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

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:31 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:04 am
Sticking with the technical aspects of this discussion I'd like to point out to Blake that the studies on diesel exhaust in the 1940's explain exactly what they were doing with the engines they were testing. They explain the procedure used and that procedure includes putting a load on the engine along with quantitative values:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/p ... H.31.7.669

See Table 2 and Figure 2 in this report.

And... at the risk of repeating myself a bit too often... people exposed to an atmosphere of the exhaust where the Oxygen and Carbon DIOXIDE content is at lethal levels would die before any significant Carbon MONOXIDE was generated. The lethal agent of diesel exhaust is not carbon monoxide but carbon dioxide and a deficit of oxygen at certain running conditions of the engine.
The narrative of the Holocaust exhaust gassings is that persons were gassed to death from the CO content of engine exhaust. CO is known to be acutely toxic in very small concentrations. The narrative is that the T4 program used bottled CO to euthanize people and that program was transferred to a program of mass murdering Jews - mainly using exhaust gas rather than bottled CO gas.

You are now changing that narrative to say that the plan was to mass murder persons by gassing them with CO2 - which doesn't fit the narrative. You are showing a graph which was obtained from loaded diesel engines whose fuel injectors (called fuel pumps in the article) had been kludged to supply more fuel into the cylinder. And even with these modifications having been done, one sees a nonzero oxygen component and a mere 12.4% maximum of CO2. A gasoline engine's exhaust would contain ZERO oxygen, 14% CO2, and 1-2% CO under no load and at idle. For what reason would one choose to use a kludged diesel ICE over a normally configured gasoline ICE given these facts? Are you saying that the intent was to NOT supply an exhaust with a higher CO content in these alleged gassings?

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

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:53 pm

been-there wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:59 am
Trolljegeren wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:19 am
been-there wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:12 am

I think you are still being a stubborn idiot who can't comprehend simple statements... And who dodges questions exposing that. AGAIN! (Just as you did with certain gasses invisibility AND the three separate locations near Treblinka). You STILL can't comprehend this. And I understand you STILL don't like this being pointed out to you again. But that IS what is occurring.
Listen, its simple, when you get things wrong just admit it.
If someone is refusing to get simple points and becoming more and more arrogantly stubborn, then they find it proportionally harder and harder to climb down. That's human nature.
You appear to have an above average knowledge of engineering and physics but you appear to me to often use it to ill effect. I.e. you do the opposite of clarifying how that applies to the 'holocaust' narrative. You muddy the waters, as here.
I do not think calling some one a "stubborn idiot" supports your opposition at all. He may be stubborn but certainly not an idiot. Quietly tell him where you think the faults are and let him reflect.. there is no need for antagonism. I would like to understand fully and calling people names detracts from this discourse. None of us wish to fall into the fallacious Statistical Mechanic trap of ad hominem. Thank you BT.
When you have told someone four times and they refuse to get it, when you ask them numbered questions that will force them to understand the gap between their miscomprehension and reality, but they refuse to acknowledge them, let alone answer them — then calling that stubborn idiocy seems appropriate.

Exposing the lies and exaggerations of this hate-inducing holocaust narrative is bigger than one persons egocentric needs. It is my opinion after a few years here that some people don't contribute to the mutual increase in knowledge and understanding. I think Blake regularly writes posts that on the face of it appear to be well-informed and detailed but actually aren't and in fact add to the confusion.

Here is a classic example of Blake's habit of writing nonsense.
blake121666 wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:55 am
The claims have always been and always will remain that persons were gassed from the exhaust of ICEs.
This statement is obviously quite false, as anyone who knows the history of the morphing 'H' mythology will know.
The FACTS are that the claimed method for the alleged mass-murder of Jews in extermination camps has never “always been and always will remain" the same. It has been a constantly changing 'story' of what the method was from 1942 till the 1960's and even 1970's.
So you think that bringing up the fact that the output of a gasifier would have a greater CO content than what would be the case from any ICE exhaust gassing somehow refutes those exhaust gassing claims?

