Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26812
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by Nessie » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:31 am

Boring repetition of debunked arguments that try and hide the numerous problems you have sustaining your beliefs.

You have to ignore numerous witnesses who do not say anything you can claim is a lie.
You have to ignore that despite witness evidence being the least reliable form of evidence, it is used in numerous forms of investigation, whilst you reject it all.
You ignore the consequence of that universal rejection of all the witness evidence.

You have called me numerous things in the past, it didn't work, so you stopped.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 9002
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by Werd » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:53 pm

blake121666 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:10 am
Werd wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:49 am
Not sure what you're getting at. What is Mattogno saying is impossible and why precisely? What section did you find that in?
Sections VI and VII.

Things like:
section VI wrote:In any case, it is certain that the increase in power of the motor of air-blower Type 450 from 2 to 3.5 HP does not equate to an increase in the capacity of the air-blower from 4,800 to 8,000 m3/h. On the contrary, this appears patently absurd, because – from Pressac’s perspective – the increase of power should have induced an increase in the number of revolutions per minute of the motor (the capacity being conditioned by this factor), but Topf’s invoice no. 132 of December 23, 1943 mentions clearly the same number of revolutions in the cost estimate of November 4, 1941 (925 rpm), which relates to the same capacity in both invoices no. 171 of February 22 and no. 729 of May 27, 1943 (4.800 m3/h).
"the increase of power should have induced an increase in the [rpm] ...". He doesn't think this is the case! He's a crank!

Similar to his other claims in those sections. Contrary to his delusions, he doesn't know what he is talking about. And his sources for his crankery in these matters shows that fact. One can safely assume that a larger rpm would draw more air and result in a higher air exchange rate. How much higher is quite unknown though. He could say that and leave it at that. Fans can actually have a quite complicated result - I've looked into the matter. But this simple statement is undoubtedly true. One could assume that all of the fans we are dealing with in this article are essentially the same type of fans with the simple relation: higher hp => larger air exchange rate. That he even goes about with his weird calculations belies very strange delusions going on in his mind. A linear relationship of power to air exchange rate is not unreasonable. He brings up his crank reasons to say otherwise. He simply doesn't get the matter very well though and spits out crankery.

He doesn't sanity-test what he writes - just plows through with unexplained equations - that it appears he doesn't understand well within the overall picture of what he is claiming. He should leave the technical matters as separate to his claims. No one wants to read that junk he writes.
This comes from page 3. I sent all of page 3 off to Germar Rudolf. Here is his response to not only this post, but every post blake made on page 3.
Electric engines: I learned the following in 8th grade, I think:

The number of revolutions IN IDLE CONDITIONS of AC electric engines with steady voltage (220 Volts in Europe, or 380V for three-phase voltage ("Starkstrom"); 110V in the US, or 220 V for three-phase) of the same design (same number of poles) but different power input does depend EXCLUSIVELY on the net frequency, which is stable (50 Hz in Europe, 60 Hz in the US). Hence it does not change, no matter whether you have 5 micro-HP or 6 million HP. What does change is the amount of torque an engine can put out, hence its revolutions will not get reduced as much if a load is put on the engine. In our case the torque comes from the fan, and its value depends on the design and size of the fan as well as the pressure difference it creates, which depends on numerous other factors (mainly a feature of the air ducts).

In the present case, the fans were not changed. The engines were changed because the pressure difference had been calculated wrongly (too low). The actual pressure loss in the ducts was higher than initially anticipated. So, to get the same air flow with the same ducts and fans, they had to increase engine power = torque to keep the fans moving as fast as initially planned in spite of the larger pressure difference, which slows down the fans/engines.

DC electric engines, the kind you see in toys and electric cars, are designed differently; their spinning speed depends, apart from their design, primarily on the voltage, which gets ramped up when accelerating. But again, AV voltage as it comes out of the socket does not ramp up or down.

Now, before sending that off, I had my doubts and checked online, and lo and behold, my 8th-grade memory residues did not betray me:

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/84983 ... tion-motor

So, Carlo got it straight.

Sorry.

Germar Rudolf.

Werd
Posts: 9002
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by Werd » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:40 pm

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/84983 ... tion-motor

How to Determine Speed for an Ac Induction Motor
September 30, 2000

Image
Illustration of a six-pole stator.

