This is a wonderful, much needed clarification. I can only imagine that Ray Rogers would have been pleased. He was always pleased when someone proposed and/or conducted experiments rather than merely speculating.
Denis Mannix writes (by way of a comment posted by David Rolfe).
Shroud Maillard hypothesis.
The present proposal is not to study the Maillard reaction at all. In Shroud circles the expression “the Maillard reaction” has come to be used as a general term for Ray Rogers’ claim that the image has been formed by a Maillard reaction and, more surprisingly, that it involved gases that retained, within their gaseous state, information about some physical characteristics eg. the shape, of their source. His claim is based on experiments that he carried out simulating the conditions with the tomb.
The work proposed is designed to test only the latter part of this claim by Rogers which is quite a surprising claim ie. that a clear image (comparable with the image on the Shroud) can be made on a recipient surface by gases that rise in a thermal current and retain, during their movement, the details of the surface, (wounds, fingers etc) from which they were released. This claim will be tested by the accuracy of the image they generate on a reactant surface. At the same time it will test to what extent any simultaneous diffusion within the gas phase obscures the image. This is as far as the proposal goes.
This high quality image is an essential prerequisite before we go on to study what reaction has caused the image. If we do get the high quality image may some people may still need verify that it has the same chemical composition as the image on the Shroud. This would then lead into studies of the possible reactions that might have formed the image, including the Maillard reaction.
I don’t speculate thermal current/convection blur the image, this results from equations of diffusion.
Read carefully Rogers’ mail, there is no mention of a thermal current when he describes the diffusion mechanism. And when he run his tests he concluded that thermal current/convection blurred the image.
The conditions to get the highest resolution are no thermal current. Plus you should note that diffusion is only a mechanism among others. Kinetics of the gas-solid reaction itself increases the contrast.
Any experiment is welcome, but you should be aware of the limitations.
Last but not least, we don’t know for sure what the reactants are.
This is a waste of time. We all know gas diffusion will spread uniformly and show distortion. It will look look a inked thumb rolled across paper during fingerprinting. No detailed image whatsoever.
If you don’t like équations a simple look to Rogers’ preliminary tests proves gas doesn’t spread uniformly. Question is reachable resolution.
Well, this is just a start. There is a lot more to be done and other scientists have offered to help Mannix and this is what is really needed in this case.
The little pink balls and the letter of the word GAS (in red) are interesting as rough image …
Louis wrote :
>There is a lot more to be done …
Have you taken into account the question of the exact amount for the aromas ?
What was the effect of the aromatic vapours with the cadaveric amines ?
So … What kind of interactions (or hindering) in the inherent BIF experiment ?
How to get the highest resolution with both the gases/vapours ?
Do you know the inherent data about the adsorption isotherms ?
Do you know the IGC (= Inverse Gas Chromatography) ?
What is the surface energy of linen samples in the different kind of experiments ?
Until now we have read anything about this question in the studies about the Holy Shroud of Turin. Why ?
Perhaps Al Adler (a well known chemist) has considered that question, but I have found nothing in the interesting collection of the papers by Adler. Am I wrong ?
I want to be able to use inverse gas chromatography (IGC), because in my past Textile Engineering course there was not this interesting and particular argument.
I have read the Abstract of a paper about the characterisazion of cotton fabric and the interaction with perfume molecules by IGC …
I believe we have to study also that question when we want to know the possible BIF mechanism.
Do you agree ?
Hullo Piero, I respect your opinion as a scientist, however I suggest that you direct your comments to Denis Mannix by also posting them on the shroud-enigma website. All the best.
Thank you for your idea …
But, if you want understand the meaning of the IGC-way, in my opinion, you have to be focused on the following question :
What is Inverse Gas Chromatography ?
Inverse gas chromatography (IGC) is different from the GC,
because in IGC analytic way it is the adsorbent stationary phase that is under investigation and known molecules are injected into the mobile phase act as a probe. It is through this inversion of the role of the phases that IGC gets its name.
The application of IGC is typically in regards to studying the surface (= surface energy…) property of a solid adsorbent and therefore the principles and theory correspond to that of
traditional adsorption chromatography …
Unfortunately I have found some interesting paper about the IGC and the textile fibers (cotton, hemp, etc.) but nothing about the IGC and linen fibrils (= only linen) !
Have you tried to read the useful paper about the IGC and linen ?
I want to add that I have some doubt about the presumed great amount of aromas during the burial rite, etc.
Unfortunately the interesting study (= intensity of the Shroud body image versus the cloth-body distance, etc.) by Giovanni Fazio, titled :
The original presence of burial ointments on the Turin Shroud (2006 = an old paper. Now there are other studies by Fazio and C.),
seems to be inconclusive.
So (I repeat my idea, previously indicated in another message addressed to you) the possible solution is the adequate investigation : checking the linen fibrils and the dusts, using the SPM techniques.
In this manner our ideas will be more clear.
Do you agree on that pathway ?
Piero, Your scientific study of the Shroud and all the suggestions you have point to the need for a paper written by you, so why don’t you write one and post it, as suggested earlier? It should be directed to scientists, and I can help you by making the paper more known. All the best.
Try to see under the address :
While in gas chromatography a sample containing multiple species is separated into its components on a stationary phase, Inverse gas chromatography uses injection of a single species to probe the characteristics of a stationary phase sample.
Observe the movie (= Inverse gas chromatography and retention time for Cellulose and Nonane) under the address :
think what are the different molecules near the linen of the Shroud…
why we never have studied that interesting question in a deep manner in the studies about the linen of the Shroud ?
See also : the question of the presumed “second Face” indicated (by prof. Fanti and other researchers) as present in the reverse side of the Shroud …
Then the questions can be the following :
What is the retention time (on linen) for the different kind of cadaveric amines ?
Which is the retention time (on linen) for the aromas ?
It seems that we were not able to find the inherent answers.
Is that scientific work an useless waste of time ?
What is your remark now ?
If something needs clarification, it’s Rogers’ Maillard reaction.
I think Rogers would have been upset reading his alleged claim :
“a clear image (comparable with the image on the Shroud) can be made on a recipient surface by gases that rise in a thermal current and retain, during their movement, the details of the surface, (wounds, fingers etc) from which they were released.”
This is actually absurd. His hypothesis is much more complex, and first of all it is a contact (beard, nose, fingers, wounds) and diffusion (borders, cheeks) hypothesis.
I think the data of the Shroud point in only one direction concerning the formation of the image: it must have been a combined process that acted both in direct contact areas and at a very short distance that decreased very fast from the released point. In his excellent paper presented at the Dallas conference in 2005, Mario Latendresse assumed that after 2 cm of distance, the image formation process had already lost about 80% of his efficacity ! I think this assumption is pretty fair and this show that the diffusion part of the process had to be very mild (we’re far from a suddent burst of energetic radiation!!!)… Here’s the exact quote from Mario’s paper: “More precisely, we will assume that beyond two centimeters the projection has lost more than 80% of its efficacity. In my mind, this assumption can fit pretty well with Rogers hypothesis but not at all with all the energetic radiation hypotheses that have been proposed over the years…
I just wants to make it clear that the quote from Mario’s paper ends up at “efficacity”. The rest is my own opinion.
Yes, and Thibault’s article sums up his theory.
But reading again Denis Mannix’s “quoting” Rogers and Donn Reile’s comment, i was thinking things are still confused. Donn may have reacted based on Denis’ claim of a pure distant diffusion mechanism.
This is a mess.
Even if the gas diffusion contacted the cloth, it will still be blurred and distorted. Its IMPOSSIBLE to created a detailed image with either the distant or contacted gas diffusion mechanism.
For the last ten months or since I first started blogging on this web-site, I’ve seen replay after replay of debates like this of how the image MIGHT have been formed, and I feel I’m now only a little bit wiser than when I first started. Clearly these debates go back much further in time, probably even before the STURP investigations back in the 1970s. Still no-one has been able to come to a definite proven conclusion. What price a forger back in medieval or even Byzantine times could have been any more successful? This says much to me about the authenticity of the Shroud. With all our technology, all our science, all our detailed chemistry knowledge, we are now barely only a little bit closer to a conclusion than STURP was in the 1970s. And still many of our conclusions are mainly speculative with no solid proof!!
Since Rogers’ very promising work i’ve not seen any investigation on this hypothesis.
I have appreciated the discussions.
But despite my intervention about the Inverse Gas Chromatography (=IGC) it seems there are only the old things about the claim by Dennis Mannix, Dr. Ray N. Rogers and the inherent working hypothesis = the Maillard reaction, the STuRP, etc., etc.
Then, if we want to work in the right direction, we have to put aside these important (and old) things for a moment.
Do you agree on that ?
The IGC seems to be a relatively easy technique for determining surface characteristics of lignocellulosic fibers. Do you agree on IGC as analytical way to discover the surface energy for linen samples ? Here I speak about the linen samples for the possible experiements and not for the ancient linen cloth (= the Shroud).
In your experiments you have to measure the so called surface energy because in this manner you can understand what are the differences when you use the natural unbleached linen samples or when you use the linen treated that have a different level of waxes (but see also the linen samples treated with starch), etc.
These preliminar control in your samples permit a more exact discussion about your BIF experiments (if you are able to do something in the Labs).
Do you know the HSP (Hansen Solubility Parameters) ?
There are three individaul parameters :
delta d = dispersion,
delta p = polar and
delta H = Hydrogen bonding
— — —
I have read in a paper that the mean dispersive energy is 36.2 mJ/m^2 (with a standard deviation of 1.1). There was also the following table about the dispersive energy as a function of temperature (and regressed value at 20 C) for Flax :
40 C 34.9 mJ/m^2
35 C 37.0 mJ/m^2
30 C 38.7 mJ/m^2
20 C 42.7 mJ/m^2
the data were calculated by the Schultz and Lavielle method.
— — —
Here, for you, the possible useful links :
>Hansen Solubility Parameters were developed by Charles Hansen as a way of predicting if one material will dissolve in another and form a solution …
>Like any simple predictive theory, HSP are best used for screening with data used to validate the predictions. … From Wikipedia.
>The Hildebrand solubility parameter (δ) provides a numerical estimate of the degree of interaction between materials, and can be a good indication of solubility particularly for non polar materials such as many polymers …
>More complicated, 3 dimensional solubility parameters, such as Hansen Solubility Parameters have been proposed for polar molecules … From Wikipedia.
See also the webpage by Charles M. Hansen under the address :
What are HSP?
Hansen Solubility (Cohesion) Parameters (HSP)
Try also under :
HSPiP : The Software
It’s useful to determine HSP values of unknown materials (polymers, inks, nanoparticles, …) by scoring the solubility (or dispersibility or swellability…) of your material in a set of solvents …
— — —
Do you know the cohesive energies, the intermolecular forces involved ?
Am I too boring ?
What are your scientific comments ?
After reading my comment, you all would probably know I’m not a scientist. I can’t back up my claim. I’m just using common sense
Ok, then you should note that what happened is not really common. It is not a gas leak on a pipe line, but a very slow production of gas in a thin layer, with no convection current.
I have been following the Shroud since the Vp-8 image analyzer. It just blew me away. I’m confident that this enigma will never be solved. Its beyond science.
That possibility does exist.
Why has no scientist who believes in the Maillard reaction proposed by Rogers offered to make some experiments to demonstrate that a high quality image, with all the characteristics seen on the relic, can be produced this way? Mannix has given the guidelines.
Great news – we make the Inverse Gas Chromatography Instrument here in the U.K and we’re open doing joint scientific research. Interested?
Comments are closed.