Giulio Fanti, after requests by me and others, has released the following material related to his new book and granted permission to us to use it as a press release “where they think opportune.”
Here is opportune. So here it is. There is a lot to discuss and as always comments are most welcome:
PRESS RELEASE
- The Holy Shroud shows a not reproducible double image of a man who lived from 280 BC and the year 220 AD (rounded to the nearest tens), period compatible with the documented presence of Jesus in Palestine.
- The carbon 14 dating performed in 1988 is not statistically reliable.
- Mineralogical investigations on dusts vacuumed from the Shroud, show the coincidence in dozens of items with those made of dust picked up in Jerusalem and under the Holy Sepulchre.
- DNA studies on the same samples show an exposition of the Shroud to the middle East region.
These are the sensational results reported in an Italian book entitled "IL MISTERO DELLA SINDONE – Le sorprendenti scoperte scientifiche sull’enigma del telo di Gesù (THE MYSTERY OF THE SHROUD – The amazing scientific discoveries on the enigma of the Jesus’ cloth) edited by Rizzoli and written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta.
The studies led by Professor Giulio Fanti have been performed by the Universities of Padua, Bologna, Modena, Udine, Parma and London.
These studies show methodological errors in the radiocarbon data released in 1988 by three laboratories (Tuxon, Oxford and Zurich), who subjected to Carbon 14 test samples of the Shroud, placing it an age between 1260 and 1390.
Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua studies the Shroud from fifteen years and thanks to a multidisciplinary project on the Shroud assigned to him by the University of Padua in 2009 (54,000 euro) has had the possibility to obtain these results.
By means of this project it has also been possible to study and partially reproduce the doubly body image of the Shroud. Dozens of tests have been conducted in 2010-2013 in the Laboratory of High Voltages of Padua University to explain the origin of the mysterious image. If we want today to reproduce a quite similar image on a fabric in 1/2 scale, we require a voltage of about 300,000 V, but according to the american scientist Igor Bensen, a voltage of 50,000,000 would be necessary for the Shroud body image in a 1/1 scale.
Now Fanti focused his studies on the dating of the Shroud. After robust statistical analyses in collaboration with the Universities of London (Anthony Atkinsons), Parma (Marco Riani) and Udine (Fabio Crosilla), he has shown, through robust statistics, the origin of the difference of more than 200 years between the laboratories of Arizona and Oxford in the response of carbon 14 on the Shroud.
A statistical model has highlighted the systematic tendency to change: if for a few centimeters of fabric there are differences in 200 years, it’s easy to think that there are thousands years of variations along the nearly 4.5 m of the Shroud, possibly caused by the mysterious energy that produced the image.
To date the Shroud using alternative methods both Raman and FT-IR tests have been used to obtain two different chemical datings with the collaboration of professors Anna Tinti and Pietro Baraldi respectively of the universities of Bologna and Modena.
In addition a multiparametric mechanical method have been used at Padua University after the construction of a new ad-hoc machine capable to acquire the results of loading and unloading cycles of single linen fibers.
Using a petrographic microscope Fanti was able to separate Shroud linen fibers from dust particles vacuumed from Shroud; the fibers have been mounted on suitable supports and then, with Dr. Pierandred Malfi performed tests of tension and compression after analizing about a dozen of antique fabrics (from bandages of mummies Egyptians of 3,000 BC, linens of Masada (Israel, 70 AD) and Medieval tissues up to recent ones.
Five mechanical parameters (tensile strength, Young’s modulus in direct and reverse cycle, loss factor and loss factor in reverse cycle) have been selected to obtain five different age-dependent curves of the samples.
After this Fanti has measured the corresponding mechanical properties of the Shroud finding the corresponding point on the scales just determined. Combining the five mechanical results, the following date for the Shroud results: 400 AD with an uncertainty of plus or minus 400 years at a 95% confidence level.
With Raman and FT-IR spectra the Italian team measured the concentration of particles of particular atomic groups of flax fibers. At the same confidence level, the first produced the date of 200 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 500 years, the latter that of the 300 BC with swings forward and back of 400 years.
Combining the two chemical methods with the mechanical one it results a mean date of 33 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 250 years at 95% confidence level that is compatible with the period in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.
In reference to the mineralogical investigations, the dust vacuumed from the Shroud revealed traces of limestone and clay minerals showing high iron content that is consistent with dust present in Palestine.
Pollen analysis has revealed the permanence of the Shroud in the Middle East/Mediterranean regions with the presence of typical pollen grains (for example the Cedar of Lebanon).
Note: Although Giulio invited editing to correct English mistakes, I chose not to do so in order to avoid the possibility of introducing errors.
Who is Pierandrea Malfi (following the press release
he is the other italian expert who performed the
mechanical tests of tension and compression on linen) ?
I have found few italian words (= Chemistry) under an
old (= 7-6-2009) address :
http://takimika.liceofoscarini.it/laboratorio/labindex.html
— —
Here another italian website (= Physics, 2010) :
http://museo.liceofoscarini.it/pierandreamalfi.html
— —
Have you found other news ?
We will need an English translation at some point.
Yes, we’ll need to see the experimental protocols in detail. With that caveat, one has to say that initial impressions are not favourable, even if we had been unaware of Professor Fanti’s previous excursions into “theoscience”.
If I were an Italian scientist, I’d be thinking right now about an urgent letter to
the Accademia dei Lincei, that country’s equivalent of the UK’s Royal Society, or the US National Academy of Sciences etc. The Lincean Academy (anglicized name) is even older than the Royal Society, having been founded in 1603, with the distinction of having had Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) as one of its founder members. Methinks Galileo would be turning in his grave right now, seeing what currently passes for science in the cradle of the Renaissance.
In the press release there are the interesting words :
> …the fibers have been mounted on suitable supports and then, with Dr. Pierandred Malfi performed tests of tension and compression after analizing about a dozen of antique fabrics (from bandages of mummies Egyptians of 3,000 BC, linens of Masada (Israel, 70 AD) and Medieval tissues up to recent ones.
>Five mechanical parameters (tensile strength, Young’s modulus in direct and reverse cycle, loss factor and loss factor in reverse cycle) have been selected to obtain five different age-dependent curves of the samples.
>After this Fanti has measured the corresponding mechanical properties of the Shroud finding the corresponding point on the scales just determined. Combining the five mechanical results, the following date for the Shroud results: 400 AD with an uncertainty of plus or minus 400 years at a 95% confidence level.
I am curious to read other informations on these tests,
because in 1998 I have indicated the AFM controls
on cellulosic chains but these controls are different with
respect the three-point bending AFM tests (or the other mechanical tests performed by Giulio and Pierandrea).
In any case I believe that using the AFM controls we can achieve the good results, with the good level of precision (= statistical results).
The true dating is an intriguing problem to solve …
Have they solved all the questions in a good manner ?
Are the old linen fibrils investigable without destructions ?
Why jump to anti-authenticity conclusions without reading the book first? It is obvious that Professor Fanti knows that his reputation is at stake with what he has written. Perhaps Professor Barberis should write the first review, in view of what he recently told La Stampa?
Quote: “Why jump to anti-authenticity conclusions without reading the book first?”
Because if we read the book first, that will mean we will have given precious dollars to someone who wants obviously to use the Shroud for at least 2 very wrong motives, which are 1- make believe that the image on this cloth represent a physical proof of the Resurrection of Christ. And 2- making money on our back.
You can do what you want but personally, I WILL NEVER BE STUPID ENOUGH TO PLAY FANTI’S GAME.
Anyone interested in the scientific aspect of the Shroud knows very well the ideology defended by Fanti. No need to read is book to learn it… He published over the years enough papers about the Shroud for us to know what kind of ideological ideas are put forward in this book. And just the reading of summary prove this.
Also, be aware of one thing folks : Fanti’s work was done with HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE samples that would have never been used by any credible and ethical scientist in order to “prove” anything. The fact that all his research is based on this kind of highly questionable material says it all… For example, you would never have seen someone like Rogers or Adler using that kind of samples as a base to proclaim they have proven something regarding the Shroud! But, of course, most people who will read Fanti’s book are not aware at all of these very important subtilities…
” …you would never have seen someone like Rogers or Adler using that kind of samples as a base to proclaim they have proven something regarding the Shroud!”
Shades of Gonella! So what do you think Rogers used for his much-publicised claim that the radiocarbon-tested area was unrepresentative, a later repair introduced by ‘invisible re-weaving’? You can’t surely be unaware Yannick that it was a thread or two that had been covertly removed by the Turin custodians’ science advisor, Prof. Gonella of Turin Polytechnic(but only after everyone else had left).
Yes, Professor Gonella, the man who sprung the decision to restrict sampling to one corner site only. Few of course have heard of Gonella, his name failing to appear on the final multi-author paper from the 3 radiocarbon labs., despite being the chief reason for bringing the dating into disrepute. There is a polite but quite informative obituary on Gonella that was written by Ian Wilson as I recall… Gonella came across as a bitter and resentful man, following the transfer of ownership of the Shroud from exiled King Umberto to the Vatican, with Gonella then finding he had to play second fiddle (at least in theory) to the Vatican’s newly appointed science advisors.
I know more about Rogers’ samples than you might think Colin ! I have even saw a drawing made by Gonella himself who represent a proof of the validity of Rogers’ samples concerning his study about the C14 corner. You must also understand that beside Gonella and Rogers, the only person who own these threads for a while was Adler and we both know that he was a profesionnal scientist who surely take a great care of those samples.
It’s not the same with the dust taken by Riggi.
1) FANTI’S BOOK:
– Even if one does not share Fanti’s views about the Body Image Formation Process ( me included), for the first time (after Rogers and the vanillin) a team of scientists provided some evidences that the TS is much older than the age given by the C14 using many different tests: spectroscopy (Raman and FTIR) and precise mechanical tests (5 parameters) on TS fibers and many linen controls of known age. All the results are statistically consistent.
The final result of all the tests gives a result in the first century for the TS (I can’t provide the details).
From a strict scientific point of view, these findings have to be discussed among experts and I don’t know if the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal (I hope so). But in any case, these results have to be considered as they are. They have absolutely no link with radiations or CD’s hypotheses.
– I can say you with certainty that Fanti’s TS sample is genuine, even if it is not an official sample. During the C14 sampling, some samples cut by Riggi were kept in safe, given to the 3M foundation and Fanti’s TS sample is one of them. I know the precise location of Fanti’s sample.
2) GONELLA AND THE C14 TESTS:
Gonella: obviously CB is completely wrong. Gonella himself was a perfect honest researcher and the fact that only a single sample taken in the worst location had been used for the C14 dating came from Chagas under the pressure of the C14 laboratories. I have Gonella’s letters and papers.
3) Rogers C14 threads came also from unauthorized samples.
However, there are several evidence that they truly came from the “center of the C14 sample” but for the moment I am waiting for a final confirmation before writing a paper.
Thibault.
If you’re not going to read the book don’t bother to comment. Simple!
Just by the reading of the summary of that book, that’s well enough for me to comment since I know Fanti’s religious bias very well. In fact, his bias should be obvious for anyone who has a brain that work normally.
During my life (especially because of my pretty good knowledge of history), I have learn to not take for granted anything that comes from someone who do science to back-up some ideological ideas, especially when these ideas turn around religion. Note that it’s the same thing for anyone who do science to back-up their anti-Christian ideas. Because those people are doing science for the wrong motives, I prefer to disregard everything they can say until their conclusion could be scientifically confirmed by some credible and honest scientists who are not known to have any religious or anti-religious bias. I think it’s much more prudent to think that way, especially regarding something as much controversial as the Shroud of Turin. And I think the recent history of Shroud science prove that I’m right to think that way.
Once I read it, I will give my opinion.
In the meanwhile, today’s VATICAN INSIDER includes very interesting article by Gian Maria Zaccone Scientific director of the Museum of the Holy Shroud of Turin, Vice-director of the International Center of Sindonology of Turin and member of the Archdiocese of Turin’s Diocesan Commission for the Shroud
Also, a new App is announced based on long expected high definition images on the Shroud.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/
You are evading the issue Yannick. If one can reasonably question the reliability of Fanti’s new studies, based as they are (we are warned) on some mysteriously-acquired threads from the Shroud, then one could say precisely the same about the threads that Rogers acquired from Gonella.
Yet earlier you claimed that your hero Rogers would never have agreed to use covert illicit material for his studies. Yet he did, at least according to Ian Wilson, and what’s more Rogers published them in his own journal – Thermochimica Acta – the one he helped found and of which he was a prominent member of its Editorial board for many years, thus acquiring the kudos that goes with “peer-reviewed”). So your attempt to exploit this opportunity to portray Rogers as whiter than white has rather backfired, would you not agree?
Fanti’s material mainly came from the dust vaccuumed between the backside of the Shroud and the Holland cloth in 1978. This kind of volatile material is much more questionable (the same is true for the pollens by the way) than the few threads analyzed by Rogers that were taken by Gonella himself in 1988. We know for a fact that these threads really came from the area of the reserve piece of cloth cut by Riggi for the carbon dating that was adjacent to the sample used by the C14 labs. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. The fact that you and Fanti are constantly questioning the validity of the samples used by Rogers show how anti-Rogers you (and Fanti of course) really are. Rogers was such a pro that he didn’t wanted to make any claim just based on the Raes samples he analyzed first and requested from Gonella a few threads from the actual C14 sampling zone that was cut by Riggi. He got it, analyzed it and found the same intrusive things he already had found in his Raes sample. Then (and only then), he published a paper about that which show strong evidence that the C14 corner was not representative of the main body of the Shroud.
Now, concerning the dust samples used by Fanti in his own study, no one can really be sure that such a volatile (and old) material was not polluted after the sampling by newer material that has nothing to do with the Shroud??? Also, part (maybe a big part) of the material vaccuumed by Riggi could well have been droped on the Shroud well after the first apparition of the relic in Lirey (ca. 1357). How can someone be sure of the validity and representativeness of such a volatile material??? No one in fact. And the fact that Fanti (who present himself as a true scientist) mainly used that kind of highly questionable samples in order to prove the C14 dating wrong and to prove that the image is a direct product of the Resurrection of Christ is very telling about the bad (religious) motivations and the non-professionalism of this person.
Fanti is not Rogers and, truly, Rogers was not Fanti… One can be fully trusted because he wasn’t doing science to confort his beliefs. Guess who?
He was doing science to “comfort his unbelief”.
My research also supports Thibault’s claims.
Thibault writes:
2) GONELLA AND THE C14 TESTS:
Gonella: obviously CB is completely wrong. Gonella himself was a perfect honest researcher and the fact that only a single sample taken in the worst location had been used for the C14 dating came from Chagas under the pressure of the C14 laboratories. I have Gonella’s letters and papers.
3) Rogers C14 threads came also from unauthorized samples.
As far as Fanti’s TS sample, I can only conclude that Fanti’s TS sample is genuine. I’m very aware of the document Thibault is discussing with all of us and his integrity is impeccable along with the other individual who has a copy of these documents from Gonella.
However, even with final confirmation about the “center of the C14 sample” was in fact actually used by Rogers, It will always be suspicious to many regardless of a confirmation.
The only evidence that I will accept is that which is in the public domain – people can quote their private sources if they wish, but that cuts no ice with me – it is simply bad etiquette to do that on a public forum. And I don’t care for the ‘ganging up’ either.
Whether correct or wrong there is a full account of the wrangles that preceded the radiocarbon dating in the document entitled “The setting for the radiocarbon dating of the Shroudmore by Emanuela Marinelli. There you will find that the Academy of Pontifical Sciences (i.e. the Vatican) was ‘unaccountably excluded’ from the final decision making, and I see no reference to its President Chagas being in Turin on the day of sampling. Reading the entire document in the round, I believe one is entitled to conclude that the buck stopped with the science advisor of the Turin custodian, namely Luigi Gonella. He was also arguing at the last minute to restrict sampling to one area, and he was responsible for the choice of that area being left in the hands of a unnamed individual, instead of Mechthild Fleury-Lemberg as originally agreed. Yes, the 3 labs wanted to test from the same area, but that was for statistical homogeneity. Gonella could still have insisted on two or more sampling sites, each subdivided into three to allow analysis of variance between labs as well as that due to fabric variation.
I made no observation whatsoever on Gonella’a honesty or competence as a researcher, and am getting rather tired of TH’s attempts to misrepresent what I write. My earlier criticism was directed at the circumstances by which Gonella was able to supply Rogers with threads allegedly from the radiocarbon sample without anyone outside his little coterie that retreated to that side room (in defiance of the final agreed protocol) knowing about that at the time.
I shall now be ignoring all further comments from TH – I have had more than I can stand of that individual’s brand of put-downs. He needs to clean up the way he operates on the internet. Reputations are at stake.
Colin I didn’t mean to upset anyone. But now that I see my post and left the remark, 2) GONELLA AND THE C14 TESTS:
Gonella: obviously CB is completely wrong.
I see why you thought I directed a jab at you. On the contrary.
In fact I agree with your premise about what threads Rogers obtained and from whom. I believe with almost certainty, the threads that Rogers used was from the reserve procured by Riggi.Your point about public domain is valid. I’ll be happy to send you a link to a site that is open to the public but it does require a password. Keep in mind these are documents that consist of letters and some evidence that is presented can be considered here-say.
Enter this link first
http://holyshroudguild.org/enter-the-archives.html
to request a password. Once you’ve entered you will have access to these links.
http://holyshroudguild.org/drraes.html
http://holyshroudguild.org/drraes-problematic-threads.html
Giorgio
I’d like to see the track record of the mechanical and chemical methods used by Fanti et al. Have they been used by other scholars to date other fabrics? How do their results compare to dates of the same fabrics obtained by other methods?
Such independently obtained comparative results do exist for radiocarbon dating; until similar comparisons are provided for Fanti’s method, it will remain unverified.
I completely agree with you Stephen. And, in the end, I think the only way we could settle the issue concerning the Shroud’s age would be, for the Vatican, to allow a new C14 testing, which would be properly done this time (with at least 3 different samples used that would be examined in deep to remove any contamination) and which would be include into a much wider series of direct testing on the relic. Unfortunatelly, I don’t expect this to come in a near future. But who knows? Maybe the new Pope will surprise us!
Good point, but an equally important perspective would be gained by applying Fanti’s methods to other historical fabrics in order to determine its validity.
We know C14 testing is reliable (with all the usual caveats about selecting material to insure it is representative and uncontaminated). We have no such assurance about Fanti’s methods
However, if it is a fringe theory (and it may be — I’m not an expert in the field) the scientific community may be rightly reluctant to spend a lot of time and effort trying to validate what may be a dubious procedure.
After talking on the phone to Barrie Schwortz Friday night, I came to the conclusion that it would be very surprising if any expert in the field of ancient dating came in to analyse the validity of Fanti’s alternative techniques of dating, which have never been used before (as we can tell) to date ancient fabrics. And why did I came to this conclusion? Simply because Fanti publish his results in a commercial book for the general public instead of first publishing them in a credible peer-reviewed scientific journal that would have had the obligation to verify the validity of these techniques and the quality of the science applied by Fanti and his group. Because Fanti did not act like a real credible scientist, I’m almost certain his work, techniques and results will be mostly ignored by the scientific community…
I think the history will eventually end up considering Fanti’s claims in the same manner than Frei-Sulzer’s claims regarding the pollens evidence, i.e. as being anecdotal information concerning the Shroud and nothing else. And I don’t think this kind of opinion will change at all until a new series of direct researches on the cloth can be allowed by the authorities, which could counter-verify properly all these claims and see if some of them can really be considered as being valid and solid.
The carbon testing was properly done. Read the research report written by the team of people who did the sampling and the team of scientists who did the testing. The carbon testing had three different samples taken, which were independently tested in three laboratories in three different countries. Because the Vatican was intimately aware of every square centimeter of the shroud, it was the cardinal and the scientific advisers who were a major contributor and decision maker on where to take the sample. They chose the area right next to where the Vatican had taken an earlier sample, a location that had no burn marks, no patches, no soiling, no unusual contamination. The samples were cleaned of contaminants under a microscope. The Vatican will never agree to more C14 testing, because they agree with the test results (as do the majority of scientific, historic, and biblical experts). The few ultra religious people who keep coming up with excuses of why the tests aren’t valid will never believe results that show the shroud is a fake, no matter how many times or ways its tested, so no one’s going to put any time or effort or money into it.
Regarding Fanti’s test, he came up with the testing method himself, which no other scientist has verified or confirmed. He didn’t allow anyone else to even look at his method or results before he published his book on it. While he says he used the same samples as the C14 testing, of course, that can’t be true. They aren’t available. Besides, if they’re questioning the viability of those samples, then how could he justify using them? Did you read where Fanti got his sample? A vacuum was put between the shroud and its backing, and dust was collected. Fanti tested that dust. How many hundreds of years was the shroud hanging around collecting dust from all over the place? Fanti’s test method and results have nothing to do with science and are another obvious attempt to prove the shroud isn’t a medieval fake. Fail!
You’ve clearly misunderstood. Have you even aware of what you’re talking about? Barry Schwortz has even recently stated in a comment, “Dr. Jull admitted to me that the 1988 tests were rather poorly performed. Arguing over the sample site, leaving the room for 30 minutes and returning with sealed, stainless steel (opaque) containers rather than glass, failure to perform chemical analyses on the samples (required by their own protocol) or release the raw data or explain mathematical inconsistencies in the process, etc., etc., have led to many conspiracy theories[…]
I tend to veer towards Yannick’s stand that a scientist examining the shroud should possess not a tinge of any bias for or against any religious inclination so the credibility of the test results no doubts are cast. And Guilio’s statements have some of it.
It’s more of a claim rather than evidence beyond doubt.
The mere fact the shroud is now owned by the Vatican and knowing fully well of its reputation, clouds most or any test associated with the owner.
I was raised a Roman Catholic and I prefer to be neutral and “fully scientific” on this one.
A joyous Easter to all. :-)
Al, the only way a new series of testing on the Shroud could be “fully scientific” as you say would be for the Vatican to form a team of credible and highly regarded scientists that have NEVER work on the Shroud before (never wrote about it and never done any researches about it) and that have never been known to be pro or anti-religious activists. I think that’s the only way we could finally learn the rest of the truth about the Shroud. I say “the rest of the truth” because I consider the STURP team effort to have been done with profesionnalism and honesty and I think we can trust most of their conclusions (which only shed light on some aspects of the Shroud while leaving others, like the age of the cloth and the image formation process, in the wait to be scientifically determined beyond any serious doubt).
I have found a vague micro-mechanical reference.
But this study seems to be far from the study by Giulio Fanti and
Pierandrea Malfi.
As we have read (source = Press release) Prof. Fanti with Dr. Pierandred Malfi
performed tests of tension and compression after analizing about a
dozen of antique fabrics, etc. … etc.
You can read that study :
Deformation micromechanics of natural cellulose fibre networks and composites
by S.J. Eichhorn, R.J. Young
(Manchester Materials Science Centre, UMIST/University of Manchester)
published in
Composites Science and Technology,
Vol. 63, Issue 9, July 2003, Pages 1225–1230
So …
there is an interesting diagram, see the first figure :
Fig. 1. Stress-induced Raman band shift of a flax cellulose fibre …
— —
What is the possible different approach ?
Try to observe the differences (with respect the study by Fanti) reading
the study under the address :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353803000915
— —
Abstract :
>The deformation micromechanics of cotton and flax single natural cellulose fibres in relation to their use in cellulose-based networks and composite materials is reported. The deformation of such fibres induces a shift in the 1095 cm−1 Raman band, corresponding to the ring structure of the particular polymorph, which can be calibrated against strain. It is shown that this band shift can be used to monitor the deformation micromechanics of fibrous networks (cotton paper) and the composite micromechanics of single natural cellulose fibre unidirectional composites. The shear lag approach of Cox [Br. J. Appl. Phys. 3 (1952) 72] is investigated for the fibrous network and composite materials. For the network it is demonstrated that this theory does not apply since bonding across the end modifies the stress transfer by ‘shear-lag’. For the natural fibre composites it is thought that bonding occurs across the ends, also modifying this effect, but other possibilities are discussed in detail.
— —
As you have read this work is far from the explanations about the mechanical
tests by Giulio Fanti (who controlled the Modulus of Young in direct and
reverse cycle, loss factor and loss factor in reverse cycle, etc.), but
you can also think at possible other ways to investigate
the material (… and, if it is possible, in a nondestructive manner !).
For instance …
in the previous messages (on this blog) I indicate the AFM
three point-bending tests.
Then you can read (and see) what is illustrated under :
http://www.tappi.org/content/events/08nano/papers/08nan22.pdf
The title of the presentation is the following :
Young’s Modulus of Cellulose Fibrils measured using Atomic Force Microscopy
by
Siqun Wang and Qingzheng Cheng,
Univ. of Tennessee (2008)
— —
Do you know the bending deflections (and Structural Mechanics) ?
What is the result from the measurement of
the elastic modulus (following that method) ?
— —
What is your opinion ?
Observe the fibril lay on wafer and the fibril on groove …
Where is the best way to work ?
Perhaps you can try (by yourself) using the extra-fine linen found
in one of the pharaoh tombs !
Some sources say that fine and even transparent linen apparels
were worn by Egyptian queens and it was revealed that the fine yarn
was obtained by enzymatic treatment of saliva (… in the human mouth !).
I hope in your interesting observations …
Anti-religious bias can be just as determinative as religious bias in arriving at false conclusions.
A real honest and profesionnal quest for truth (which is what true science should be all about) should never work with any bias, whether it be for or against religion. Unfortunatelly, in recent times, I don’t think there have been many scientists who did some researches on the Shroud that could fit into that category of totally unbiased scientist… And I think this is somewhat understandable because of the extremely religious aspect of this piece of cloth. It’s understandable, but in my mind, it’s not forgivable! I have too much respect for science to think otherwise.
First of all
You must read in the book (by Fanti and Gaeta) the interesting Chapter 3 :
“Le datazioni alternative”
= “The alternative dating”
The three methods :
– FTIR/ATR,
– Raman,
– mechanical dating
are all well explained (for the public).
Then, in my opinion, you can learn something of interest (for your studies
about the Holy Shroud of Turin) if you buy that new book.
There are also some words about the controls for an
interesting sample coming from Masada (radiocarbon dated) …
that sample was contaminated with CaCO3 (and then it was washed) …
Well.
Under the optical controls numerous parameters of this sample
seemed to be similar those of the samples taken from the Holy Shroud.
But the heat exposure for the samples of the Shroud … … ….
Please, read that book !
I cannot copy for you (but see also [in this book] the copyright about
the statistical works by E. Brunati. Pages involved : pp. 55-67) the work done by other researchers !
But this question is an interesting open door … also for the problem :
Where are previously located the linen samples used by Fanti ?
When we test the linen samples we have to know the exact area
(in the Shroud map).
— —
Perhaps you can also try to find the formula (the book indicated that :
there is also a squared root …) for the FTIR-ATR controls (areas, chemical
groups and different regions : crystalline or amorphous regions).
For example …
I have found the following reference :
Dechant J. (1972) Ultrarotspektroskopische Untersuchungen an Polymeren, Berlin
Available from [http://www.sprpages.nl/SprTheory/SprTheory.htm]
But (today) I have no time to read that document.
— — —
At the end of the book by Fanti there is the following conclusion :
>Eseguendo una semplice media artimetica
delle tre date si ottiene 33 aC (più o meno 250 anni)
Here the rough translation =
>Executing (carrying out) the simple arithmetic media for
the three dating we obtain 33 BCE (plus or minus 250 years).
— —
Then 33 BCE is near 33 CE or 30 CE (66 or 63 years of difference).
But I have some doubt about the exactness
of that simple arithmetic media …
What is your opinion ?
— —
In my opinion we have to improve the controls
and in 1998 I have indicated the SPMs (= AFM, CFM, SNOM)
as possible tools to find the truth.
As you can see the FTIR/ATR and the other controls
are very very interesting, but these controls seem to show some problem…
In any case I admit that also the SPMs are difficult tools to use,
but (at least) we have to try to see what happens after all these advanced
controls …
Have you tried to do the useful works ?