Is such an argument convincing to any rational person? They would have done things THIS WAY THAT I THINK IS "BETTER" - not the way it's claimed to have been done. And the way you think is better is obviously more complicated than what is claimed! But not only that; it is an ENTIRELY different claim - not involving engine exhaust at all!

What BT "refuses to get" is that the OP was about GASSING WITH ENGINE EXHAUST. Diesel exhaust - not good. Gasoline exhaust - perfectly fine. Woodgas exhaust - who knows? The claim is that gasoline exhaust was used. :roll:

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:19 pm

The engine exhaust gassing claim becomes ABSURD and unbelievable when one realizes that another gas, cheap and readily available with far more CO and using no engines at all, was at hand throughout German-occupied Europe, especially Eastern Europe.

That does not mean that it would have been impossible to commit mass murder with the alleged methods and engine exhaust--but it does make those alleged engine exhaust methods seem far too stupid to be taken seriously.

Did we lose Blake, again??

FPBerg

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

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:40 pm

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:19 pm
The engine exhaust gassing claim becomes ABSURD and unbelievable when one realizes that another gas, cheap and readily available with far more CO and using no engines at all, was at hand throughout German-occupied Europe, especially Eastern Europe.

That does not mean that it would have been impossible to commit mass murder with the alleged methods and engine exhaust--but it does make those alleged engine exhaust methods seem far too stupid to be taken seriously.

Did we lose Blake, again??

FPBerg
What is the difference between diluting the woodgas fuel to avoid explosion and quickly forcing it into the alleged 10 TII gassing rooms and just running a gasoline engine rich and piping its exhaust into those 10 rooms (at about 10% CO content - just under CO LEL)?

Is your woodgas solution less absurd than this gasoline ICE exhaust claim? I don't think so. At best, they are equal methods of achieving the gassings.

Bottled CO would be close to 100% CO. That is said to have been used in the T4 program and elsewhere. Is your woodgas solution better than that?

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6207
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by rollo the ganger » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:18 pm

Blake wrote:You are now changing that narrative to say that the plan was to mass murder persons by gassing them with CO2 - which doesn't fit the narrative. You are showing a graph which was obtained from loaded diesel engines whose fuel injectors (called fuel pumps in the article) had been kludged to supply more fuel into the cylinder. And even with these modifications having been done, one sees a nonzero oxygen component and a mere 12.4% maximum of CO2.
I'm not changing anything. I'm simply stating facts. One doesn't need a "nonzero" oxygen content to kill. An oxygen content of 6% or less is considered almost certain death. There are recorded statistics of deaths due to oxygen starvation at higher levels. A "mere" 12.4% maximum of CO2 is 124,000 ppm. The CDC states that the LClo of Carbon Dioxide is 90,000 ppm or 9.0%. That value is the standard minimum concentration considered to be deadly. 12.4% CO2 is a deadly concentration.

Also, according to the graphs, these deadly concentrations occur at mixtures of air greater than the stoichiometric ratio. In other words in "excess air".

User avatar
Trolljegeren
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:20 am
Location: Raufarhöfn
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by Trolljegeren » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:29 pm

blake121666 wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:40 pm


Bottled CO would be close to 100% CO. That is said to have been used in the T4 program and elsewhere. Is your woodgas solution better than that?
Of course wood gas is not as good as bottle CO which is 100% pure and compressed. Woodgas also has other volatile s which enhances combustion. However, it is sufficient to produce enough CO to accidentally kill as will any CO source. By the way the CO is claimed to have been used in the T4 programs but that is probably fake as well. They were euthanized no doubt by phenol injection to the heart.

Ekkert er eftirsjá
Nordisk motstandsbevegelse

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

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:23 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:18 pm
Blake wrote:You are now changing that narrative to say that the plan was to mass murder persons by gassing them with CO2 - which doesn't fit the narrative. You are showing a graph which was obtained from loaded diesel engines whose fuel injectors (called fuel pumps in the article) had been kludged to supply more fuel into the cylinder. And even with these modifications having been done, one sees a nonzero oxygen component and a mere 12.4% maximum of CO2.
I'm not changing anything. I'm simply stating facts. One doesn't need a "nonzero" oxygen content to kill. An oxygen content of 6% or less is considered almost certain death. There are recorded statistics of deaths due to oxygen starvation at higher levels. A "mere" 12.4% maximum of CO2 is 124,000 ppm. The CDC states that the LClo of Carbon Dioxide is 90,000 ppm or 9.0%. That value is the standard minimum concentration considered to be deadly. 12.4% CO2 is a deadly concentration.

Also, according to the graphs, these deadly concentrations occur at mixtures of air greater than the stoichiometric ratio. In other words in "excess air".
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 ;) )

Is RTG claiming that a plan to mass murder persons by gassing them with diesel exhaust would have been a sensible plan? If not, I fail to see why you are bringing these matters up. I think your answer is no to the question and so we'll just drop the matter.

But even if your answer is yes, I fail to see how one'd prefer a diesel to a gasoline ICE for this purpose. Diesel exhaust would be the better choice if you wished to give someone cancer!

EDIT: I've thought of an even better alternative to your version of "gassing". EXTRACT the air from the space using the engine. The victims' own exhalations of CO2 would be lethal quickly enough. One could reach the levels of CO2/O2 you desire pretty quickly I would bet - w/o even a need for them being in an overly airtight enclosure. If the German's used your plan, why wouldn't they just use my "better" plan?

User avatar
Trolljegeren
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:20 am
Location: Raufarhöfn
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by Trolljegeren » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:57 pm

I thought all of this had been discussed many Moons ago. In the Leichenkellers there would be panic if people became oxygen deprived and started screaming. No force on earth would stop the mass exodus from the building naked or otherwise. The whole concept of mass gassing is stupid to begin with. The asphyxiation model was proposed earlier on until it morphed into poisonous gas. Earlier it was lobstering. It can all be done, people steamed to death, die by carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine Zb. Highly unlikely though considering the wilderness. It would have been easier to tie them to the railway line and let the train run over them all.
Image

Ekkert er eftirsjá
Nordisk motstandsbevegelse

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

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by blake121666 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:18 am

BTW, for others who have probably not read that paper, what RTG is talking about in the graph is a result of:
H-E wrote:Although Fig. 2 presents data on exhaust-gas composition at
fuel-air ratios on the rich side, such conditions of operation are not
normal and were obtained in these tests by changing the adjustment
of the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel
pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected a t full
throttle was increased by approximately 60 per cent. When
the engines were operated in their normal range the fuel-air ratio
never exceeded 0.042 and 0.058 lb per lb for engines A and B,
respectively.
Image

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.

One would not need to do any of that to a gasoline engine to get these results (and 50 times the CO output).

EDIT: BTW, the Holtz-Elliot article can be found online here (Transactions of the ASME Feb 1941).

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).

User avatar
Trolljegeren
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:20 am
Location: Raufarhöfn
Contact:

Re: Flawed Revisionist technical arguments

Post by Trolljegeren » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:47 am

Do you think the Nazi executioners would have referred to this data? I am sure if this was a state program all of this would have been thought out and examined by scientists in the Reich. They would have decided a more efficient method of execution like my railroad track idea might be warranted. I doubt if some corporal and sergeant would understand a graph let alone read one. The fact that it is all ad hoc means that there was nothing systematic which is more boy scouts than SS totenkopf. I am sure that the Jugend could have done a better job. Perhaps they should have stuck with the head clobberer Blake.
Image
Guess who is driving the train

Ekkert er eftirsjá
Nordisk motstandsbevegelse

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 13 guests