One way an hvacr service tech can determine that s/he is making good motor replacement decisions in the field is to understand the concept of motor speed so that the speed of one ac induction motor can be matched to another.

At the same time, techs also need to become familiar with the concept of poles, since poles represent one key to a successful replacement.

Let’s begin the discussion by describing what causes an ac induction motor to run at a particular speed.



Poles and Speed
Every ac induction motor has poles, just like a magnet. However, unlike a simple magnet, these poles are formed by bundles of magnet wire (windings) wound together in slots of the stator core.

In most cases, you can look inside the motor and count the number of poles in the winding; they are distinct bundles of wire evenly spaced around the stator core.

The number of poles, combined with the ac line frequency (Hertz, Hz), are all that determine the no-load revolutions per minute (rpm) of the motor. So, all four-pole motors will run at the same speed under no-load conditions, all six-pole motors will run at the same speed, and so on.

The mathematical formula to remember in helping make this calculation is the number of cycles (Hz) times 60 (for seconds in a minute) times two (for the positive and negative pulses in the cycle) divided by the number of poles.

Therefore, for a 60-Hz system, the formula would be:

60 x 60 x 2 = 7,200 no-load rpm ÷ number of poles.

For a 50-Hz system, the formula would be:

50 x 60 x 2 = 6,000 no-load rpm ÷ number of poles.

Using this formula, you can see that a four-pole motor operating on the bench under no-load conditions runs at 1,800 rpm (7,200 ÷ 4 poles). Note that when an ac motor is loaded, the spinning magnetic field in the stator does not change speed. Instead, the rotor or moving part of the motor is restrained by the load from “catching up” to the field speed.

The difference between the field speed of 1,800 rpm in this example and the rotor speed of approximately 1,725 rpm is called the “slip.” Slip varies with the load over a narrow operating range for each motor design.



Motor Speeds, Both Loaded and Unloaded
Our spinning four-pole motor, then, operates at 1,800 rpm in this example under no-load conditions and approximately 1,725 rpm under load. Motors of this speed are commonly found in belted applications such as blowers, fans, air-handling equipment, compressors, and some conveyors.

A two-pole motor operates at 3,600 rpm (7,200 rpm ÷ 2) unloaded, and approximately 3,450 under load. Two-pole motors often are found in pump applications, such as sump pumps, swimming pool pumps, and water recirculating equipment.

One thing for the service technician to keep in mind in the field is that the higher the rpm, the noisier a motor may sound to the untrained ear. It is beneficial to become aware of the different speed-related sounds motors make.

Six-pole motors run at 1,200 rpm unloaded (7,200 ÷ 6) and between 1,050 and 1,175 rpm loaded. They are often used for air-handling equipment, direct-drive applications, window fans, furnace blowers, room air conditioners, heat pumps, and other equipment where the relatively slower motor speed makes for quieter operation. All can come in either totally open, totally enclosed, or combination models, adding to their versatility.

To satisfy consumers’ desires for quieter motors, manufacturers have developed eight-pole motors. These operate at 900 rpm (unloaded) and approximately 800 rpm under load. They are being used in applications where customers expect quieter operation, such as room air conditioners and outdoor heat pump applications.

Less-common pole configurations include 12-pole motors (600 rpm) that are used in applications requiring slow speeds, such as washing machines, and 16-pole motors (450 rpm unloaded), often found in ceiling fans.

Simon is with A.O. Smith Corp., Milwaukee, WI; 414-359-4104,(phone) 414-359-2064 (fax))

Publication date: 10/02/2000

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by blake121666 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:29 pm

Werd wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:53 pm
blake121666 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:10 am
Werd wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:49 am
Not sure what you're getting at. What is Mattogno saying is impossible and why precisely? What section did you find that in?
Sections VI and VII.

Things like:
section VI wrote:In any case, it is certain that the increase in power of the motor of air-blower Type 450 from 2 to 3.5 HP does not equate to an increase in the capacity of the air-blower from 4,800 to 8,000 m3/h. On the contrary, this appears patently absurd, because – from Pressac’s perspective – the increase of power should have induced an increase in the number of revolutions per minute of the motor (the capacity being conditioned by this factor), but Topf’s invoice no. 132 of December 23, 1943 mentions clearly the same number of revolutions in the cost estimate of November 4, 1941 (925 rpm), which relates to the same capacity in both invoices no. 171 of February 22 and no. 729 of May 27, 1943 (4.800 m3/h).
"the increase of power should have induced an increase in the [rpm] ...". He doesn't think this is the case! He's a crank!

Similar to his other claims in those sections. Contrary to his delusions, he doesn't know what he is talking about. And his sources for his crankery in these matters shows that fact. One can safely assume that a larger rpm would draw more air and result in a higher air exchange rate. How much higher is quite unknown though. He could say that and leave it at that. Fans can actually have a quite complicated result - I've looked into the matter. But this simple statement is undoubtedly true. One could assume that all of the fans we are dealing with in this article are essentially the same type of fans with the simple relation: higher hp => larger air exchange rate. That he even goes about with his weird calculations belies very strange delusions going on in his mind. A linear relationship of power to air exchange rate is not unreasonable. He brings up his crank reasons to say otherwise. He simply doesn't get the matter very well though and spits out crankery.

He doesn't sanity-test what he writes - just plows through with unexplained equations - that it appears he doesn't understand well within the overall picture of what he is claiming. He should leave the technical matters as separate to his claims. No one wants to read that junk he writes.
This comes from page 3. I sent all of page 3 off to Germar Rudolf. Here is his response to not only this post, but every post blake made on page 3.
Electric engines: I learned the following in 8th grade, I think:

The number of revolutions IN IDLE CONDITIONS of AC electric engines with steady voltage (220 Volts in Europe, or 380V for three-phase voltage ("Starkstrom"); 110V in the US, or 220 V for three-phase) of the same design (same number of poles) but different power input does depend EXCLUSIVELY on the net frequency, which is stable (50 Hz in Europe, 60 Hz in the US). Hence it does not change, no matter whether you have 5 micro-HP or 6 million HP. What does change is the amount of torque an engine can put out, hence its revolutions will not get reduced as much if a load is put on the engine. In our case the torque comes from the fan, and its value depends on the design and size of the fan as well as the pressure difference it creates, which depends on numerous other factors (mainly a feature of the air ducts).

In the present case, the fans were not changed. The engines were changed because the pressure difference had been calculated wrongly (too low). The actual pressure loss in the ducts was higher than initially anticipated. So, to get the same air flow with the same ducts and fans, they had to increase engine power = torque to keep the fans moving as fast as initially planned in spite of the larger pressure difference, which slows down the fans/engines.

DC electric engines, the kind you see in toys and electric cars, are designed differently; their spinning speed depends, apart from their design, primarily on the voltage, which gets ramped up when accelerating. But again, AV voltage as it comes out of the socket does not ramp up or down.

Now, before sending that off, I had my doubts and checked online, and lo and behold, my 8th-grade memory residues did not betray me:

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/84983 ... tion-motor

So, Carlo got it straight.

Sorry.

Germar Rudolf.
It's utterly absurd that he says what I said in different words - which is the opposite of what Mattogno claimed and ends with:
So, Carlo got it straight.
Tell him that the term is "motor" for an electric motor - not "engine".

Here is what Mattogno said:
Mattogno wrote:It remains only to determine, as Pressac claims, whether or not the increase of the output power of the motors of the air-blowers resulted also in the increase of the capacity of the air-blowers.

[ridiculous meandering about pole motors]

In conclusion, Pressac’s hypothesis is technically absurd and necessarily without any scientific foundation.
And here is what Rudolf said:
Rudolf wrote:So, to get the same air flow with the same ducts and fans, they had to increase engine power = torque to keep the fans moving as fast as initially planned in spite of the larger pressure difference, which slows down the fans/engines.
But THIS is what Pressac meant - and Mattogno thinks is "technically absurd"!

EDIT: I had to bold the pertinent part of Rudolf's reply.
Last edited by blake121666 on Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 4945
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by Huntinger » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:34 pm

Germans are a little more precise. For instance a rocket motor has no moving parts and is called a motor due to solid fuel being burned. The V2 rocket had moving parts and therefore called a "rocket engine". Electic Motors can only be motors if they have no moving parts. Subtle difference but important. There has been a morphing of meaning between the two.
There are various definitions out there so probably not fundamentally important.
Last edited by Huntinger on Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
𝕽𝖊𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖘𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖙𝖘𝖉𝖎𝖊𝖓𝖘𝖙

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by blake121666 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:45 pm

In English, an "engine" thermally produces power. So in English a rocket motor would be an engine (a "motor" in English is that which powers motion).

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by blake121666 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:33 pm

Having scanned over Mattogno's article again, here is my hand-waving argument about the fans and their motors:

The electric motor of a fan needs to turn the fan blades at a particular rpm. If the fan blades give more resistance to the air they're spinning in then the motor needs to be of a higher horsepower to be able to spin at the same rpm. In the terms of the article Rudolf linked: more resistance equals more "slip" in the motor - or one could call it more "loading" on the motor as stated in that link. But this "loading" or "slip" is due to the fact that the fan blades are moving more air. Hence the "capacity of the air-blowers" as Mattogno calls it is indeed greater - it is moving more air.

THIS is what is being said about the horsepower. Higher horsepower corresponds to greater capacity. That the torque of an AC induction motor is constant is utterly beside the point about the "capacity of the air-blower". The "capacity of the air-blower" is the amount of air it moves - not necessarily just how fast it spins.

Looking over my comment, it quite appears that I had things wrong - and that an AC induction motor with no load (or "slip") would indeed spin solely corresponding to the input frequency. Remembering back, I mistakenly thought at the time that the motor itself might have had electronics in it to work off any principle you like (such as the DC motors I am more familiar with). But I now see that is incorrect (at least with AC induction motors used for fans). An AC induction motor with no load will spin at the speed determined solely by the input frequency (unmodified from source power - typically no rectifiers in their electronics). But the "capacity of the air-blowers" Mattogno is referring to is precisely the "load" on the motor that concerns us - not the torque. The rpm statistic he focuses on does not take into account the air resistance.

And the "power" for THE FAN does not equal the torque of the motor as Rudolf mistakes it. The power of the fan is the amount of air it moves - which is the "load" on the electric motor.

This is what you should tell Rudolf, Werd. We are not talking about a no-load motor here. The load is the fan blades moving the air - which is the capacity we are concerned with.

Rudolf foolishly stated:
Rudolf wrote:In the present case, the fans were not changed.
How foolish can you get? Of course the fan was changed. That is why the horsepower was different. Rudolf's 8th grade teacher should have taught him about the principles of electric fans - in addition to principles of no-load electric motors. And didn't Rudolf's teachers teach him about "loading" motors? Why use a motor at all if not to load it?

I, unfortunately, was thinking about DC motors when I foolishly stated that the rpm would increase with an increase in power. I don't think Pressac said that anywhere though. If he did, then he is wrong too. It doesn't look to me that AC fans have complicated electronics. A DC motor is a whole different animal of course. I haven't looked back in the thread; but I'm sure my mistakes were based off an incorrect association of the AC induction fan motor with electric motors in general - which is quite wrong as I now see.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I did in fact assume a general electric motor. More horsepower DIRECTLY means higher rpm - no matter how you spin it (pun intended). The rpm is bound by the constant torque of course; but the load limits the rpm and needs to be counteracted with horsepower. So, for a no-load motor that spins at say 7200 rpm. That motor might spin under a load at, say, 3600 rpm with a motor of a particular horsepower rating. You'd need a higher horsepower motor to spin it faster.
Last edited by blake121666 on Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by blake121666 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:05 pm

So having said that, let's re-look at Rudolf's response, and have some fun with it - with comments in red
Electric engines: I learned the following in 8th grade, I think:

The number of revolutions IN IDLE CONDITIONS of AC electric engines with steady voltage (220 Volts in Europe, or 380V for three-phase voltage ("Starkstrom"); 110V in the US, or 220 V for three-phase) of the same design (same number of poles) but different power input does depend EXCLUSIVELY on the net frequency, which is stable (50 Hz in Europe, 60 Hz in the US). Hence it does not change, no matter whether you have 5 micro-HP or 6 million HP.

The applied horsepower is limited by the constant torque. Only if there is a load on the motor would you be able to apply more power than allowed by the constant torque

What does change is the amount of torque an engine can put out, hence its revolutions will not get reduced as much if a load is put on the engine.

He has this backwards. The torque is constant and always there. The power is the rpm - with or without load. Without a load it is limited by the constant torque.

In our case the torque comes from the fan, and its value depends on the design and size of the fan as well as the pressure difference it creates, which depends on numerous other factors (mainly a feature of the air ducts).

The torque comes from the motor of course. The fan is a load on that motor. The horsepower is what is needed to deal with the load.
Why does he not see his "pressure difference" as BEING the main load on the motor?


In the present case, the fans were not changed. The engines were changed because the pressure difference had been calculated wrongly (too low). The actual pressure loss in the ducts was higher than initially anticipated. So, to get the same air flow with the same ducts and fans, they had to increase engine power = torque to keep the fans moving as fast as initially planned in spite of the larger pressure difference, which slows down the fans/engines.

Again, the "pressure difference" is precisely what we are concerned with. It is the "capacity" of the damned fan. It is the whole point of considering this! The fan CREATES the "pressure difference" - which is the main load on the motor. :?

DC electric engines, the kind you see in toys and electric cars, are designed differently; their spinning speed depends, apart from their design, primarily on the voltage, which gets ramped up when accelerating. But again, AV voltage as it comes out of the socket does not ramp up or down.

Now, before sending that off, I had my doubts and checked online, and lo and behold, my 8th-grade memory residues did not betray me:

https://www.achrnews.com/articles/84983 ... tion-motor

So, Carlo got it straight.

"Carlo" thinks that all AC motors run at the same rpm (determined solely by the frequency of the input power) - whether under load or not! "Carlo" got it bassackwards wrong! The main load on a fan's electric motor is that fan moving air!

Sorry.

Germar Rudolf.
Maybe Rudolf should consult with his 8th grade teacher about this? :D He should be able to set Mattogno "straight". And then maybe he can set him straight about stoking of corpses into a cremation oven - and what that does to the average cremation rate?

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 4945
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by Huntinger » Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:25 pm

blake121666 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:05 pm
Maybe Rudolf should consult with his 8th grade teacher about this? :D He should be able to set Mattogno "straight". And then maybe he can set him straight about stoking of corpses into a cremation oven - and what that does to the average cremation rate?
More and more you are starting to sound like another Nessie clone to reinvigorate the "ovens" thread which Scott stopped. This is a deliberate attempt to derail the thread so it goes back to the normal Werd v Nessie debate which they both love: it is all total meaningless crap. Please keep on the rails or at least go parallel.
𝕽𝖊𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖘𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖙𝖘𝖉𝖎𝖊𝖓𝖘𝖙

Werd
Posts: 9002
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Is there any evidence of ventilation devices?

Post by Werd » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:19 am

I previously said to Germar in my email about blake's FIRST response that I was stepping back from this as I am not an expert:
I'm no expert. Take it for what it's worth, Germar. Perhaps this can be addressed in another article on inconvenienthistory with you as the sole author or perhaps as co-author with Mattogno.
That's the last I said to him. He has since sent two more messages to me.

First email.
Interesting. Pressure difference, mentioned by me, does not feature in his musings at all. The capacity of a fan depends on its design, its spinning frequency and the pressure difference it has to overcome. At a certain difference, a fan will not have ANY capacity anymore, as the air flowing back along the pressure gradient will be exactly the same as the air the fan pushes the other way. Hence, if the pressure difference is increased, the capacity goes down if everything else remains. Here we are concerned with an underestimation of the pressure difference.

I find the nit-picking about the terms "engine" and "motor" interesting.

https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask- ... an-engine/

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “motor” as a machine that supplies motive power for a vehicle or other device with moving parts. Similarly, it tells us that an engine is a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion. “We use the words interchangeably now,” says Fuller. “But originally, they meant very different things.” [...]
Today, the words are virtually synonymous.
And the other email.
Well, I should have kept reading. He does talk about pressure difference "The fan CREATES the "pressure difference" - which is the main load on the motor." Yes and no. The fan alone does create air motion. The moving air creates friction with whatever does not move at the same speed and in the same direction-- the engine casing and the surrounding air, if the fan is in mid-air, but in a system of ducts primarily the air rubbing against the duct walls and any air slowed down by it. So, technically speaking, the pressure difference is created mainly by friction in the ducts, not the fan as such. A fan in mid air would not create much of a pressure difference at all.

Interesting also that he speaks of load instead of torque. There is no such thing as load in physics. When you slow something down that rotates (or speed it up), that angled force is called torque; looky here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

This is such a basic concepts, why do I have to explain that?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests