Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs > Colin Berry: Maybe It’s A Maillard Reaction After All

Colin Berry: Maybe It’s A Maillard Reaction After All

October 27, 2014

Oh, and go boil your head.

From the blog postings of Colin Berry:

It has clear advantages over Mode 1, [discussed above]. in that ANYTHING with 3D properties can in principle be imprinted, not having to be heated. That might be bas relief templates and/or fully 3D statues.  It may even conceivably have been a person, living or dead.  All that was needed was a coating of white flour (or a comparable dry powdered substance providing reducing sugar and amino groups), probably with a binder material to ensure even coating (the vegetable oil in the present modelling, but other options exist).

But I don’t see how with 3D statues, bodies and whatnot, we are not facing the well-understood contact-wrap-around problem. What am I missing?

But there’s a tricky step in the procedure – namely the final roasting of the flour-imprinted linen that has to convert the coating to tan-coloured melanoidins (Maillard reaction products) without too much dicoloration of the linen. It can be done in  principle, on a small scale laboratory basis, given the exceptional chemical and thermal stability of cellulose, by far and away the major component of linen fibres, relative to the starch, proteins lipids etc of wheat flour.

There’s a great deal to think about right now. Best to stop here and post the experimental results. Maybe others can see things I have missed that might offer a way forward through this thicket of new possibilities, each with its own unique difficulties.

To those who claim I select and/or manipulate experimental data I say this. Go boil your heads (old English expression of endearment).

  1. anoxie
    October 27, 2014 at 11:18 am

    http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/sturps-raymond-n-rogers-top-notch-thermochemist-appeared-to-have-abandoned-thermodynamics-completely-when-he-argued-for-that-implausible-maillard-reaction/

    ” There’s more I could say – on the role of chemical kinetics – on why I think that a Maillard reaction is a complete non-starter, not just in thermodynamic terms, but on a host of other grounds- but writing this has been draining.”
    Colin Berry

    Reading you is draining as well.

    • October 27, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      You’re wasting your breath anoxie. What’s more, the site’s host is abandoning his responsibilities in allowing trolls like you to operate with impunity.

  2. anoxie
    October 27, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Please, could you be more specific regarding the other grounds on which a Maillard reaction is a complete non-starter?

    • October 27, 2014 at 3:35 pm

      In a word, temperature. Content yourself with that. Bye troll.

      • anoxie
        October 27, 2014 at 4:04 pm

        This does not answer the question.

        The first ground largely discussed was precisely temperature/chemical kinetics/thermodynamics.

        The question was about the “other grounds” you mentionned to claim Maillard reaction a complete non-starter.

        • October 27, 2014 at 5:43 pm

          Ludicrous. We now have “pre-moderation” aka censorship on this site, for failing to conform to the blogmeister’s rarified house style.

          Have you never heard of robust free speech Mr.Porter, and how it took centuries, nay millennia to achieve that? Yet here you are judging us on the tone and nuance of our comments.

          I shall leave you and your clubby authenticity-promoters, hard or soft sell, to promote your product. Some of us have more pressing real-life issues to deal with.

          I’ve signed off from my own site – for a while at any rate. Time to take a break from the beady-eyed snake-oil salesmen, if only to get a breath of fresh air.

          Bye.

  3. October 27, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    Interesting development in Colin’s thinking.

    • anoxie
      October 28, 2014 at 2:09 am

      Flour is a complete non-starter. Not just because it is flour, but on a host of other grounds i won’t discuss here, bye.

      • October 28, 2014 at 4:38 am

        What’s the difference between flour and dextrin?

        • anoxie
          October 28, 2014 at 11:04 am

          My comment was an ironical CB style answer.

          I think Colin doesn’t know what he is doing, whether with manipulated image or with white flour or with scorching.

          I think the basis to deal with Maillard reaction is not Colin’s speculations, but Thibault’s and Rogers’ works.

        • Louis
          October 28, 2014 at 11:14 am

          Anoxie, Rogers toyed with the Maillard reaction idea but never gave it a green signal.

        • anoxie
          October 28, 2014 at 11:25 am

          Louis, i know how Rogers toyed with the Maillard reaction, i’ve never meant work was over, being a regular reader of this blog you should know that.

          I’m just telling you Colin doesn’t know what he is doing.

          https://shroudstory.com/2012/08/12/thibault-heimburger-i-hope-now-that-nobody-will-claim-that-there-is-no-maillard-reaction-and-no-color-at-room-temperature/

        • Louis
          October 28, 2014 at 12:49 pm

          Suggestions.

        • anoxie
          October 28, 2014 at 12:56 pm

          ?

        • Louis
          October 28, 2014 at 1:07 pm

          Its exactly that, suggestions are being made about how the image may have been produced, but there is no proof so far.

        • anoxie
          October 28, 2014 at 1:14 pm

          Suggestions, manipulations or esoteric speculations, depending on your viewpoint.

        • Louis
          October 28, 2014 at 1:40 pm

          I am pro-authenticity and also open-minded. If anyone can present proof that the image is a forgery, fine, but it will have to be proof. If it is history it will have to be history, not guesswork, if it is science it will have to be science, not speculation.The mistake some unbelievers make is to think that Christian, or at least Catholic, faith depends on the authenticity of the TS.

  4. piero
    October 28, 2014 at 10:18 am

    I tried to see something about “Temperature and Maillard reaction”,
    here what I have found :

    • Above 200°C or 400°F – mostly caramelization, with the possibility of burning with prolonged heating
    • ~165°C or 330°F – 200°C or 400°F – increasing caramelization with higher temps, which uses up sugars and thus inhibits Maillard at the high end of this range
    • ~150°C or 300°F – 165°C or 330°F – Maillard progresses at a fast pace, causing browning noticeably within minutes
    • ~100°C or 212°F – 150°C or 300°F – Maillard gets slower as temperature goes lower, generally requiring many hours near the boiling point of water
    • ~55°C or 130°F – 100°C or 212°F – Maillard requires water, high protein, sugar, and alkaline conditions to advance noticeably in a matter of hours; generally can take days

    Below 55°C or 130°F – Enzymatic browning is often more significant in many foods than Maillard, but Maillard will still occur over periods from days or months to years, with progressively longer times at lower temperatures…

    Link: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29926/what-temperature-does-the-maillard-reaction-occur

    Table under:

    As stated by Mauron (1981), most reactions that
    occur in pure sugars only at very high
    temperatures take also place at much
    lower temperature once they have reacted with amino acids…

    Reference:
    Effects of pH on Caramelization and Maillard
    Reaction Kinetics in Fructose-Lysine Model Systems
    E.H. AJANDOUZ, L.S. TCHIAKPE, F. DALLE ORE, A. BENAJIBA, AND A. PUIGSERVER
    — — —
    I hope to read something tomorrow …

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: