Which compels us to revisit Charring, fluorescence and image-forming
mechanisms. Beware Shroudology’s junk science and flawed logic… on Colin’s blog
Jonathan in Houston writes:
Before moving to Houston I worked as a tech in a crime and accident lab for twelve and a half years and I can tell you we found scorches on cloth so light you could not see them. Even so they fluoresced. We also found very visible scorches that did not fluoresce at all. So what Dr. Berry wrote about light and heavy scorching makes a lot of sense to me. I do not recall anything about linen specifically and I do not know about the effects of age. I wonder, is there a definitive study about the scorching on the Shroud? Did anyone quantify and chart fluorescence at the edges of different burn marks and beyond the edges of the burn marks? Did anyone experiment with a control sample of untreated linen cloth that was not modernized for brightness or wettability? Did anyone examine other ancient linen cloths that have been burned in places? BTW I am not a chemist.
I think this recent comment by Colin Berry is what Jonathan is referring to:
. . . Polymerization may well be the key to understanding the basis to the fluorescence of the 1532 burn marks, and why (in passing) it’s a mistake to imagine that the TS cannot be a scorch through lacking fluorescence.
The fact that the 1532 burn marks still fluoresce almost 5 centuries later suggests the molecules responsible for the fluorescence are of relatively high molecular weight, almost certainly solids, or they would have evaporated away by now. Candidate molecules, if one is looking for uv fluorescence and high molecular weight, say 300 or greater, would be the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, containing fused aromatic ring systems (5 or 6 carbon). Are there mechanisms by which they could be formed in linen exposed to very high temperatures? Yes there are. Here’s the reasoning. The ultimate product from deep scorching of linen is black charcoal, i.e. microcrystalline graphite. While the latter is almost pure carbon, its graphene sheets are polycyclic aromatic in structure, ie. fused benzene rings, and there is no way they could be formed from cellulose etc of linen except via a polymerization process from low molecular weight monomers. But forming those monomers, whether furfural or some other product of pyrolysis, requires high temperatures, considerably higher than those needed merely to leave a scorch mark on linen.
Without labouring the detail, or going over old ground, the structure of the flax fibre is probably the key to understanding the difference between light scorching (no fluorescence) and heavy deeper scorching (intense fluorescence). Light scorches probably pyrolyse selectively the carbohydrates of the primary cell wall, notably the chemically reactive hemicelluloses. Heavy deeper scorches affect the cellulose in the core of the fibre, requiring a considerably higher temperature, and generating the monomers that are needed for polymerization on the graphite pathway terminating in charcoal that are responsible for intermediate uv fluorescence.
Take away message: it’s false logic or bad science or both to imagine that the fluorescence of the 1532 burn marks precludes heat as a mechanism for TS body image formation. Barrie Schwortz, Russ Brault and other pro-authenticity proslelytizers please note: your playing the ‘fluorescence card’ may impress your audiences, but they don’t impress this retired researcher who has experience of tracking fluorescent compounds as part of his research career, and knows rather more than you do about the complexities of the fluorescence phenomenon, and why it can never be used to prove or disprove a case if you know NOTHING about the chemical identity of the fluorescent species.
Which compels us to go over old ground and revisit Charring, fluorescence and image-forming mechanisms. Beware Shroudology’s junk science and flawed logic… on Colin’s blog wherein we read:
The non-fluorescent body image on the Shroud is a pale sepia colour. It may or may not have been the result of mild scorching (I happen to believe it is a light scorch). But the fluorescent, heavily charred regions on the Shroud are the result the 1532 fire etc. There is no inconsistency whatsoever between these two findings. All that remains to be done is to offer an explanation as to why one fluoresces and the other does not, ensuring that it is a TESTABLE and potentially FALSIFIABLE explanation, i.e. a SCIENTIFIC explanation.
It seems to me that someone ought to define what a “scorch” is. If you mean something caused by heat, the existence of the blood indicates that the process whatever it was that cause the image did not involve heat. A “light” scorch of some kind is one possibility. A malliard chemical reaction is another.
Fact is, no one has yet to come-theory that conclusively harmonizes the blood and the scorch. Jackson believes he has. I am not convinced although I am not opposed either. Unlike others on this blog, I just don’t know, Although, it seems evident to me that the image itself and therefore possibly its formation mechanism, are consistent with a resurrection event.
PS: Charles, spare us your blather about painting. Science has proven it’s not a painting. Unfortunately that takes it out of your of expertise. I am really jammed today and for the next three weeks so I may have time for any further in depth comments. Any silence on my part will not mean consent.
“Scorch” is a term that is so familiar in everyday life that it’s now too late to try and impose scientific precision. However, ask anyone where they are most likely to encounter a scorch and it’s probably from ironing clothes, where it’s direct physical contact between hot metal and fabric that is a prerequisite. There are other types of contact scorch too, like leaving a lighted cigarette on furniture or fabric. Some might mention radiation scorches, like attempting to dry wet clothes too quickly or too closely to an electric fire.
However, one can introduce a little science by considering the chemical nature of the discoloration that we call a scorch. It’s due to chemical reactions at the surface fibres of the fabrics caused by excessively high temperatures that cause chemical bonds to break and then reform in new configurations that absorb light of higher frequencies (the blue end of the visible spectrum) such that reflected light has a yellow tinge (remove blue and the residual mix tends to look yellow).
Generally in the instances described the discoloration is somewhat superficial and while unsightly does not materially affect the strength of the fabric.
Do these very faint and superficial scorches fluoresce under uv light? I personally don’t know, not having a scientific-grade uv lamp. (Yes, I could buy a cheapo version on eBay, but would not trust results if there were no indication of what kind of uv frequencies were being emitted, quite apart from the risk of damaging one’s eyes in home experiments without safeguards, mine having already been over-exposed to uv from a photochemical project early in my career that left permanent retinal scarring, or so my optician says).
What I do know is that the 1532 damage to the TS can in no way be described merely as a “scorch” as described above. It’s better described as charring, with a scorched margin.
The chemical changes that produce charring, leading ultimately to charcoal, i.e. elemental carbon, introduce an entirely new range of exotic chemical species, notably the polycyclic aromatic compounds along the way to graphitic fused benzene rings. The latter are known to fluoresce strongly under uv light for a number of reasons to do with delocalised pi-bonds, rigidity of planar ring systems etc etc. Forgive me if this biomedical scientist with a grounding in organic chemistry does not buy into the argument that because the 1532 “scorch” marks fluoresce under uv, and the TS image does not, then ipso facto the TS image cannot be a scorch mark.
Anyone intending to play the fluorescence card to those of us familiar with organic chemistry must first place all their other cards on the table, like those that reveal the chemical identities of the fluorescing species. Fluorescence per se is hugely unreliable as a guide to process (as I learned to my cost in that same photochemical project, wasting well over 6 months chasing fluorescence on TLC plates, based on someone else’s assurance that “that is where the money is”. No it wasn’t – six months to find it was yellow-green fluorescent riboflavin (Vitamin B2), totally irrelevant to the medical condition under study.
“One of the most important arguments against the scorch is related to UV fluorescence. “[…]This demonstration together with the observed absence of body image fluorescence is strong evidence against the cause for the body image being a scorch”. Although we do not know exactly what “lightly scorched linen” means, this demonstration still remains important.”
http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/scorch-paper-en.pdf
The description of what fluoresces and what does not when a scorch is produced on linen is often unclear. From my own researches I can say this:
1) The UV photos of the Shroud were done by Miller and Pelicori and are published in the Journal of Biological Photography but are not available on the internet. Considerable care was taken to exclude any visible light emission from the UV source, so that the image captured on film was entirely due to fluorescence. I mention this because all the UV images show considerable background fluorescence which largely masks any extra due to image, scorches, blood serum and so on. There is no apparent fluorescence caused by the body image, but it is possible that there is some which is masked by the background. Those parts of the burn-scorches which are dark in visible light are also dark in UV, but they are often fringed in a pale reddish orange fluorescence, while the rest of the UV marks are greenish-blue. There seems to be no fluorescence attached to the ‘poker holes.’
2) I have never been able to create reddish fluorescence using a scorch. When I heat an object and press it several times onto linen until it is cool, I find that at the lowest temperature to form a visible mark, however faint, it fluoresces brightly. I have not been able to make the cloth fluoresce without making a visible mark, but that may simply be that I have not had exactly the right temperature. As the temperature increases, the dark scorch/char itself does not fluoresce, but is surrounded by a bright halo which does.
It’s worthless discussing the «Scorch Hypothesis»
Dr. Thibault Heimburger has already nicely discarded that theory- just read on this blog his wonderful paper THE TURIN SHROUD BODY IMAGE:THE SCORCH HYPOTHESIS REVISITED
Definitly whatever produced the Turin Shroud body Image was not a scorch and that’s it
Merry Christmas
Antero de Frias Moreira
Centro Português de Sindonologia
We are often told what hypotheses are worthless, but seldom which ones are not. I do not think any hypotheses are not worth discussing, even exploring and experimenting with, regardless of my inclination as to the actual truth. Although Thibault’s paper concludes against the image being a hot scorch from a heated bas relief, he lists many ways in which the shroud image does resemble a light scorch, as did most of the STuRP papers. One way in which a discolouration with identical properties to the Shroud can be produced, we are told, is by blasting it with pulses of high-energy UV radiation. This is a scorching mechanism of sorts. As Colin has often demonstrated, when a hypothesis fails in detail, there is no need to reject it altogether, it may be that a slight amendment will bring us closer to the end we are seeking.
What hypotheses does Antero think are worth discussing?
Hugh, I have a question.
Is it possible the linen itself may be contaminated and this impurity is the causal factor for the absence of fluorescence in the image area? This abnormality was found with #4 Whatman filter paper? My keyboard is not working, so I may be unable to respond.
Quote from link:
“Unfortunately, marked variations in fluorescence are often observed when identical chromatograms are run on sheets of No. 4 Whatman paper from different packets of papers or even on adjacent sheets from the same packet 4, and batches of papers are occasionally encountered on which no fluorescence at all can be observed at normal nitrogen-levels.“
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v166/n4215/abs/166272a0.html
At any rate, I shall take this opportunity to wish all of you and your families a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful and Happy New Year too. :)
In a word, yes. Colin has said some sensible things about the fluorescence problem of the Shroud: I can only report my findings. I myself have various samples of “raw, unbleached” linen from ebay, and some fluoresce (rather to my irritation as they can’t be used for fluorescence experiments!) and some do not. I cannot say whether this means that “natural” linen is not fluorescent, but can be made so as part of the manufacturing process, or the other way round. Most modern sheets, and detergents, have fluorescing agents added so that they will come out “whiter than white” when washed.
Incidentally, in the first 10 minutes or so of the remarkably dull St Louis conference video posted by Dan a day ago, there is a mild spat between John Jackson and Barrie Schwortz about the ambient reflected light during the STuRP investigations. Schwortz points out that the walls of the room in which they were carrying them out was lined with deep red velour colour curtains, so that reflected light was minmal.
We have top explore the following argument:
“Furfural and diffusion”…
Furfural :
Molecular Weight (g/mol) = 96.08556
Solubility @ 20-25 degC (mg/L) =86000
Vapor pressure @ 20-25 degC (mmHG) 2
Diffusion coefficient in air (cm^2/s) = 0.0872
Diffusion coefficient in water (cm^2/s) =1.12e-005
Link:
http://www.gsi-net.com/en/publications/gsi-chemical-database/single/291.html
— —
I hope to write more on that subject … perhaps this afternoon…
Errata corrige:
>We have to explore
instead of:
>We have top explore
—————–
Molecular Weight: 96.08 g/mol
CAS registry number(s): 98-01-1
Hill Formula: C5H4O2
Substance name(s): furfural; 2-furancarboxaldehyde; furfuraldehyde; furan-2-carboxaldehyde; furan-2-aldehyde; 2-furfuraldehyde; 2-furaldehyde; Furan-2-carbaldehyde; 2-Furancarbaldehyde; Furfuraldehyd; Furfurol
Link:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-49718-9_1373
Thanks, Hugh.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Best,
Colin,
you’re an old “retired biomedical scientist”
who is capable of doing many experiments with flax
(= treated linen samples).
So…
I believe that you know what are the gases and the products of combustion.
Otherwise you have to read what is inherent to:
C o m b u s t i o n a n d C h e m i s t r y .
– Formaldehyde (History = Formaldehyde was described in the year 1855
by the Russian scientist Alexander Michailowitsch Butlerow).
Formaldehyde from Combustion.
The combustion of wood is a natural source of formaldehyde.
Hedberg et al. have studied birch combustion and report
formaldehyde emission rates of 180−710 mg/kg wood.
(Reference: Hedberg E.; Kristensson A.; Ohlsson M.; Johansson C.; Johansson P.-Å.; Swietlicki E.; Vesely V.; Wideqvist U.; Westerholm R. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 4823)
So, the formation of formaldehyde from combustion processes is well-known.
The emission rate is often presented in the unit μg g−1 (mass emitted
per mass of material burnt).
Lee and Wang measured formaldehyde concentrations up to 300 μg m−3
in a 18.26 m3 test chamber when burning incense sticks.
The emission rate was 300−1700 μg per g stick.
See also wood combustion and cigarette-smoking …
Baek and Jenkins measured an average formaldehyde concentration
of 234 μg m−3 when six cigarettes were smoked in a 30 m3 chamber
under almost static conditions. A study by Baker with 13 experimental cigarettes (saccharides added) gave emission rates between 30 μg g−1 and 57 μg
per cigarette smoked.
In the study by Singer et al., distinctly higher formaldehyde emission rates of 950−1310 μg per cigarette smoked were measured. Maroni et al. report 70−100 μg formaldehyde in the undiluted mainstream smoke of nonfilter cigarettes and 0.2 mg per cigarette in sidestream smoke. According to Baker et al., formaldehyde is mainly generated from the pyrolysis of saccharides used as tobacco ingredients.
Source: Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment
Tunga Salthammer, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky
Chem Rev. Apr 14, 2010; 110(4): 2536–2572.
Published online Jan 12, 2010.
doi: 10.1021/cr800399g
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855181/#ref55
– Acetaldehyde.
In an experimental study using radiolabeled glucose and sucrose added to research cigarettes, up to 0.06% of the label was found in acetaldehyde (Gager et al., 1971b), which at a sugar application level of 5% (40 mg per cigarette) would translate to an ingredient-related contribution to the overall acetaldehyde yield of approximately 5%, assuming an average overall yield of acetaldehyde of approximately 500 μg per cigarette.
Taken together, sugars used as ingredients do not produce greater yields of acetaldehyde in mainstream smoke than are produced from tobacco itself… …
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296517/
— — —
Trying to read something about air sampling in occupational environments
I have found an article:
“Chemosorption sampling and analysis of formaldehyde in air.
Influence on recovery during the simultaneous sampling of formaldehyde,
phenol, furfural and furfuryl alcohol.”
In that study (published in: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
01/1982; 7(4):282-9. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.2546)
there was the sampling of formaldehyde in the range 0.01–1.0 mg/m3 of air,
based on a 3-1 (15 min) sample and a coating of 1%.
>Furfural, phenol, and furfuryl alcohol do not interfere and
may be conveniently sampled at the same time.
>Formaldehyde and furfural hydrazones were analyzed
by high-performance liquid chromatography,
phenol and furfuryl alcohol by gas chromatography
Link:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15851014_Chemosorption_sampling_and_analysis_of_formaldehyde_in_air._Influence_on_recovery_during_the_simultaneous_sampling_of_formaldehyde_phenol_furfural_and_furfuryl_alcohol
>Anthracene is a solid polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon of formula C14H10, consisting of three fused benzene rings.
It is a component of coal tar.
>Coal tar contains around 1.5% anthracene and remains a major source of this material.
>Anthracene is colorless but exhibits a blue (400-500 nm peak) fluorescence under ultraviolet light. ( Link: http://omlc.org/spectra/PhotochemCAD/html/022.html )
>The dimer, called dianthracene (or sometimes paranthracene), is connected by a pair of new carbon-carbon bonds, the result of the [4+4] cycloaddition. It reverts to anthracene thermally or with UV irradiation below 300 nm.
>Anthracene, as many other PAHs, is generated during combustion processes.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracene
You know what I want to communicate with this long message?
This is a long (and somewhat ‘unfortunate, ie: sketchy) message
because
I want to say to you that the issues of Chemistry of Combustion
must be treated well. Ie: taking into account the inherent values
of diffusion and fluorescence … and inherent thermo-chemical properties.
Using the appropriate experiments, with natural linen [= without chemical bleaching]
(and UV light) you can clarify what really happens.
— — — — —
Microscopy.
I have read that:
>BioScope Resolve is an AFM developed specifically for integration
with optical microscopy for biological research into cells, tissues and molecules.
>The new system provides the most complete range of capabilities
for cell mechanics and molecular force spectroscopy…
Formaldehyde [HCHO], acrolein, and furfurals…
> … In addition to CO, we have identified low-molecular-weight aldehydes
(including formaldehyde [HCHO], acrolein, and furfural), respirable
particulate (PM2.5), and benzene as potential firefighter health threats.
Many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are also common components
of the particulate phase of smoke…
From the Abstract:
>A variety of potent air toxins are in the smoke produced by burning forest and range
biomass° Preliminary data on flrefighter exposures to carbon monoxide and formaldehyde
at four prescribed burns of Western United States natural fuels are presented. Formaldehyde may be correlated to carbon monoxide emissions.
The firefighters’ exposures to these compounds relative
to workplace standards are discussed.
Link:
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp441.pdf
Aldehydes, including formaldehyde, were efficiently chemisorbed in a cartridge.
— —
Furfural Properties:
-mp : −36 °C(lit.)
-bp : 54-56 °C11 mm Hg
-density : 1.16 g/mL at 25 °C(lit.)
-vapor density : 3.31 (vs air)
-vapor pressure : 13.5 mm Hg ( 55 °C)
Maybe it’s a language thing, piero, maybe not, but you still appear to be confusing pyrolysis with combustion. Combustion requires high initiating temperatures AND oxygen, Pyrolysis does not require oxygen, and can start at much lower temperatures, e.g. 200-300 C, than those needed for combustion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis
Superficial scorching of fabric is pyrolysis, not combustion (no flame). However, that does not mean there is no oxidation.There may be a little, but the ultimate end products of high temperature pyrolysis of organic compounds invariably include solid carbon as charcoal. Superficial scorching, produced at lower temperatures, produces a quite different range of chemical products from combustion, some of them as chemically complex if not more so than the starting materials such as carbohydrate polymers.
In combustion, the carbon all ends up as gaseous products, primarily CO2 obviously, maybe with a little CO and other volatiles (like your formaldehyde etc). Furfural however is a typical pyrolysis product of pentosan (5 carbon) sugars. Cellulose, with 6 carbon glucose units, produces hydroxymethylfurfural instead with similar aldehyde properties
I hope that helps clear up any confusion.
Colin, I know what is burning and what instead is a pyrolysis.
I would still like to know what are the exact conditions you are referring to when you speak of … or a complete picture of the Shroud of the fire of Chambery (1532) …
If you believe that the image of the Shroud is a pyrolysis then you have to show us the exact references or experiments that are credible…
See also: the question of the bloodstains and the inherent temperatures reached on different points of the Cloth …
«What hypotheses does Antero think are worth discussing?»
I feel very honored by Dr. Hugh Farey being concerned on what I think worth discussing.
Although going astray from the subject of this post I’ll satisfy his curiosity.
I recognize the difficulties in doing image research and honestly I think Shroud researchers should turn their attention to the effects of electric fields, U.V. photons and amino-carbonyl reations on linen fabrics.
There was an interesting paper in St. Louis Conference although very hypothetical (dealing with electic fields) to which everyone can access above on this blog.
Why Professor Valery Shalatonin from Minsk University detected an electric field around a real size replica of the Shroud of Turin? ( he showed the graphics of the electic field and I think that he was not deceiving the attendance) that’s really odd.(this presentation happened in Bari Conference)
I attended Professors Fanti and Di Lazzaro’s lectures last September in Bari and I was impressed by microphotograps of colored linen fibers very similar to the colored image fibers of the Shroud namely absence of medulla coloration nevertheless the images obtained were quite different.
Professor Di Lazzaro’s laser brush face on fabric seems an artistic depiction of the Shroud face.
Professor Fanti’s ventral manikin image obtained by external electric field generating corona discharge is absolutely different from the original, namely significant distortions, although at microscopical level the results were quite similar to Shroud colored fibers.
One silly question then came to my mind: why did not they place a corpse inside the device instead of a metallic manikin? would that improve the macroscopic aspect of the resulting image?
Obviously ethycal and legal principles preclude that kind of experiment, but my guess is perhaps some kitchen lab scientists will pick up the idea to do experimental work with dead animals ( I recall an experiment with a pig some time ago but with poor results)
I wish you all a Merry Christmas
Antero de Frias Moreira
( Centro Português de Sindonologia)
“… Professor Valery Shalatonin from Minsk University detected an electric field around a real size replica of the Shroud of Turin? ( he showed the graphics of the electic field and I think that he was not deceiving the attendance)…”
Or as Dr. Moreira and his wife wrote in an earlier report of the Bari conference:
“We were very impressed by a presentation from a Byelorussian Professor from Minsk University Dr. Valery Shalatonin – and this was actually unknown to everyone – about the presence of an electric field created around a real size replica of the Shroud and
its biological effects on wheat seeds sprouting .This was indeed unexpected new information.”
I’m curious to know why he, a physician, presumably with preclinical scientific training (at least) should have been “impressed” by all that ridiculous mumbo-jumbo. Does he not recognize witchcraft when he sees it? It sure isn’t anything I would recognize as science, there being no conceivable mechanism – physical, chemical or biological – why a replica of the TS should produce electric fields, far less influence plant growth.
Thank you, Antero, although I must inform you that I always try to take compliments literally and criticism ironically rather than the other way round. And I’m not a Doctor, medical or otherwise, but it was generous of you to assume that I was.
Anyway, as I said above, I think all hypotheses are worth exploring and commend your interest in the various electrical hypotheses, and if Professor Shalatonin has something to report I’d very much like to read about it. These hypotheses have to be explored in two ways if they are to make scientific sense. Firstly how to achieve a Shroud-like marking by testing different field strengths, pulse times, wavelengths or whatever; and secondly finding out how such a mechanism might be produced in the first place, in a pre-modern environment.
And who knows, maybe Colin’s scorch experiments will help inform the radiationists, and some clever synthesis of the two be a satisfactory result!
Feliz Natal a todos!
Colin wrote:
“Without labouring the detail, or going over old ground, the structure of the flax fibre is probably the key to understanding the difference between light scorching (no fluorescence) and heavy deeper scorching (intense fluorescence). Light scorches probably pyrolyse selectively the carbohydrates of the primary cell wall, notably the chemically reactive hemicelluloses. Heavy deeper scorches affect the cellulose in the core of the fibre, requiring a considerably higher temperature, and generating the monomers that are needed for polymerization on the graphite pathway terminating in charcoal that are responsible for intermediate uv fluorescence.”
I am unable to discuss the chemistry, but Colin’s reasoning (as quoted above) has nothing to do with the question. We are not discussing about heavy scorches versus light scorches.
The problem is entirely that of light scorches.
The color of the margins of the scorches on the TS (light scorch) has the same color and the same reflectance spectra than the color and the spectra of the TS image.
But these light scorches on the TS do fluoresce while the TS image does not.
Moreover, up to know, any kind of light scorch on linen (Pellicori experiments, Hugh experiments) shows that a light scorch on linen always produces a fluorescent “image”.
It means that the TS image has many properties similar to a light scorch but that it is not a light scorch.
“We are not discussing about heavy scorches versus light scorches.”
Oh, but we are, TH. We are constantly told, as you yourself are now reminding us, that the 1532 “scorch” fluoresces while the TS image does not. But on closer reading one finds you are considering just the margins of the 1532 damage that have a similar appearance.
Aren’t you forgetting something? The 1532 fire produced full thickness charring and burn holes. Not only does that need a much higher temperature than superficial scorching from a heated template, but the 3D geometry of heat conduction would have been entirely different. Heat would have been conducted away from the blackened zone in the plane of the cloth, ie. along the central cores of flax fibres. Put another way, the faintest areas that you describe as scorches received thermal energy laterally via the celiulose cores of the fibres. That’s an entirely different geometry from receiving heat from the surface, especially at lower temperatures that produce little or no damage to the cellulose cores.
Different temperatures, different geometry of heat conduction result in different chemistry, and to end-products that differ in their physical and chemical properties. It’s hardly surprising that a core scorch on the margins of a burn hole should differ in its fluorescent properties from a superficial surface scorch.
This distinction between “a core scorch” and a “superficial surface scorch” is just another fallacy.
I rest my case, and shall now be taking a break from the TS for a couple of weeks or so. Merry Christmas everyone.
If folk have a moment to spare, please see my latest posting with what I consider to be clinching evidence from 16th/17th century Italian art in support of my “pseudo-sweat imprint” hypothesis.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-definitive-answer-to-shroud-of.html
It acknowledges the pointers received from this site and/or its host in the final firming-up of the new narrative centred upon the intervention of Joseph of Arimathea. I refer to the synoptic NT gospels’ account of the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion before arrival at tomb, a popular subject in classical art. The St.John account with mere passing reference to J of A, and with none whatsoever to his conjured-up bolt of fine linen, stays on the back burner for now.
Even Charles Freeman, bless him, helped too in a manner of speaking, suggesting that we should look to art for answers. Well, both of us have now looked, but arrived at entirely different answers.
Au revoir.
Thanks Colin for your replay.
Of course I understand your reasoning. But sorry, I’m not convinced at all.
We could discuss endless but the fact remains that, up to now, all of the experiments involving a “superficial surface scorch” do show a fluorescent image.
As you rightly wrote many times, this is how science works: hypothesis and experiments.
I must conclude, for now, that your hypothetical explanation for the lack of fluorescence of the TS image does not work.
Joyeux Noël et à bientôt.
Thibault HEIMBURGER says:
“It means that the TS image has many properties similar to a light scorch but that it is not a light scorch.”
***Angel says: Perhaps there was a biochemical process going on inside the body of Jesus (due to oxidative stress) that formed organic or nitroxide free radicals and these were responsible for fluorescence quenching. This would explain why there was no fluorescence on the body image, while other areas of the Shroud fluoresced. Just a thought though.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Best,
My belief – note belief – is the Shroud image is an unexplicable by-product of Christ’s resurrection.
That is my belief. Interested to follow alternative theories and experiments.
Merry Christmas everyone and a great 2015.
Thomas, and so was the death-like state under which Jesus placed the guards, at the entrance to the sepulchre, as He exited the tomb.
My belief is prophetic scripture is being fulfilled on a daily basis and we are currently living in the last days, prior to the second coming of Jesus or the end of the age.
I wrote a poem, similar to “Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep“ that I repeat each night before going to bed. Hope you like it.
For Yahoshua
By Angel (board name) 2014
If tonight brings my last breath,
where I am swept from life to death,
guard my soul as it takes flight
and lead it to eternal light.
YAHweh = YAHoshua
Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end
Merry Christmas to all on this forum. :)