This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the
whole list)
o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
James Enterline wrote:
This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying
to the whole list)
o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o
+ o +
At 01:31 PM 12/12/2009, David Bradbury wrote:
James Enterline wrote:
The bleaching / transfer I suggested would leave the temporarily
re-fluidized ink vulnerable to lateral transfer of anatase under any
black film from mechanical action of the applying brush (as well as
diffusion).
Through the thickness of the tissue?
Through the thickness of the carbon, which would have been fluidized
with the binder. The anatase was throughout the tissue.
No, what I was doubting was the "lateral transfer". The brush would
apply light pressure, for a very short time at any one location, and
there would be minimal lateral force, due to the intervening tissue.
It's also very unlikely that the ink would even fluidize within that
short time.
Furthermore, this episode could introduce a new plausibility for
Olin's and Cahill's ink-separation hypothesis. Carbon in the
original ink, now fluidized in an alkaline environment, might ball
up toward the center of the line.
So the ink fluidized enough for carbon to rise to the surface, and
anatase from the bleacher's tissue to sink into it, but not enough to
blur or feather. Neat.
That question would be best answered by an experiment, by someone
other than me. That's how science works.
But it would be better to experiment with the most likely scenario first!
The rare examples of mis-registration of the black layer could have
been caused by shear forces when the bleach brush swept a bubble aside.
Except that the one glaring example of mis-registration (the British
west coast) shows a clear structure, as if applied with a nibbed pen.
Well, that's a judgement--could an appropriately sized bubble have
lifted the structure and moved it with minimal distortion? We're
getting close to angels on a pin.
You said it ...
Multiple cryptograms using multiple cryptographic systems.
No, multiple cryptograms (two) using the same single system.
Only if you discount any alleged cryptograms which you personally
consider to be figments of overactive cryptanalytical imagination.
To what end in the Middle Ages?
To secretly impress their indoctrinated colleagues with their own
creations, exactly the way the earliest creators of benign computer
viruses impressed their friends. They were followers or predecessors
of Trithemius.
OK, that I like.
Are they real, or figments of overactive cryptanalytical imagination?
I hope to have that decided by peer review of a paper I too am working
on. Meanwhile, don't jump to conclusions.
Sounds interesting.
David Bradbury
_______________________________________________
MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography
hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of
Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for
the views of the author.
List Information: http://www.maphist.nl
Maphist mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
