Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

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).
Turnagain
Posts: 7243
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:52 am
Turnagain has

1 - accepted that he was wrong to claim it was impossible for the gas chambers to work when they were hermetically sealed.

2 - accepted that he cannot produce witnesses who said what he claims they did and that he has previously lied about what witnesses have said.

3 - that his pressure argument assumes no pressure valve was added to the chambers, as they were to the gas vans and he does not know how much CO the engines put out.
Nessie and Herman Rosenblatt have something in common. This is all true in his mind. In the real world, not so much. Nessie still has...

No cremains, no graves, no holyhoax. Finito. End of story.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by blake121666 »

There were 10 rooms each 7m x 7m x 2.6m

Therefore there was 1274 m3 volume altogether.

Turnagain looks to be off by an order of magnitude. There were TEN chambers being fed from one engine.

The engine size is not known.

It looks like Turnagain keeps dodging actually giving his formal argument.

Just a bunch of bickering back and forth with Nessie.

Give your damned arguments, Turnagain!

Who said what, exactly? How are you interpreting it? Are you basing your crap on someone who would even know?

Give your calculations for what pressure increase you expect for engine exhaust going into 10 rooms with a total volume of about 1274 m3?

Why is Turnagain not doing any of these things?

This is the thread for you to work it out solidly. And then put it on the formal part of the board for reference.

Who in the effing hell wants to read the back and forth "is too is not" for thousands of pages?

Are you people insane?

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 6281
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by Huntinger »

blake121666 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:24 pm
Turnagain looks to be off by an order of magnitude. There were TEN chambers being fed from one engine
Could you explain the chronology of the number of gaskammer at this place. A quick look at wiki says this:
The gassing area was entirely closed off with tall wooden fencing made of vertical boards. Originally, it consisted of three interconnected barracks 8 metres (26 ft) long and 4 metres (13 ft) wide, disguised as showers. They had double walls insulated by earth packed down in between. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with roofing paper. The floors were covered with tin-plated sheet metal, the same material used for the roof. Solid wooden doors were insulated with rubber and bolted from the outside by heavy cross-bars. Between August and September 1942, a large new building with a concrete foundation was built from bricks and mortar under the guidance of Action T4 euthanasia expert Erwin Lambert. It contained 8–10 gas chambers.
Blake the construction you are referring to is the latter model and not the more primitive one. Perhaps Turnagain or you could calculate the pressure of exhaust gas rises against the lethality of the gas. Do you think the Trawniki guards had this level of knowledge. This takes advanced measurement and of course a knowledge of math, rates of change, Calculus. Did the guards do scientific measurements with slide rules, or did the architects of the buildings. Perhaps they just built them and hoped for the best. What do you think?


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑
Alle Trolljuden werden ignoriert

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by blake121666 »

I only scanned the link from my last post. It looks like it is saying that the new chambers (from 9/42 onward) were only 2 meters high - not 2.6 like the old ones. And maybe Arad claims they were 8mx4m (according to that link).

So there then were 10 rooms each (8m x 4m x 2m = 64 m3). And therefore 640 m3 altogether.

Mattogno & Graf's book on Treblinka cites the 7m x 7m size on page 118.

I'll have to look into it further. But the new building was for gassing ten times the number of the first building (used for only about a month).

Turnagain
Posts: 7243
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by Turnagain »

Blake121666 wrote:
There were 10 room each 7m x 7m x 2.6m

Therefore there was 1274 m3 volume altogether.

Turnagain looks to be off by an order of magnitude. There were TEN chambers being fed from one engine.
This is getting tiresome. There were TWO (2) gas chambers at Treblinka. The original THREE (3) room gas chamber and the new TEN (10) room gas chamber. Wiernik gave the dimensions for the ORIGINAL THREE (3) room gas chamber as being 5X5X1.9 meters. That is 47.5 cubic meters per room and 142.5 cubic meters total for the ORIGINAL THREE (3) room gas chamber. What part of there being TWO (2) separate gas chambers at Treblinka don't you understand?
The engine size is not known.
The engine used to produce the lethal CO was a Soviet TANK engine. Not a car engine. Not a truck engine. A TANK engine. That is very specific. The Soviets employed TWO (2) series of TANKS. Not "tankettes" as used in Finland or other armored vehicles. TANKS. Those were the BT series and the T series. The BT series was powered by the N-5 engine that was a repurposed American built Liberty L-12 aircraft engine. The L-12 had a displacement of 27 liters. The last BT tanks built were also powered by the Mikulin 17T engine and the Kharkiv V-2 diesel engine. The 17T engine was a Soviet knockoff of a BMW 46.9 liter gasoline engine. The V-2 is disqualified by being a diesel so the two choices for a tank engine are the L-12 and the 17T. If you have knowledge of other TANK engines used before mid 1942 then name them and give their specifications.
Give your damned arguments, Turnagain!
I have named and quoted eleven (11) witnesses who stated that the gas chamber was hermetically sealed. Six (6) of those witnesses also stated that the air was evacuated from the gas chamber in order to suffocate the victims. Bomba stated that running the TANK engine became too expensive in terms of fuel costs so air was pumped out of the gas/vacuum chamber. Chil Rajchman said that the Germans experimented with pumping the air from the chamber. That should be sufficient proof that the gas chamber, the three room original gas chamber, was hermetically sealed.

Witnesses claim that the TANK engine was started and "revved up" to produce the CO. If we go with the smaller of the two available engines, the 27 liter L-12 and assume a "revved up" 1,600 RPM we have an engine producing 21.6 cubic meters of exhaust per minute. Since the L-12 was a four stroke engine the volume of exhaust can be calculated by dividing the RPM by 2, multiplying that number by 27 and pointing off three (3) places. Assuming that half the cubic volume of the original gas chamber was taken by the victims then we are left with 71.25 cubic meters or about 72 cubic meters of space for the exhaust. Divide that by 21.6 to determine the length of time it would take to achieve a 1 atm (atmosphere) increase in pressure. That is 3.3 minutes which is about twice as long as it would take to stall the engine or cause a structural failure in the building. That leaves about 1.7 minutes of operating time for the engine.

You can fiddle with the engine RPM and the open space of the gas chamber, add the volume of a distribution manifold but the bottom line is that the engine could NOT have been operated except for very short periods of time. There is no consensus on the time the engine operated with claims that it ran for as little as 5-7 minutes up to 20-30 minutes. In either case the engine would stall or the integrity of the gas chamber would be compromised.

That is my argument concerning the hermetically sealed gas chamber and the TANK engine.
Who in the effing hell wants to read the back and forth "is too is not" for thousands of pages?
Well, don't read it. If something doesn't interest you then simply ignore it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by blake121666 »

Turnagain didn't even read my link. And he thinks there were 2 gas chambers at Treblinka. There were not. The first building was destroyed after the second one went online - shortly after Wiernik arrived.

Wiernik said:
Wiernik wrote:It turned out we were building ten additional gas chambers, more spacious than the old ones, 7 x 7 m, or about 50 m2.
So in the book Turnagain is always using as if it is some sort of bible (Wiernik's One Year in Treblinka) Wiernik directly contradicts what Turnagain claims he says.

So do your calculation with Wiernik's 10 7m x 7m gas chambers. You can use 2m as a height. No one gives a crap about the first gas chambers.

Let's see it, Turnagain.

THEN, you can show us some sort of actual information on any and all of your other claims - such as tank engines or whatever. I don't want off the top of your head shit. Do it right or quit spamming the board.

That you don't seem to get that the whole "tank engine" crap is hearsay is ridiculous. Nor the fact that you, nor anyone else, knows shit about just exactly what kind of tanks the Soviets might have had in Poland in '41. The possibility is practically anything for what the engine was. Quit acting like you are some kind of interwar years Soviet armaments expert.

