Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

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
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3018
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:02 am

The woodgas solution is NOT absurd at all! "Gasoline" was a precious wartime "strategic" commodity in extremely short supply whereas "woodgas" was NOT.

Why can't Blake understand that?

Bottled CO gas certainly could have been used for mass murder also but the costs for manufacturing and shipping it would have made its use totally absurd in light of the alternative.

FPBerg

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5698
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by rollo the ganger » Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:03 pm

In context of the title of the thread, i.e., the "...technical" arguments, it would have been just as effective to pump pure nitrogen, or any gas devoid of oxygen, into the rooms and simply asphyxiate the people if the intention was to kill them.
Blake wrote:So let's see your evidence of persons having died in a timely manner from diesel exhaust. There's an abundance of data on that happening from gasoline exhaust. Scott thinks there might be a grand total of 2 instances in the past century (and I think I'd argue about those with him if I felt like it ;) )
Since we are discussing "technical arguments" then the question is irrelevant and so is how many people died from diesel exhaust.
Blake wrote:So, even under load, the engines used in the test never got to the point in the graph where you see the CO line start to ascend. For these particular tests, RTG is referring to the fuel injectors having been kludged and the engines put under extreme load.
There he goes again. Fixated on CO. One more time: The CO line is irrelevant. The people would die of hypercapnia and/or hypoxia before CO was even generated. The two engines used, designated A and B, had a manufacturer's setting of a maximum FAR of 0.042 and 0.058 respectively. People would die at these FAR's and therefore no "kludging" was necessary to kill anyone with a diesel engine. The engines were "kludged" to obtain data at higher FAR's but in terms of the lethality of the exhaust it was deadly before it would require any "kludging". The load itself wasn't extreme in the least.
Blake wrote:
One would not need to do any of that to a gasoline engine to get these results (and 50 times the CO output).
Totally irrelevant to the discussion regarding "technical arguments".
Blake wrote:
EDIT: BTW, the Holtz-Elliot article can be found online here (Transactions of the ASME Feb 1941).
Here's a better source:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/p ... H.31.7.669
Blake wrote:
EDIT 2: It should be noted, btw, that they calculated the "FAR" based on the exhaust constituents. So we don't even know what the FAR actually was - which is hard to do with a diesel - unlike a gasoline engine. A diesel has a dynamic FAR - as Scott mentioned in a previous post, it isn't a "knob you turn" on a diesel (it of course IS on a gasoline engine).
So what? These calculations were found to be accurate to within +/- 2% based on direct methods used to calculate FAR. In fact, it is easier to calculate the FAR of a diesel than a gasoline engine. The air intake volume is constant in a diesel engine whereas in a gasoline engine it is variable. One simply measures the fuel consumed over a brief period of time to the amount of air the diesel would have drawn in (constant volume times time). This is the direct method and if one makes a comparison to measuring exhaust constituents and finds an accurate, consistent correlation then the exhaust analysis method is valid.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by Scott » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:17 pm

Depth Check will move or delete some trolling posts when he has time.

As far as the topic, I think it is important to deal with ACTUAL CLAIMS made, and diesel exhaust is certainly one of them.

In spite of what HC says, who says that diesel exhaust is no longer a claim?

What major Holohistorian claims that diesel gassing was wrong all along and that the method was, is, and always was, definitely gasoline engine exhaust? I asked this earlier.

There is usually not any kind of OFFICIAL NARRATIVE regarding technical details on the Big-H.

At best they have certain defaults and just IGNORE or DON'T SPECIFY any concrete technical details and wait until everybody forgets about it. Am I wrong?

:)

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:58 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:03 pm
Blake wrote:
EDIT: BTW, the Holtz-Elliot article can be found online here (Transactions of the ASME Feb 1941).
Here's a better source:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/p ... H.31.7.669
That is a link to ANOTHER article (by Schrenk and Berger) which merely reproduces large parts of the H-E article (and its graphs) and discusses that original article. Interested persons should read BOTH articles (thanks for the additional pertinent article btw RTG).

EDIT: And you, RTG, should read the original article which is much more detailed than the discussion in your link.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:05 pm

redacted
Last edited by blake121666 on Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:35 pm

Scott wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:17 pm
Depth Check will move or delete some trolling posts when he has time.

As far as the topic, I think it is important to deal with ACTUAL CLAIMS made, and diesel exhaust is certainly one of them.

In spite of what HC says, who says that diesel exhaust is no longer a claim?

What major Holohistorian claims that diesel gassing was wrong all along and that the method was, is, and always was, definitely gasoline engine exhaust? I asked this earlier.

There is usually not any kind of OFFICIAL NARRATIVE regarding technical details on the Big-H.

At best they have certain defaults and just IGNORE or DON'T SPECIFY any concrete technical details and wait until everybody forgets about it. Am I wrong?

:)
This is a good question. I was basing that on something I read somewhere or other in wikipedia which I cannot find now. It not only stated HC's thesis on this matter, it linked to their articles and their whitepaper about it. And I recall a remark or two from someone like Van Pelt and others about the matter.

But I do not seem to be able to find that right now. And when I search on "diesel" at these wikipedia pages:

Extermination camp
The Holocaust

It claims diesel engines were used for gassing - with no reservations.

I figured that if an encyclopedia changed the story - and linked to a well-known Holocaust scholar or two for reference to that change - that the matter was on its way to orthodoxy.

It's very possible that this is a premature assessment of the matter.

I'm a bit under the weather tonight; but this is my off-the-cuff response to this. I might have given HC undue influence on these matters in my OP.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5698
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by rollo the ganger » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:15 pm

Blake wrote:You couldn't be more wrong. Read about it in the "FUEL-AIR RATIO" portion of the Appendix in the original article (page 24 of the pdf or 103 of the article).
There may be a misunderstanding on your part here Blake. The source I cited is actually a summary which includes the data of the source which you have cited. In regards to determining the FAR from the source you cited we have (page 97... 98 contains graph... 99 continues text) we have:
Relation of Exhaust - Gas Composition to Fuel - Air Ratio

Previous studies (2, 3, 4, 5) of the exhaust gases from internal combustion
engines have shown that the composition of these
gases is chiefly a function of air-fuel ratio. In fact, it has been
demonstrated (6) that the air-fuel ratio of internal-combustion
engines can be calculated from exhaust-gas composition with an
accuracy of +/- 2 per cent. Because of the convenience of such a
procedure, the air-fuel relationships in the present investigation
have been calculated by equations based on the stoichiometry
of the combustion reactions and on material balances. These
equations are given in the Appendix.
That is indeed how they determined the FAR in these studies but my point is that when they say there is an accuracy of +/-2% they must be comparing it to a procedure which determines the exact FAR by a tried and true method which is the method I have stated. I am NOT saying they determined FAR in these tests by measuring calculated air volume in relationship to fuel consumption per time but rather this is the comparative method to determine the accuracy of the exhaust composition method. Comprendez-vous?

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:38 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:15 pm
Blake wrote:You couldn't be more wrong. Read about it in the "FUEL-AIR RATIO" portion of the Appendix in the original article (page 24 of the pdf or 103 of the article).
There may be a misunderstanding on your part here Blake. The source I cited is actually a summary which includes the data of the source which you have cited. In regards to determining the FAR from the source you cited we have (page 97... 98 contains graph... 99 continues text) we have:
Relation of Exhaust - Gas Composition to Fuel - Air Ratio

Previous studies (2, 3, 4, 5) of the exhaust gases from internal combustion
engines have shown that the composition of these
gases is chiefly a function of air-fuel ratio. In fact, it has been
demonstrated (6) that the air-fuel ratio of internal-combustion
engines can be calculated from exhaust-gas composition with an
accuracy of +/- 2 per cent. Because of the convenience of such a
procedure, the air-fuel relationships in the present investigation
have been calculated by equations based on the stoichiometry
of the combustion reactions and on material balances. These
equations are given in the Appendix.
That is indeed how they determined the FAR in these studies but my point is that when they say there is an accuracy of +/-2% they must be comparing it to a procedure which determines the exact FAR by a tried and true method which is the method I have stated. I am NOT saying they determined FAR in these tests by measuring calculated air volume in relationship to fuel consumption per time but rather this is the comparative method to determine the accuracy of the exhaust composition method. Comprendez-vous?
Yes, that is why I redacted my comment. I'm sick tonight and not reading things as clearly as I should be. But yeah, I misinterpreted what you said, commented, and then went back and redacted. You must have read the comment in the meantime.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:22 am

Scott wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:17 pm
What major Holohistorian claims that diesel gassing was wrong all along and that the method was, is, and always was, definitely gasoline engine exhaust? I asked this earlier.
Achim Trunk, in his article "Die todbringenden Gase". His contribution to the authoritative, multi-authored 2011 study Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas.

I can forward you photos of his chapter if you want 'em.

There's no English translation as of yet, but a pdf of the English translation of Mattogno's 272 page response is found here.
Mattogno quoting Trunk, p.26 wrote:
... serious research does not believe at all that diesel engines were generally used at the ‘Aktion Reinhardt’ extermination camps.

HC's insane genius Sergey Romanov is cited in Robert Jan van Pelt's chapter on A-B.

Which might help explain why Romanov has so completely lost his shit over at HC after I proved van Pelt lied multiple times in court. So much so, a clearly embarrassed, and annoyed, Roberto Muehlenkamp asked him numerous times to stop posting insults about me. See this comments thread and this one.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:42 am

Trunk's article is available as a Word Doc hosted on, um, Fritz Berg's website!

Image
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests