What kind of diesel engines where used???

[Charles Bunch]

Roberto -- You said: "Why don't you tell that to the other fellow, first of all?"

If you read the messages above, you'll see that I have.

You also said: "Pointing out the nonsense of an opponent's contentions or that opponent's dishonesty, where appropriate, is not a personal offense, as I see it. But calling an opponent stupid is."

Questioning a poster's honesty or claiming congenital defective intelligence is offensive. Terming his argument nonsense or grossly inconsistent with his previous statements is not.

I invite you or any other poster who genuinely feels that he has been personally insulted by another, and that I have somehow missed or overlooked the offensive remark, to notify me by PM and draw my attention to the problem.

I suspect that people are not as insulted as they claim, but need to have something to offer in mitigation when they are caught insulting others.

Making a cogent argument demonstrating dishonesty, supported by evidence, is far different from claims to genetic defect. If people make demonstrably dishonest claims, why shouldn't it be permissible to make note of them?

[David Thompson]

Charles -- You asked: "If people make demonstrably dishonest claims, why shouldn't it be permissible to make note of them?"

(1) A person can be mistaken without being dishonest. There is a fundamental difference between an error and a lie. Sometimes, in the heat of an empassioned argument, that distinction becomes lost.

(2) The purpose of this section forum is to promote reasoned discussions of historic questions and issues. My goal is to try and make our discussions as well-reasoned and informative as possible to our readers, most of whom do not take direct part in the dialogue.

(3) For several hundred years in European history, questioning someone's honesty or honor was sufficient provocation for lethal duels. Duels are now banned in civilized countries. However, in the course of my lifetime I have seen a considerable number of physical affrays result from the same behavior.

Directly questioning someone's honesty is likely to enrage the person whose honesty is questioned. I would find such an allegation grossly offensive if it were applied to me, and I find it offensive when I see it applied to others.

Also, if such insults were permitted the discussion might quickly degenerate into a ridiculous exchange in which all the participants accuse each other of lying. ("Liar! Double liar! You are the biggest liar! No, you are!" etc.)

(4) As a general principal, offensive remarks, whether they are accurate or not, do not bring out the best in any conversation. Such remarks may also tempt the target to take revenge by starting a quarrel in a subsequent discussion. For these reasons, offensive remarks disrupt or thwart the goal of civil and intelligent discourse which which I am trying to encourage in this section of the forum.

(5) There is nothing wrong with pointing out another poster's error. If you are convinced from past discussions that the poster is deliberately misrepresenting the facts, show what the facts are and how they have been misrepresented. If you can show that the poster should know better and has misrepresented the facts anyway, point that out as well.

Once you have done that, let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. It has been my experience that when a listener arrives at a conclusion on their own, in their mind that conclusion becomes a fact. An accepted fact is far more effective in convincing others than some participant's mere inflammatory opinion or allegation.

If you think about it, you will see that in the long run, this is the best approach.

[Scott Smith]

So you've read it before. Have you ever brought it up in your discussions with Roberto and others?

No, it is not relevant. No one else was interested in why the U.S. Army did not go to diesels. I remember the report because it made rather hyperbolic statements about the Soviet air filter. I certainly don't doubt that the T-34 air-filter was garbage, but language like that is often used to discredit foreign hardware that might otherwise seem superior at first glance to that made in Detroit. Historians look for such manifestations of bias. Russians build a better diesel motor? Preposterous--why, look at the crummy air filter that silly Ivan uses.

We'll have to keep that in mind when we discuss fuel/air ratios as a contributing factor to the lethality of diesel engines, now won't we.

No, it doesn't work that way. If the air is restricted the engine begins to miss because it cannot get enough air to compress to detonate the fuel and it therefore blows unburned fuel out the exhaust. It doesn't miss because it is out of oxygen but because it cannot compress enough air to generate heat for ignition. This limits the amount of carbon monoxide that can be produced by choking because the engine will quit. When Pattle and Stretch tried this in the 1957 test on live animals they were able to only slightly raise the CO despite choking it as much as possible! All animals were still alive after an hour and a half. Humans would have even done better.

Sorry Smith, but there was no report of the T-34 tanks quitting because of this.

Now you are mixing peaches and pears. The text said a poor air filter robbed power and shortened the life of the motor. It does not say the carbon monoxide went up.

And you, and Berg, and his other parrots, are always forced to resort to this unsupported claim.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The Pattle paper tells the size of the restriction on the intake and that it is beginning to misfire. It also gives the level of carbon monoxide, which increases marginally. It also states how long it took for the animals to die, and after an hour and a half ALL animals were still alive. Mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs are even more sensitive than humans. A gaschamber that takes from 1.5 to 3 hours to work is a complete fiasco. And if the CO level was not raised, after FIVE hours some of the animals were still alive and some were still dying days later from lung damage cause by nitrogen oxides.

Unless the carbon dioxide is raised to displace oxygen by loading the engine somehow, the diesel gaschamber is absurd.

Less oxygen to the engine means less complete combustion means higher levels of CO.

A diesel engine works differently, as I have explained many times before. The only way to meet my objection is to inject carbon dioxide into the intake so that there is plenty of gas to compress for ignition but not enough oxygen for complete combustion, hence producing carbon monoxide.

This could also be done with exhaust-gas-recirculation as was explored in various studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, where exhaust was reaspirated, as might happen in a mineshaft. It is still difficult to raise the CO, however, because any that is inhaled by the motor will itself combust. Exhaust-gas-recirculation would be rather difficult to engineer and certainly precludes the use of the diesel for any other purpose such as producing power. A diesel engine is the most absurd method imaginable for generating carbon monoxide, which is not hard to do otherwise. In short, it didn't happen.

If the murder-weapon was an engine it had to have been a spark-ignition gasoline engine. Simple as that.

This exercise is amusing if only to see how the Holo-defenders champion the orthodox positions.

[Scott Smith]

And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty

Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty."

Now isn't it funny to see Smith lose his temper and throw insults around in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he was lying rather lamely when, after reading my conclusions derived from Miller’s thesis more than once, he tried to make believe that I considered 2.7 % CO2 to be lethal?

Anyone who read my exposition should have understood that I consider a CO2 level above 7 % to be lethal and that, according to my calculations, that level would be reached in the situation under discussion after 30 minutes when the CO2 coming in with the exhaust added to the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. In my post of Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:13 pm on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=30

I even showed my calculations, as follows: [...]

Oh, excuse me.

You are saying that at test B-13 on the chart (no-load on the engine at 2.7% CO2 and 17.14% oxygen) the gas composition magically accumulates to test B-15 or B-16 which is a CO2 level of around 7% and not quite enough oxygen to safely breathe (about 10.5%), and also over a 50% loading on the motor.



Data taken from 1941 paper by Holtz and Elliot for the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

Power (bhp), Speed, Fuel-air ratio, O2, CO2, N2, NOx, Aldehydes, H2, CO:

B-13—00.0hp, 1400rpm, 0.013 (77:1), 17.14%, 02.74%, 80.08%, 167ppm, 4ppm, 0%, 0.041% (410ppm).

B-14—08.8hp, 1410rpm, 0.020 (50:1), 15.13%, 04.19%, 80.65%, 267ppm, 1ppm, 0%, 0.028% (280ppm).

B-15—17.5hp, 1400rpm, 0.029 (35:1), 12.20%, 06.22%, 81.56%, 378ppm, 1ppm, 0%, 0.024% (240ppm).

B-16—26.4hp, 1410rpm, 0.039 (26:1), 09.26%, 08.36%, 82.35%, 448ppm, 1ppm, 0%, 0.027% (270ppm).

B-12—37.8hp, 1400rpm, 0.056 (18:1), 03.44%, 12.40%, 84.07%, 364ppm, 4ppm, 0%, 0.058% (580ppm).

B-70—40.2hp, 1400rpm, 0.070 (14:1), 00.80%, 13.80%, 84.5%, 346ppm, 1ppm, 0.1%, 0.7% (07,000ppm).

B-72—41.0hp, 1400rpm, 0.084 (12:1), 00.30%, 12.10%, 82.7%, 277ppm, 2ppm, 1.3%, 3.5% (35,000ppm).

B-69—40.6hp, 1400rpm, 0.094 (11:1), 00.30%, 10.20%, 80.1%, 186ppm, 0ppm, 0.4%, 6.0% (60,000ppm).

Sorry, but as explaned previously, the engine is forcing in so much exhaust that oncee there has been a circulation or two in a few minutes, the gas composition of the chamber will be the same as the exhaust going in, even though the subjects inside are consuming oxygen and exhaling CO2. They cannot compete with the air pumped by the engine, which has a breatheable quantity of oxygen in the exhaust (unless substantially loaded, as shown).

The only way to change this is to load the engine to the B-15 or B-16 levels (over 50%) and then the suffocation will begin because of a lack of oxygen and other extenuating factors.

This means that for a diesel gassing to work using CO2 you have to make sure that you are able to load the motor to the levels shown in the gas tables, which is at least 50%.

Now, unless Chuckoo can show us another diesel engine besides the W-2/V-2, that is a lot of power to load somehow. The W-4/V-4 was only half as big (about 250 bhp) but very few of these were made because of Soviet production problems, and these would have less displacement anyway, which means that it would take twice as long to pump the same amount of gas.

[Roberto]

And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty

Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty."

Now isn't it funny to see Smith lose his temper and throw insults around in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he was lying rather lamely when, after reading my conclusions derived from Miller’s thesis more than once, he tried to make believe that I considered 2.7 % CO2 to be lethal?

Anyone who read my exposition should have understood that I consider a CO2 level above 7 % to be lethal and that, according to my calculations, that level would be reached in the situation under discussion after 30 minutes when the CO2 coming in with the exhaust added to the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. In my post of Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:13 pm on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=30

I even showed my calculations, as follows: [...]

Oh, excuse me.

A little silliness is part of Smith's nature, right?

You are saying that at test B-13 on the chart (no-load on the engine at 2.7% CO2 and 17.14% oxygen) the gas composition magically accumulates to test B-15 or B-16 which is a CO2 level of around 7% and not quite enough oxygen to safely breathe (about 10.5%), and also over a 50% loading on the motor.

No, that's not what I'm saying, as Smith well knows. I'm saying that part of the CO2 in the chamber (the larger part) would be produced by the victims themselves through exhalation and another part (the smaller part) would come in with the exhaust from the unloaded engine as in experiment B13. Smith continues to deliberately misrepresent my statements and thus keeps displaying his dishonesty.

[Sorry, but as explaned previously, the engine is forcing in so much exhaust that oncee there has been a circulation or two in a few minutes, the gas composition of the chamber will be the same as the exhaust going in, even though the subjects inside are consuming oxygen and exhaling CO2. They cannot compete with the air pumped by the engine, which has a breatheable quantity of oxygen in the exhaust (unless substantially loaded, as shown).

As he continues to repeat his unsubstantiated theory that the incoming exhaust would completely displace the existing atmosphere in the gas chamber, even though it seems more likely and compatible with the laws of physics that the heavier components of the incoming exhaust, like carbon dioxide, would displace the lighter components of the existing atmosphere, like oxygen, while the heavier ones remained behind and combined with the carbon dioxide of the incoming exhaust to an atmosphere containing an excessive concentration of this toxic substance.

The only way to change this is to load the engine to the B-15 or B-16 levels (over 50%) and then the suffocation will begin because of a lack of oxygen and other extenuating factors.

Not necessarily, see above. Apart from the fact that the effect of loading might also be achieved by restricting the air intake and/or considerably increasing the fuel supply. The development of the latter in Holtz & Elliot's experiments is still conspicuously absent from Smith's vaunted graph, by the way.

This means that for a diesel gassing to work using CO2 you have to make sure that you are able to load the motor to the levels shown in the gas tables, which is at least 50%.

Not necessarily, see above.

Now, unless Chuckoo can show us another diesel engine besides the W-2/V-2, that is a lot of power to load somehow.

Assuming loading was required at all, see above.

[Roberto]

If the murder-weapon was an engine it had to have been a spark-ignition gasoline engine. Simple as that.

All evidence converges on the murder weapon having been an engine, and there's no indication that it was anything else. So it Smith were right with his diesel arguments, this would mean that it was a spark-ignition gasoline engine. Simple as that.

This exercise is amusing if only to see how the Holo-defenders champion the orthodox positions.

Some may find it amusing to take apart every "Revisionist" herring, however insignificant. As to the "orthodox positions", Smith still has to show us an "orthodox" source that accorded the homicidal engine more than a passing mention let alone made a big deal out of the assumption that it was a diesel engine. Unless he can show us something in this direction, his guru Berg's "myth within a myth" comes across as one of those paper dragons that "Revisionist" dragon slayers make up to impress their gullible followers.

[Roberto]

Questioning a poster's honesty or claiming congenital defective intelligence is offensive.

I agree to the latter. The former is not a personal offense where the person in question is behaving in a dishonest manner, which can be said of Smith's deliberate and persistent misrepresentation of my statements on this thread.

[demonio]

I would really like to hear fromm a diesel expert on this. Diesel is made by heating crude oil to about 300 degrees. We know that it is used more for heavy duty displacement at low revs, ie to move heavy equipment. (Yes i know there are some diesel race cars). The diesel has to be as deadly if not deadlier in its own way as it spews out more irrantants/toxins than Gasolene, maybe not as much CO2 but again this is heavy duty displacement. If the engine has to move a tank of at least 20 tons than im pretty sure there would be a lot of exhaust output.

Is anyone a diesel expert. We need some finality or progress in this argument.

[Charles Bunch]

So you've read it before. Have you ever brought it up in your discussions with Roberto and others?

No, it is not relevant. No one else was interested in why the U.S. Army did not go to diesels.

You're being disingenuous. Why the Army did not use diesels is not our topic of discussion.

I remember the report because it made rather hyperbolic statements about the Soviet air filter.

Gee, there is always a reason for you to discount any evidence you don't like, eh Smith!

I certainly don't doubt that the T-34 air-filter was garbage, but language like that is often used to discredit foreign hardware that might otherwise seem superior at first glance to that made in Detroit. Historians look for such manifestations of bias.

And deniers look for ways to deny inconvenient evidence.

Here is what the Americans reported about the T-34 tested.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archi ... stat7.html

The Condition of the Tanks

The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera). After that it would be sent to Aberdeen , where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

===========

This is not a manifestation of bias, or hyperbole, or nationalistic pride. There is clearly a problem with the air filter.

We'll have to keep that in mind when we discuss fuel/air ratios as a contributing factor to the lethality of diesel engines, now won't we.

No, it doesn't work that way. If the air is restricted the engine begins to miss because it cannot get enough air to compress to detonate the fuel and it therefore blows unburned fuel out the exhaust. It doesn't miss because it is out of oxygen but because it cannot compress enough air to generate heat for ignition. This limits the amount of carbon monoxide that can be produced by choking because the engine will quit. When Pattle and Stretch tried this in the 1957 test on live animals they were able to only slightly raise the CO despite choking it as much as possible! All animals were still alive after an hour and a half. Humans would have even done better.

Sorry Smith, but there was no report of the T-34 tanks quitting because of this.

Now you are mixing peaches and pears. The text said a poor air filter robbed power and shortened the life of the motor. It does not say the carbon monoxide went up.

Well, it doesn't say anthing about CO, Smith! They were not writing a report about CO. The tested tank quit as a result of the air filter. I would say it's a good bet that the Russians changed the filter system or we would have heard a great deal more about the tank failing in the field.