The US gave Britain a bunch of old crap we had laying around during lend-lease. It was a hodge-podge of old things that we, a very lightly armed country up 'til then, had amassed. Some of it over 50 years old!

Turnagain
Posts: 7243
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by Turnagain »

Blake121666 wrote:
I'll have to look into it further. But the new building was for gassing ten times the number of the first building (used for only about a month).
By his own testimony, Wiernik arrived at Treblinka on the 24th or 25th of August, 1942. Here is the quote from his book, "A Year in Treblinka".
It happened in Warsaw on August 23, 1942, at the time of the blockade. I had been visiting my neighbors and never returned to my own home again.
Wiernik was initially assigned to corpse carrying duty. If he began work on the new gas chamber on Sept. 1, 1942 it then took five (5) weeks to complete the construction of the new gas chamber. Again, that's from, "A Year in Treblinka", so the new gas chamber couldn't have been operational before the second week in October, 1942. You do indeed need to "look into it", Blake. Treblinka became operational on July 23, 1942.

Turnagain
Posts: 7243
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by Turnagain »

What the hell are you babbling about, Blake. Here's your quote:
Turnagain didn't even read my link. And he thinks there were 2 gas chambers at Treblinka. There were not. The first building was destroyed after the second one went online - shortly after Wiernik arrived.
The original gas chamber allegedly remained in service for the life of the camp. Wiernik shows it still standing in his model of Treblinka. Wiernik didn't arrive at Treblinka until late August, 1942. He tells of how he assisted in the construction of the new gas chamber which took five weeks. Read his effing book.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3294
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by blake121666 »

Turnagain wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:32 am
Blake121666 wrote:
I'll have to look into it further. But the new building was for gassing ten times the number of the first building (used for only about a month).
By his own testimony, Wiernik arrived at Treblinka on the 24th or 25th of August, 1942. Here is the quote from his book, "A Year in Treblinka".
It happened in Warsaw on August 23, 1942, at the time of the blockade. I had been visiting my neighbors and never returned to my own home again.
Wiernik was initially assigned to corpse carrying duty. If he began work on the new gas chamber on Sept. 1, 1942 it then took five (5) weeks to complete the construction of the new gas chamber. Again, that's from, "A Year in Treblinka", so the new gas chamber couldn't have been operational before the second week in October, 1942. You do indeed need to "look into it", Blake. Treblinka became operational on July 23, 1942.
The exhaust was sent into TEN rooms. Each 7m x 7m x 2m.

Your calculation above is about as clear as mud. And it isn't valid. An ICE sucks in a certain volume of air and exhausts it after combustion (exhaust after 2 revs as you say). One has to consider the volumetric efficiency of this - which is about 75% for a typical naturally aspirated carbureted engine.

Here is what you'd get with your numbers from this engine calculator (27L = 1648 CID): 16.2 m3/min (I was going to post an image but postimages.org is not working right now).

From this engine calculator, an engine half the size at the same rpm you used would produce 1/3rd the amount of exhaust.

So your somewhat large engine would output 16.2 m3/min - split into ten pipes into ten rooms 7m x 7m x 2m.

The total room volume is about 1000 m3. And you used 71 m3. You are off by an order of magnitude.

Being off by an order of magnitude, your 3 minutes becomes 30 minutes. You therefore have not shown what you intended to show. And you neglected all of the losses - as well as the fact that you'd get 16.2 m3/min for the engine you picked (minus losses).

And no one thinks the rooms were hermetically sealed anyway. And you aren't really making any points so far with the "hermetically sealed" gamut.

Supply us your reasoning about how long the engine ran (who, when where, ...).
Last edited by blake121666 on Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 6281
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's "hermetic seal" for the formal section

Post by Huntinger »

no one is sure about how many alleged gaskammers there were except of course Blake.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑
Alle Trolljuden werden ignoriert

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], TheGodfather and 12 guests