perhaps due to linen per se and/or soap constituents, NOT the faint imprint of my finger.

 

9. As above, with the washed strip of linen and imprint placed very close, almost touching,  to the uv-emitting source (a gas-filled coated discharge tube).

9. As above, with the washed strip of linen and imprint placed very close, almost touching, to the uv-emitting source (a gas-filled coated discharge tube).

 

Conclusions: the claim that all scorch-generated images fluoresce under uv  and are thus invalid for modelling purposes is wrong (see two previous postings). But even if that were the case, my preferred Mark2  model that uses white flour as imprinting medium and simple medieval materials and technology (wet linen, hot oven, soap etc etc) does NOT result in uv fluorescence anyway, before or after the final washing step.

The response of pro-authenticity  sindonology to my flour-imprinting model, now some 6 months old, has been one of near-silence, except for some fairly nominal coverage on the now abandoned shroudstory site, and Hugh Farey’s account in his BSTS Newsletter 81 of the circuitous R&D that led to the model. I take sindonology’s near-silence as a good sign. Certainly no one’s come back with the supposedly killer line “Ah, but I bet your imprints fail the crucial uv test”.  Nope, they don’t actually… In fact it’s that ‘crucial’ uv test that fails the test, or at any rate a simple straightforward test, not hedged around with qualifications.

Nerdy postscript: by arranging to have some of the imprinted linen hanging vertically in the oven, I’m now able to conclude that heat transfer via CONVECTION (moving air molecules) is sufficient for image-making purposes.  Conducted atom-to-atom heat, as per the Mark 1 system with heated metal templates, or  electromagnetic radiation, as described in my very first Shroudie posting 4 years ago, trapped with visible light and infrared-absorbing  charcoal – the latter serving as primary image –  removed later by washing to leave an underlying  scorch is NOT obligatory.

Even later postscript:

rye flour DSC01816

10. What’s this image doing here? Is it just to make up a nice round 10? Nope. See Comments under this posting.

 

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, Turin Shroud and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Response of my thermally-imprinted models of the Man on the Turin Shroud to an allegedly crucial test with ultraviolet light.

  1. Colin Berry says:

    Have just added this image to the end of the posting.

    Let’s hope it inserts here (have switched from Firefox to Chrome – don’t ask).
    Why the sudden interest in rye flour?

    My flour-imprinting model was piloted using wheat flour, which works fine in principle, but there’s a problem in practice. it’s quite difficult to get rid of the thick encrusted material in the final soap-washing stage. Might that be due to the gluten protein of wheat, which is unique in nature not only for its visco-elastic properties (exploited in dough and breadmaking) but also insolubility in water. Maybe there were alternatives in the medieval period, equally good for image-making, but easier to attenuate in the final washing stage to get that iconic faint and ghostly image.

    Rye flour has approximately the same protein content as my previously used wheat flour (approx 10%). Might it be superior overall to wheat flour? We shall find out in the next day or two.

  2. good stuff keep at it! this mystery will be solved!

    • Colin Berry says:

      Thanks. MB. I seem to recall you looking in once or twice before. Were you ever on Dan Porter’s site too – maybe under a different pseudonym? Or another site?

  3. HEIMBURGER says:

    Colin,

    First, I would like to wish you a happy new year 2016.

    After some researches, I have found what follows:
    All of the “détecteurs de faux billets” I have found, like yours, transmit a UV light between 350 and 375 nm (UVA).
    In STURP experiment the UV source “enabled wavelengths of 335 to 375 nm…” and ” the film was to record only radiation emitted in the visible region of the spectrum, and none of the reflected , exciting UV”.

    So, Your experiments are significant.

    Questions:
    1) How do you explain the differences between your scorch experiments and Hugh’s scorch experiments (showing fluorescence) ? Hugh ?

    2) How do you explain the reddish fluorescence of the margins of the burns on the Shroud ?

    • Colin Berry says:

      Hello again TH. A Happy New Year to you and your family.

      Thanks for tracking down the range of wavelengths used in the 1978 work. Yes they are broadly similar to those in the typical bank note detector, though having a somewhat greater output in the shorter range of wavelength (335-350nm).

      The only reason i can think for Hugh seeing fluorescence is to do with the source of lamp. I get the impression that Hugh’s 150W source (!) is a modified tungsten lamp, one that takes a while to get up to maximum temperature, probably radiating progressively more UV-B as it does so. Mine uses a small coated fluorescent tube, a mere 4 watts.

      Why should the margins of the TS burn holes fluoresce red? One can only speculate, but I suspect it’s to do with the chemistry of partial carbonization that occurs at much higher temperatures than my typical oven temperatures of 200- 250 degrees C.The elemental carbon in charred organic material is said to have a graphite-like structure of fused benzene rings. The latter is formed by condensation/polymerization of low molecular aromatic monomers (benzenoid precursors). I suspect that its those precursors that do not fully polymerize to elemental carbon, maybe becoming PAH (polycyclic aromatic carbons), similar to naphthalene, anthracene etc that are responsible for the pink or red fluorescence , but I’m open to other suggestions. There is NO carbonization in any of my scorches, including the Mark1 type formed with heated metal templates. How do I know? Answer: they decolorize completely when treated with domestic bleach (sodium hypochlorite). Elemental carbon cannot be bleached.

      My position is that charred edges with intrinsic fluorescence cannot be held up as typical “scorches” and then used to rule out any kind of thermally-assisted imprinting as the mechanism of the TS body image formation.

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