As for the latter, the intensity of the probing radiation and low energy of infrared protons ensure lack of physicochemical damage to any material: let us consider an instrument with the power of the probing beam at the object of 1 mW. It is especially important for the fragile pieces of art examined in situ, with the portable instrument mounted on a tripod or similar provisional stand. As for the former, it is significant that the distance to an examined object is usually relatively high-in a range of centimeters rather than millimeters. This is because it is possible to make it portable and it is contactless and noninvasive. Optical coherence tomography is a quite natural choice for examination of objects of art. Finally, an application for the assessment of chemical varnish removal from an easel panel painting is discussed in details. Next, two examples are given for the structural examination of works of art: in the former, the subsurface layers of an easel painting are presented, and in the latter, the painting on reverse of the glass is examined, when the inspection must be carried out through the glass. After this part, there is a detailed description of the high-resolution OCT instrument developed by the authors specifically for the study of works of art. This chapter discusses the last applications of OCT in this area with an emphasis on synergy with some other noninvasive techniques such as large-scale X-ray fluorescence (XRF) scanning and reflective Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. It is mainly used for the examination of subsurface structure of easel paintings (such as varnishes and glazes) and has also been successfully used for inspection of other types of artworks, provided that they contain layers that are permeable to the probing light. March 11, 1914.Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was first time reported as a tool for examination of cultural heritage objects in 2004. ![]() April 29, 1878, Arnold Cemetery, Lucas Co. August 25, 1857, Arnold Cemetery, Lucas Co. January 26, 1871, Arnold Cemetery, Lucas Co. June 07, 1876, Arnold Cemetery, Lucas Co. December 09, 1908, White Breast, Warren Co. RUBLE(HENRY4, SAMUE元, PETER2, ULRICH1) was born Augin Belmont, Ohio, and died Februin Iowa.She married ISAAC JOSEPH MILLS August 27 in Warren Co., IN, son of PETER MILLS and MARY STANLEY.He was born Main Warren Co., IN, and died Jin Iowa.Ĭhildren of LYDIA RUBLE and ISAAC MILLS are:Ģ. May 20, 1876, Arnold Cemetery, Lucas Iowa. October 01, 1893, Arnold Cemetery, Lucas Iowa m. ![]() ISAAC JOSEPH MILLS, August 27, Warren Co., IN b. HENRY RUBLE (SAMUE元, PETER2, ULRICH1) was born December 24, 1797, and died Januin Buried in Lacona, Iowa.He married MAHAILA MARTIN.She died Apin Buried in Lacona, Iowa.Ĭhildren of HENRY RUBLE and MAHAILA MARTIN are: BULAH WRIGHT, December 27, 1835, Randolph Co., Indiana. ![]() January 06, 1870, Buried in Lacona, Iowa. SAMUE元 RUBLE (PETER2, ULRICH1) was born Januin Newberry County South Carolina, and died Octoin Randolph Co., IN.He married RACHEL THORNBURG Augin South Carolina, daughter of HENRY THORNBURG and RACHEL MOON.She was born Decemin Newberry County South Carolina, and died Januin Randolph Co., IN.Ĭhildren of SAMUEL RUBLE and RACHEL THORNBURG are: PETER RUBLE (ULRICH1) was born 1730, and died January 29, 1790.He married SARAH WOOD 1759, daughter of JAMES WOOD.She was born November 11, 1720, and died June 20, 1769.Ĭhildren of PETER RUBLE and SARAH WOODS are: ![]() ULRICH RUBLE was born 1710 in Bern, Switzerland, and died 1761 in Frederick Co.,VA.He married JANE SOLE (not certain about SOLE).She died 1790.Ĭhildren of ULRICH RUBLE and JANE SOLE are: ULRICH RUBLE and RUBLE/MILLS LINE By Lois Brower Jat 06:00:42
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |