Is a high energy laser beam really needed to model the Turin Shroud? Maybe those Italians should have tried pizza ingredients first, and a hot oven...

 Update: December 9, 2015: see the latest posting on my specialist Shroud:

It's the first of a trio of papers addressing the fluorescence issue (allegedly ruling out any "scorch" mechanism for the Shroud body image).

Start of original posting (also with link to the same site):

Here's an image placed on my specialist Shroud of Turin ( TS) site just an hour ago. It's a distillation of some 40 months and more of virtually non-stop effort since Dec 2011 to 'model' the 'enigmatic' TS body image.

 It would have been nice to use a real human subject instead of the plastic toy The technique lends itself to scaling up, and leaves the volunteer (?)  unharmed, except for a coating of vegetable  oil and plain white flour (most of that being imprinted onto linen, leaving less to be showered off).

Alas. I do not have a 4m x 1m length of linen, and even if I  did, one suspects the sourpuss contingent of sindonology would waste no time in telling me it had to be herringbone weave, centuries or millennia old, traditionally-bleached, lacking modern-day optical brighteners etc etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Nope. This science bod is content to model the TS characteristics, showing that no fancy gee whizz 20th/21st century technology is needed, certainly not pulses of intense uv rays  from excimer lasers or neutrons from rock-crushing tectonic activity etc.(the sort of things that could theoretically have affected a particular linen shrouds in a 1st century rock tomb we are solemnly assured).

Let's stick with the small scale model, and show how, step-by-step, the above image was created that, from where I'm standing, ticks an ever-growing number of boxes that says: YES - it is looking increasingly like a valid model, despite it using homely medieval technology that today's blog-readers can confirm for themselves in less than an hour in their own homes if so inclined.  It requires nothing more than: (a) linen (I get mine from the clothes rack in charity shops, ladies' white summer trousers especially) (b) plain white flour (c) vegetable oil (d) a hot oven (e) a bar of soap. Yes - indcredibly, insultingly some might say, that's my DIY list for what's needed.

The rest of this posting will be in two instalments: first, the procedure for obtaining the above result, namely a faint, fuzzy, negative TS-like image and then, later, possibly tomorrow, the evidence from studies reported already on my other site that the image you see above meets many , possibly most, of the criteria of the TS image at both macroscopic and microscopic level.

Here are the pictures first:

Which to use as "subject" for contact imprinting with vegetable oil and white flour? The plastic toy or the brass crucifix?

 Which template to use?

No contest: the first, since it allows one to model the head-to-head frontal/dorsal configuration of the Shroud (the one that screams CONTACT IMPRINT, but don't tell Charles Freeman). The outstretched crucifixion mode of the crucifix prevents getting a head-to-head configuration. Use of plastic also conveys the fact that it's the imprint that will be heated, not the subject.

The "subject" has been smeared with oil. Flour is then scattered across the surface (gravity alone, no brushing etc) and the surplus gently tapped off.

The oil ensures that there will be adhering flour on the entire surface. The oil also assists image formation in the oven, as reported earlier on my other site.

Both sides of the "subject" have been oiled and dusted, but NOT the top of the head. The subject has been laid onto pre-soaked i.e. WET linen.

..

Oops. I forgot to mention that oil/flour was wiped off the top of the head before imprinting. That is MOST IMPORTANT if one's to model the TS. It ensures the correct GAP between the two heads.

The subject has been pressed down into the linen (with a soft underlay). The surplus of linen has then been turned back over the head and draped carefully over the frontal/ventral side.The wet linen is then patted gently down with one's hands.

Note how well the linen moulds to the contours, despite the small scale of the subject.

The linen has then been peeled back with the near-invisible flour/oil imprint on the left hand side.

Note how most of the flour has transferred to the linen, it only remaining at the lowest inaccessible parts of the subject.

The subject has been carefully lifted off the linen, and the double imprint immediately transferred to a clean baking tray in a pre-heated fan oven (max temperature setting, approx 200 degrees C, air only, not glowing elements).

Here it is after 5 minutes or so. Already the double imprint can be seen appearing as protein in the flour reacts with reducing sugars (Maillard browning reaction). However, it's not that 'obvious' product of oven-heating that is of prime importance. It's what's UNDERNEATH - possibly, indeed probably inside the linen fibres, rather than on top. (It's taken a lot of experimentation, microscopy etc to arrive at that tentative proposition, for which proof is still needed).

Here's a fairly faint image that is probably best stopped at this stage, prior to final image-attenuation by washing to get a very faint TS-like image.

I decided to keep it in the oven a while longer, needing a bolder final image as banner on the other site.

Appearance after another 5 minutes in the hot oven.

Note the discoloration of the linen now appearing, especially at the margins where the linen is not supported by the heat-conducting metal tray, but apart from that the linen stands up remarkably well to oven-heating.

The same experiment was used to create an image on cotton (right) as well as linen.

Cotton imprints look different at the microscopic level, and may play a crucial control role in elucidating the highly subtle nature of the post-washed image on linen (about which more later).

Original 'subject' shown slightly out-of-register with its dorsal imprint (left). The image on the right is the vitally important and arguably more relevant image (frontal) that survives vigorous washing wiith soap and water.

That final attenuated image on the right referred to earlier is the one I consider to be the REAL model for the Turin Shroud, not the first-formed Maillard image which is a surface encrustation. Oil plays no obvious part in Maillard reactions, but oil, whether the small amount in white flour (approx 1.5% by weight) or supplementary oil as here, speeding up image formation, may play a vital role in modelling the TS image, maybe in conjunction with coloration of the outer layer (S1) of the secondary cell wall. The S1 layer has mysterious lignification.Might S1 lignin and/or oil be the key to understanding the subtlety of the TS image?

That concludes the methodology. The next instalment will look at (a) macroscopic and (b) microscopic properties of the model image made by oil/flour imprinting, relative to the reported characteristics of the TS.

Watch this space

3D properties? Do the faint and fuzzy imprints you see above respond to 3D rendering in software programs like ImageJ? is that too much to hope, given typicaly awestruck observations such as this one from the shroudstory site:

 Fact: there is nothing in the least bit "profoundly mysterious" about the 3D properties of the Shroud image, especially if it's a contact imprint. This investigator has shown over and over again in the course of  3 years of entering a large variety of images into Image J that the 3D response of the TS, far from being 'profounsly mysterious' is in fact entirely predictable. What would be unusual would be for it NOT to respond to 3D rendering, given the way the software operates. Here's an image that hopefully illustrates my point:

3D-rendered image of plastic toy(left) verus Shroud Scope image of TS (right). Note the embedded 2D reference (concentric circles with stepped intensity gradient) and the DEFAULT non-zero setting of z scale elevation setting (0.1)

 Yes. One can enter 2D diagrams with no 3D history, like those concentric circles above, and they show a comparable 3D response (top left) to that of the model image OR the TS. Why is that? Look at the z scale next to the red arrow. It is on its default MINIMUM setting of 0.1. The software sets that non-zero default setting, meaning that ANY image one enters that has any kind of intensity gradient, simple stepped ones included, produce a 3D response.The latter is entirely artefactual unless one has evidence to the contrary. This investigator knows of no evidence to suggest that the so-called "3D properties" of the TS image are any different from those of contact imprints generally.

Late insertion: I'm saying there is no 3D mystique until proven otherwise. Right on cue we hear the rejoinder: "There is 3D mystique until YOU prove otherwise", adding technical details like RGB balance that were addressed previously in discussion with "OK" in Poland,.

Nope. i'm not buying into that pro-authencity attempt to shift the burden of proof. I repeat: there is NO 3D mystique until proven otherwise. The so-called "unique 3D encoding" of the TS image is pure agenda-driven moonshine. 

See also this later comment from the inestimable Hugh Farey, with new 3D rendered images of this blogger's hand both in original colour AND grayscale. Both show 3D enhancement (needless to say).  Thank you Hugh.

Update: 31 Aug 2015. Several references have been made to my specialist Shtoud of Turin site (or as I prefer to call it, "Shroud" of Turin, there being no biblical grounds for thinking that the  "fine linen" Joseph of Arimathea brought to the cross to receive the ravaged  body of Jesus was ever used, or intended to be used, as final burial shroud).

Home Page, my specialist Shroud site, currently 216 postings since early 2012.

The site's homepage (above) was given a facelift yesterday to assert this blogger's growing conviction that the TS body image is a medieval flour/oil imprint that was taken from a real human subject that had then been roasted and subsequently attenuated by one or more laundering stages.

Update 31 Aug: this comment appeared from Thibault Heimburger MD yesterday:

He asks what is currently my best model? Isn't that obvious TH - you having visited this site yesterday (sitemeter ;-)?

Your question can be answered in a few words, all being tried-and-tested methodology. Smear vegetable oil over the back of your hand evenly with a swab, removing the excess oil. Then sprinkle with plain white flour using a teaspoon or similar. When there are no bare patches, shake off the surplus of flour, leaving just a light oil-bound dusting of flour. Place your hand flat on a surface, then drape over a sheet of linen that has been pre-soaked in water for a few minutes and wrung out. Use your free hand to press the linen down onto your coated hand, maintaining a vertical action with no attempt to mould around the sides or between the fingers.  Then peel back the linen, place imprint-side up on a clean metal baking tray, and place in a pre-heated fan oven at maxmium temperature. Check carefully at 2 minute intervals. After 5 -10 mins or so the imprints should be golden-brown, with little effect on the colour of strength of the rest of the linen.

Then soak the linen in warm water, soap thoroughly, then, taking a firm grip on image regions between two-closely-spaced hands and using a vigorous to-and-fro action use the flexing and friction to detach the surface encrustation. Think of it as forcible multi-U turn corrugation. When the images are finally faint and homogenous, rinse with fresh water and  leave to dry. You now have your final look-alike TS image. Check it out, as I have, under the microscope, and you should see the image being primarily but not exclusively on the crown threads, as well as half-tone effect and discontinuities. Do you know of a modelled image that has a closer match with the TS? Did you agree with ENEA's Paolo Di Lazzaro when in an email interview with the Telegraph's Tom Chivers in December 2011 he wrote

: " The more one studies the Shroud from a scientific perspective, the clearer it becomes that this image could not have been made by a forger, either medieval or modern. This allows to come back to the “question of questions”: how was the body image on the Shroud made?"

I didn't (agree). In fact i disagreed violently, and still do. In fact it was that quotation, and the suggestion that his laser results should be the cue to consider 'philosophical and theological' implications that prompted this retired science bod to roll up his sleeves and get researching. In fact a synopsis of my first prediction, confirmed by experiment ('thermo-stencilling") was reported to the comments of that same Chivers blog posting under my then DT pseudonym 'newsjunkie'.The purpose of that posting was not to give support to his or any other  radiation model, when the TS image is so obviously one made by contact: it was a gentle reminder to Di Lazzaro and his photochemically-illiterate ENEA chums that if one's going to invoke radiation, one's first task is to identify the radiation-absorbing chromophore, and not just assume as they did that it had to be "cellulose". First Law of Photochemistry: for light of any wavelength (visible, uv etc)  to produce a chemical reaction, the radiation has first to be absorbed.  Repeat: identify the light-absorbing chromophore as a first step. The wavelength of the radiation found most effective often helps narrow the options. Uv radiation is far more likely to be absorbed by molecules with C=C double bonds (lignin?)  than by carbohydrates that are made entirely of single bonds, as you yourself acknowledged in 2012 (see comments). 

 New addition: a brief aside on microscope features of the roasted/soap-washed flour imprints.

I could have posted archive pictures, obtained in the last week or two, showing the appearance of the images under the microscope, with positive identification of the hallmark features of (a) half tone effect and (b) discontinuities in the linen samples.
Some of those pictures attracted comments that this retired biochemist did not know how to use the focus control of the microscope. One was from Paolo Di Lazzaro, holder of a scientific (technological?) doctorate, who addressed his comments to "Mr.Berry" an appellation which Dan Porter thoughtfully chose to include in a title.  Those who know me well would I'm sure agree  that I make only occasional references to my formal qualifications and research credentials, but I know of no worse insult in academe than for one PhD to address another as "Mr", and for that to be broadcast around the internet. But then I cannot say as I'm surprised that Paolo Di Lazzaro would stoop so low, given the insufferably arrogant posting he did on this blogger's initial scorch hypothesis, posturing as though he were the very first person to have tested it experimentally (sample size of 1)  with a free lecture on physical chemistry (most of it second rate) thrown in for good measure.

I shall no longer be displaying photomicrographs, since what I see, carefully  focusing in and out with a microscope having poor depth of field cannot be easily captured in a single image that tends invariably to look "blurred".

I have examined the latest linen imprints, and they too show the subtlety of the image fibres, being difficult to spot, despite the "brown" patch one sees with the naked eye, but where visible, with difficulty, one can see a half-tone effect and discontinuities. The internet will have to be content with that, I'm afraid. If  bona fide photochemically and/or thermochemically -literate researchers wish to examine my samples under their microscopes, i am contactable at sciencebod01@aol.com. Agenda-driven Paolo Di Lazzaro  and his photochemically-illiterate ENEA team members need not apply. I leave them to make their own flour imprints, using the instructions given above to TH.

Update: 20:40  Monday 31 Aug

Have just spotted this comment from Thibault Heimburger on the shroudstory site:

http://shroudstory.com/2015/08/31/colin-berrys-and-my-3d-plotting-problems/#comments

August 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm 

THIS IS MY ANSWER TO COLIN I WISHED TO PUBLISH ON HIS SITE FOLLOWING HIS ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE. http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/is-high-energy-laser-beam-really-needed.html
(Update 31 August)
Sorry Colin, but I am unable to post this comment on your site,
“Thanks Colin,
I’ll try it but probably without oil.
I do not understand why oil is needed in order to give the best shroud-like image.
In other words, what is not good enough with the dry-flour/wet linen model ?
You might be right or not.
At the end I will show my results, including microscopy.
And also after ageing the samples (why did not you try artificial ageing ?)
I need some weeks for this work.
You wrote: “Do you know of a modelled image that has a closer match with the TS?”
At first glance, no.
“Isn’t that obvious TH – you having visited this site yesterday (sitemeter ;-)?”
True.
Do you spy on me ? No problem ;-)
Thibault.

The oil was a hunch initially, a way of explaining the half tone effect and discontinuities. So in the best scientific tradition (I hope this doesn't sound too pompous) I made a prediction, namely that if imprinting was done with extra oil, over and above the 1.5% by weight in flour,   there would be a better imprint.

Well, there was certainly a much faster development of the colour in the oven, which was good enough for me.  Admittedly, that in itself might not be sufficient grounds to incorporate oil into the methodology. But there were perceived practical advantages too - flour would stick better to skin that had first been smeared with oil, and maybe give a more even coating. So oil first before flour is now part of my standard routine.

Oh, and there's a third reason for using oil. It fits with the idea that the TS was fabricated to represent/simulate a sweat imprint, so a substitute for skin oils would possibly have been part of the modelling in a medieval recipe, the latter in turn a modelling of the biblical account re J of A's linen being used for deposition and transport of a sweat and blood-covered body.  Note that Sam Pellicori experimented with "perspiration, OIL and lemon juice".

That's three reasons then for using oil, somewhat messy though it may be.

Late late addition (1st September 2015) : there's a fourth reason for using oil. Earlier, on my other site, I had said that the microscopic appearance was different using cotton, lacking halftone effect and discontinuities. But the cotton in the present plastic toy imprinting looked very similar to the linen under the microscope, Initially i thought I would have to retract what I had said about the cotton 'anomaly' (maybe due to lack of lignin etc). But that earlier experiment was without added oil. Maybe oil supplementaion has an equalizing effect on linen and cotton that overides structural and/or chemical differences between the two fibre . I am now taking a break from experimentation AND internet discussion for a while - weeks rather than days - to return to some semblance of normality. When I return I shall be taking a closer look at the microscopy, maybe investing in a microscope with a better depth of field (while still having the USB "eye piece" sender  for laptop viewing and screen-grabbing). But there will be no more sharing my photomicrographs  on the internet. I learned my lesson the hard way - there are folk out there seeking to undermine one's scientific credentials, and I'm not falling for that a second time. I may decide to adopt the same policy as regards ImageJ renderings, not being able to rely on Hugh Farey as a permanent guardian angel.Thanks once again Hugh for showing that attempts to dismiss my de-mythologizing of 3D properties based on non-standardized  RGB balance is a complete red herring (or alternatively mutant green or blue or grayscale herrring) it making scarcely any difference when one has the rest of the settings optimized, notably default z value, minimal smoothing, optimized lighting etc).

Ageing? Would that be exposure to the atmosphere at ambient temperature instead of oven roasting? How long did you have in mind? Weeks? Months? Years? I've already had my 3 score years and 10. Each extra month and year is a bonus .In any case I'm not trying to reproduce the TS in every detail, merely show how the 'enigmatic' image MIGHT have been the end result of a sequence of homely operations. Cooking, baking, roasting etc  can involve some very subtle and complex chemistry. The internal structure of linen may also be a lot more complex than generally supposed, especially in the light of the Day et paper of 2005, reporting S1 ligninfication.

Spying? Not really. Given that my postings are almost instantly re-published on shroudstory, with folk content to make their views/misgivings/disgust/outrage/total apoplexy clear there, not here, the sitemeter is my only way of knowing that the site is getting visitors. It reveals approximate geographical location only, in your case "Ile de  France, Paris" so there's no pressing need for you to instal extra intruder alarms in your house or surgery just yet.

No need to acknowledge. You might have to wait a while for a response if you do.

Postscript:  16th September 2015, 17:00 hours:

Here's a clip I've just uploaded to YouTube (1 min.15 secs) showing how blue-black -ink penetrates and migrates along the cores of linen fibres  (see correction below). The ink is a crude model for how my thermally-induced flour/oil model results in the subtle yellow-brown coloration of the interior of linen fibres:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7APq01_H-tE

Enjoy.

Correction: added 17 September, 10:00:

Have just attached this to the Comments on the YouTube clip:

Colin Berry  

 

The initial title was "Dynamic penetration of ink into core of linen fibres etc etc". That was based on the thread-like advance of the ink that one sees in the video clip AND the appearance of dark cut-ends to the individual fibres. But a follow-up experiment shows that initial interpretation to have been over-hasty and almost certainly in error. Why? Because it was not possible to see dye-advance when the thread was unspun to create a larger spacing between fibres. In other words, the capillary action is due to the narrow channels existing between the 5-7 sided polyhedral fibres, not to the channel(s) within the core of the fibres. Oh well, we live and we learn...

xxxx

Modelling the Turin Shroud: my flour/nitric acid vapour model looks better and better with each passing day.

Here's a quickie progress report, so for now I'll simply post pictures with captions only. Profoundly deep and penetrating physicochemical insights and analysis, guaranteed (says he) to knock your socks off, can wait till later.

The previous posting reported the use of a cooked paste of white flour and water in the initial imprinting of my own hand. But  there are theoretical advantages in using a dispersion of raw, uncooked flour (intact endosperm cells, enclosing native starch granules,  bla bla, less risk of reverse side penetration and image, bla bla).

Fig. 1: OK, so here's that hand again, but this time it's been painted with a thin slurry of uncooked white flour and water. (I might experiment with additives later to get a more even coating, but if the procedure works without them, albeit sub-optimally, then it makes for a more credible model.

Fig.2: If I had to choose just one picture to illustrate the power of the new technique (at Stage 1 imprinting) this would be it. Look how well the linen moulds to the hand. It's almost as if it had been painted white, instead of being covered with fabric. Why?

Fig 3: Here's the same in a separate experiment. Amazing, yes? Even the surface veins, sinews and fingernails show up.

Fig 4: This picture too is amazing in its own way, except that the reason is not self -evident unless you do the experiment for yourself. When one goes to lift off the linen, one finds it is STUCK onto the hand, and that considerable force is needed to peel it off, and that one's hand at the end is almost bone dry, with flecks of dry flour here and there. In other words, flour slurry behaves like superglue when it meets linen. (I predicted that in the previous posting, but let's not bother with the reasons why, except to say that like attracts like in organic chemistry, which accounts for the phenomenon of surface ADHESION, a neglected factor that needs to be considered in imprinting by physical contact).

Fig 5: So much effort is needed to peel back the linen (at least with raw flour) that the fibres of the linen become pulled away from their threads to form a sort of fluffy fleece. One can just about make out adhering particles of flour in the picture above. Might the boosted  'fleece' have something to do with the subtlety of the TS image, its indistinct boundary between image and non-image areas?  Or the ease of detaching image fibres vis-a- vis non-image (see STURP's Raynond N.Rogers)? Maybe, maybe not, but the results so far underline the importance of doing open-ended experimentation that just once in a while can throw up effects that are largely unpredicted, yet may or conceivably might play a key role in understanding the 'iconic' or 'enigmatic' TS image.

Fig.6: We've now moved from Stage 1 (imprinting) to stage 2 (image development). The imprint of my hand has been folded into a compact bundle (with securing stitches of cotton thread) and suspended over a tank containing conc (70%) nitric acid. It's the vapour that develops the image (see previous posting). Yes, nitric acid was known in the 13th/14th century (see my earlier posting on the writings of Pseudo-Geber, probably one and the same as the Franciscan monk/alchemist Paul of Taranto)

Fig.7: Well, that was a most welcome result, showing that the raw wheat flour worked as well, if not better than the cooked flour, despite having an entirely different consistency (the raw dispersion was thin and milky, nothing like to the thick gooey paste from boiled flour).  Predictably, there was less reverse side penetration and imaging.

Fig.7: Here's the linen being steeped in sodium bicarbonate solution to neutralize the surplus of nitric acid vapour adhering to the linen. (On this occasion, the linen had not been noticeably weakened by overnight exposure to nitric acid vapour, as checkied later).

Fig.8: Although not obviously weakened, the linen had acquired a faint beige coloration ("aged look"?). That can be seen in this photograph, where it has been placed on top of the same untreated linen.

Fig.9: Yes, there is a faint reverse side image (unwelcome for modelling purposes, though whether it would be so obvious against a centuries-old ageing is a moot point). But beware artefacts: one is seeing it here  against the same white background. See my previous posting for the false impression that can be created by back-reflection of filtered/coloured light from white of light-coloured backgrounds. Reverse-side images should always be checked against matt black backgrounds that prevent back-reflection through the interstices of the weave.

Fig 10: Here's the topside image, viewed against a black background, after neutralizing acid, rinsing, drying, and ironing.

Fig 11: Here's the reverse side, against the same black background. There is scarcely any reverse side image. Might the traces be removable, e.g. with soap and water, while still leaving front side image?

Fig.12: I had earlier wondered whether the nitric acid step in the new procedure could be replaced by plain-old oven incubation.  The answer would appear to be no. Oven temperatures in the region of 200 degrees Celsius that turn the flour imprint into a yellow/brown image also have an excessive darkening effect on the linen itself.  (The test was done with a metal template loaded with flour slurry at decreasing solid/water ratio: imprints were nothing like the TS image, being scab-like, and vigorous brushing failed to 'soften' the images).

Fig 13: At this stage I decided to do some before-and-after tests on the hand image. Thus the vertical cut to divide it into two approximate halves.

Fig 14: it's maybe not easy to spot, but a length of sticky tape between labels A and B has been pressed onto the image/non-image areas, which was then stripped off and stuck onto a glass slide  for later microscopy. The triangular notches were to remind where the sticky tape had been applied.

Fig.15: That's the slide with sticky tape. Shame about the air bubbles, but one can see stripped-off linen fibres peeping out from the tape at the top. They don't look highly coloured (but then this a more subtle model system than contact scorching).

Fig. 16: We're now about to see how much of that flour/nitric acid image can be washed out with soap AND vigorous rubbing. Is the image simply adhering flour (nitric acid-modified) or are there grounds for thinking that the technique has also chemically modified and coloured the linen fibres per se?

Fig 17: Here we are an hour or so later. The quality of the photo is not that good, with the (artefactual?) vertical,banding that might have been a trick of the light. Nevertheless, if one looks closely one sees that the image has NOT been completely washed out with soap and vigorous rubbing. There is a faint yellow DIFFUSE image area, ie. my fingers, suggesting that the technique has resulted in coloration of linen fibres, despite using an external agent (white flour) to kick start the process of coloration.

Fig 18: Finally, when one turns the linen over, against the black background, there's scarcely any reverse side imaging.maybe not suprising given the particulate nature of the imprinting medium (whole endosperm cells of wheat flour that don't readily penetrate the weave, even from a thin dispersion).

However, the key finding of this exercise must surely be the way that the linen moulded itself to the contours of my hand, despite using a thin milky flour dispersion, so as to show up an amazing degree of detail. that has surely to be a big plus in any model that relies on contact-imprinting. That same capture of detail is then apparent in the final developed imprint. We seem to have a highly promising model here that challenges the pro-authenticity view that the TS image is too subtle to have been produced by conventional physics and chemistry. Never write off conventional physics and chemistry. The ability of molecules to interact and self-organize should NEVER be under-estimated. It's almost as if they have minds of their own (in a sense they do, given their quantized energy levels that became permanently imprinted at an early stage in the history oif the Universe (stellar nucleosynthesis).

Update:Monday May 4

I flagged up this posting yesterday on Dan Porter's  shroudstory site, currently celebrating its 3,000,000 views, with this comment:

Colin Berry

May 3, 2015 at 5:24 pm

Reply

Hello again folks. Have today found that the results with the new model can be obtained using a thin slurry of white flour with COLD water with a consistency intermediate between that of milk and single cream. Have today posted 18 new photos.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/modelling-turin-shroud-my-flournitric.html
While I had predicted earlier on theoretical grounds that native wheat endosperm cells, such as exist in uncooked white flour, would bond well to linen fibres (due to like-for-like attraction of primary cell walls of similar chemical composition) I never for a moment imagined just how well. Not only does the flour dispersion behave like an instant adhesive, bonding the linen to skin, but it also makes the linen conform closely to body relief:



Isn’t that amazing?
It then took a bit of effort tearing the linen away from my hand for Stage 2 development (nitric acid vapour, as before). Superficial linen fibres were broken in the process, creating a kind of fleece. Might a similar bonding at the imprinting stage have contributed to the ‘iconic’ nature of the TS image (i.e.fuzzy, ghostly quality) one wonders?
I’m thinking of doing a facial selfie using the new technology, but may have to cut the imprint into quarters for separate development, given the limited capacity of my developing tank (the size and shape of a goldfish bowl).

Here's the response from my friend DavidG (who seems uncharacteristically to be having an off day) and my reply:

• 

  David Goulet
  May 3, 2015 at 8:04 pm

  Reply

  Paper mache? I too am amazed at the result of your experiment but we aren’t looking for a 3 dimensional image model, just one that photographs that way. Or is this merely a stage which leads to that model later?

Colin Berry

May 3, 2015 at 11:20 pm

Reply

Oh dear. Methinks you need to visit my site, DavidG, and remind yourself of how the new (old?) technology works. ;-)
In brief: paint a portion of one’s own or someone else’s anatomy with a milky-white suspension of white wheat flour in water. Press the painted part of that anatomy into linen to leave a very faint, indeed near-invisible imprint. Leave the imprint to dry, then suspend the linen above conc. nitric acid taking all the necessary precautions (gloves, eye protection, face mask, ventilation, lab technician training etc etc). The HNO3 vapour reacts chemically with flour constituents (proteins, carbohydrates etc) to ‘develop’ the latent image. Not for nothing do I call it “chemography” which, like pre-digital photography, is a two-step procedure: capture of latent image, followed by chemical development.
I say that 13th/14th century alchemists (especially) had the technology, given that flour was a dietary staple, and Pseudo-Geber/?Paul of Taranto had described the preparation of nitric acid vapour by heating a mixture of saltpetre (potassium nitrate), Cyprus vitriol (copper sulphate) and alum (potassium aluminium sulphate). The imprinted linen could have been suspended in the hot vapour to get rapid yellowing and image development. Alternatively, the vapour could have been condensed in a cooled collecting vessel to get conc. nitric acid, and the linen suspended in the cold vapour above the liquid to get slow colour development as in my procedure, which takes several hours.

Update: Monday May 4

Decided to do a selfie this morning, using the new technology.

Surprisingly, it needs only a thin smear of flour slurry on one's face to get a decent imprint.

Yes, I used a mirror to get this pre-breakfast picture of the slurrified me, immediately before pressing my face down into linen, underneath which was a cushion and several layers of bath towel. Yup, I used LUWU geometry for starters (more predictable, the degree of contact being determined mainly by the deformability of the underlay, there being no manual moulding as in LOTTO. (LUWU = Linen Underneath, Then Underlay; LOTTO= Linen On Top, Then Overlay).

Here's the resultant imprint, before development. shown 'as is' (no photoediting).

Here's the same, after some minor adjustments to contrast and brightness. Note the apparent moustache, and beard and bushy eyebrows. Hmmmm. 

The linen has been folded twice to make a more compact package, using a few stitches of red cotton and is now ready to be suspended in nitric acid vapour.

 Here's the linen inside the vapour chamber. Once can just make out a red stitch. Unfortunately one corner dipped briefly into the nitric acid solution , but that was spotted before there was too much capillary uptake.

All we have to do now is wait. Started vapour treatment at 7:10 am. It's now 13:45, and there's an easily visible browning. I shall leave it for another hour or two before removing, airing, neutralizing  excess acid in bicarb solution, rinsing, drying and ironing.  We shall see what we shall see.

Update  16:10 May 4

OK. Here's the result of my first facial imprinting, using LUWU geometry:

That's the 'as-is' imprint. Anyone would think I had a beard and moustache.
 See my posting from 10 months ago:

http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/does-man-on-turin-shroud-really-have.html

 (See there for what happens to the little girl's face when pressed up against glass, such that the photograph taken from the other side becomes an 'impactogram')

Pity about the nose - it may have looked better if the linen had not dipped briefly into the acid solution.

That's a Secondo Pia style inversion of tones (positive to pseudo-negative) using ImageJ Edit Invert.

That's the image after applying some 3D enhancement in ImageJ.

That's the same as above, applying autocorrect in my photoediting program.



Conclusions: the technique shows promise, but falls well short of the TS image characteristics. Next step: I shall have to switch from LUWU to LOTTO. It's almost certainly the passive imprinting technique, relying solely on deformation of the underlay to give moulding of cloth to linen that is responsible for the rather inferior result. LOTTO involves manual moulding, which ensures that important relief is not missed, while at the same time risking excessive capture of sides, resulting in lateral distortion. But then Luigi Garlaschelli believed that a bas relief had to be used for the face. Maybe he's right.


Late addition: I realize from holding the imprint up to the light that there has been failure to develop the brow ridges:

I say failure of development, because they were clearly imprinted with flour, as one can see above. Those missing brows make the image look incomplete.

The linen will now go back in the vapour chamber in an attempt to produce complete development. It may have been the way the cloth was folded that resulted in only partial development.

Result: comparing one with two nitric acid exposures:

How strange. One of the missing "eyebrows" (more correctly brow ridges) has now imaged (viewer's right), but not the left (which shows white due to uncoloured flour).  The reasons for the failure to image first time (both brows) and the second (one brow) are many, due to technical as well as scientific reasons. The whole face imprint is really too big for my vapour chamber if the truth be told.  If only I had one of those tall,  thick-walled glass chromatography tanks. One needs to be more modest with plans right now,  switching to a smaller, less ambitious, less demanding template.

New addition: 17:00 May 5

I was asked by piero on shroudstory a day or two ago whether I'd considered the targets for nitric acid in flour and linen. Lignin was one he mentioned. I'll try and track down the thread in question. Suffice it to say that there's a handy model system I mentioned for checking out lignin. It's pear flesh, the slightly granular feel of which in the mouth is due to clumps of lignified cells ("stone cells"). If nitric acid goes for lignin, those stone cells should show up.

Well, they do:

Pear flesh was crushed onto a strip of linen, and after drying the strip was cut vertically into two sections. The left half was the control (no nitric acid vapour) and the right half was the test. Prediction confirmed: the stone cells show up clearly after nitric acid. Lignin, of which there's substantial amounts in linen,  is indeed a target.  Follow-up studies will be done using the microscope, but not immediately.

Here's the thread in question:

piero

April 29, 2015 at 9:33 am

Reply

Colin,
Where are the controls on linen fibrils (= inspections under a microscope)?
We have not yet seen the controls at “sub-fibre level” …
You know that Shroud image reproduction fails if the features of linen fibril is not the same of the linen fibrils of the Shroud…
Until we have not seen what are the true features (remember also the question of colorless medulla) we cannot speak about the interesting experiments you have done.
— — —
B.T.W. I have read that :
>cold nitric acid, i. e. at ordinary room temperature, either alone
or in combination with certain other acids, will not deleteriously attack
the fiber of flax straw or tow but will attack and reduce the woody portion or shives,
which, as is well known, comprise cellulose fibers associated
with encrusting or adsorbed lignin.
So…
Have you studied the nitric acid action (reaction) on lignin ?
— —
Perhaps we can also try to detect where are (= maps)
the reacted lignin constituents (during the controls on linen fibrils)…
— —
I’m too impatient, I’m sorry…
— —
In any case I believe that new AFM controls on linen fibrils
are based on something more substantial
than the Mark Evans photomicrographs.

• 
  
• 

  Colin Berry
  April 29, 2015 at 9:58 am

  Reply

  Piero:I shall be doing all the tests you suggest and more besides, but all in good time. For now I have been content to flag up the results of my pilot experiments with the new two stage imprinting/developing methodology. They show how it’s possible to get a yellow-brown negative imprint from a real person that shows some 3D-properties.There’s a little reverse side colour, but less than I expected, and simple modifications may be able to prevent it altogether. Image superficiality has still to be determined, but then chemical degradation does not always show itself as visible discoloration: there may be less superficial damage to the SCW core of the fibre, the hemicelluloses especially, that are not easily visible, maybe not visibly affecting the ‘medulla’, i.e. most central part, thus distinguishing the new technique from the alleged defect of the contact-scorch model.
  Being aromatic, lignin is a possible target for nitration as well as oxidation. I’m thinking of using the stone cells of pear fruit as a model system for looking at linen lignin, given the ease of seeing them under the microscope. However, it’s not impossible that the result obtained with nitric acid could be reproduced using acid-free thermal development alone, given the right imprinting agent, perhaps not the wheat flour paste used in my preliminary experiments. There’s a vast number of variables and combinations thereof that need to be tested. It will take time.
  
  Update: Tuesday May 5,  07:00
  
  Yes, the face is difficult, at least a fully 3D face, as on a real person or 3D effigy thereof, whether bust/statue/dummy etc As mentioned earlier, Luigi Garlaschelli abandoned attempts to imprint off a real face with his powder frottage model, opining that in a medieval provenance, a bas relief would have been used for the face. Certainly that TS face has a mask-like character, noting especially the abrupt cut-off between cheek and hair (which some explain away as a banding-effect in the linen, a view this blogger has refused to buy into for various reasons).
  
  So where do we go from here?
  
  First, I'm not entirely certain that 100% flour is the optimum imprinting medium (while attractive in pilot experiments for its simplicity). Already there's a hint that an excess of flour tends to cake-on at pressure points, notably the brow ridge, and then for some reason that I cannot explain, resists colour development with nitric acid (I suspect it's something to do with the balance between water vapour and nitric acid vapour: if water vapour cannot readily penetrate the hard cake, then the nitric acid cannot do its job). So today I am going to compare three mixes, using a smaller 3D template than a face or hand. The mixes?  100% flour/water; 100% beaten egg yolk ("egg tempera" as used by medieval artists before the arrival of Renaissance oil piants), and a 50/50 mix of each.
  
  3D template, choosing a new site with  mainly flat (tish) surfaces with interesting detail? I've decided to use my toes. I'll paint the underside with the mix, then the topside, then step onto linen to get a LUWU imprint, then turn the surplus of linen up and over the end of the toes, and mould gently to the top surface to get a LOTTO imprint. It's a model version of the TS itself, note, but using the opposite extremity of the body for the up-and-over reversal of cloth direction. It will also make a more compact package than a face or hand in my vapour chamber!
  
  Update: Tuesday May 5, 19:00
  
  Here's an image I shall shortly post to shroudstory.
  
  
  
  

  

  It's one of some 200 pages in a 9th century gospel that is still in almost perfect condition. The idea that age always degrades inks and pigments is clearly mistaken. An image that is not due to ink or pigment, but a chemical modification of the matrix itself, is likely to be even more permanent.
  
  
   
  •