And you, and Berg, and his other parrots, are always forced to resort to this unsupported claim.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The Pattle paper tells the size of the restriction on the intake and that it is beginning to misfire.

The engine did not quit in the Pattle test. So why you use it to support your contention is rather strange. Why should the Nazis be concerned if the engine ran poorly?

Less oxygen to the engine means less complete combustion means higher levels of CO.

A diesel engine works differently, as I have explained many times before.

As you have asserted many times before. Unfortunately your assertions are mere excuses for your denial.

If the murder-weapon was an engine it had to have been a spark-ignition gasoline engine. Simple as that.

On the contrary, it is a simple matter to adjust a large diesel engine to produce lethal exhaust.

[Dan]

The diesel has to be as deadly if not deadlier in its own way as it spews out more irrantants/toxins than Gasolene, maybe not as much CO2 but again this is heavy duty displacement. If the engine has to move a tank of at least 20 tons than im pretty sure there would be a lot of exhaust output.

THe point is how long those particulates would take to kill a bunch of people. They would, but it would take too long. If the diesels were used to kill people, it was by a fuel additive specifically meant to kill people, or the engine were put under a load, or something of that nature. When you read about people dieing in garages with the car running, it's always gasoline engines, not diesel engines.

[demonio]

The diesel has to be as deadly if not deadlier in its own way as it spews out more irrantants/toxins than Gasolene, maybe not as much CO2 but again this is heavy duty displacement. If the engine has to move a tank of at least 20 tons than im pretty sure there would be a lot of exhaust output.

THe point is how long those particulates would take to kill a bunch of people. They would, but it would take too long. If the diesels were used to kill people, it was by a fuel additive specifically meant to kill people, or the engine were put under a load, or something of that nature. When you read about people dieing in garages with the car running, it's always gasoline engines, not diesel engines.

If there was an additive. Could it be this "ROPA" that a survivor mentioned ?

[Roberto]

The diesel has to be as deadly if not deadlier in its own way as it spews out more irrantants/toxins than Gasolene, maybe not as much CO2 but again this is heavy duty displacement. If the engine has to move a tank of at least 20 tons than im pretty sure there would be a lot of exhaust output.

THe point is how long those particulates would take to kill a bunch of people. They would, but it would take too long. If the diesels were used to kill people, it was by a fuel additive specifically meant to kill people, or the engine were put under a load, or something of that nature. When you read about people dieing in garages with the car running, it's always gasoline engines, not diesel engines.

If there was an additive. Could it be this "ROPA" that a survivor mentioned ?

No, "ROPA" ("a kind of oil, a crude oil", according to Eliahu Rosenberg's deposition at the Eichmann Trial) seems to be a Polish term for crude petrol or diesel oil. There are reports from the Polish resistance that mention a toxic additive to the fuel, however. There is also one report mentioning gasoline engines, IIRC. Whatever is was, hundreds of thousands died from it, and no one taken to that place, except for a handful of excapees, ever left it alive.

[David Thompson]

Roberto -- As I have already explained above in my answer to Charles Bunch, "There is nothing wrong with pointing out another poster's error. If you are convinced from past discussions that the poster is deliberately misrepresenting the facts, show what the facts are and how they have been misrepresented. If you can show that the poster should know better and has misrepresented the facts anyway, point that out as well.

Once you have done that, let the reader draw his or her own conclusions." In other words, refrain from further comment. I have already explained the reasons for this policy in my response to Charles Bunch's question.

If this is unsatisfactory for some reason, I have an alternative suggestion:

If you feel that this is a serious issue which must be debated at all costs, start a separate thread on that subject. You can call it "John Doe (insert name here) and honesty in argument." Then, make your best case for deliberate misrepresentation, with whatever evidence you can muster.

This approach will avoid disrupting discussion on other threads, and focus attention on the concern which is so important to you. It also gives the target fair warning of the claim, and the opportunity to respond. The target, of course, is free to start a thread on your argumentive style as well. Once you have started this new thread, please post all subsequent and similar claims of intellectual dishonesty involving the target on that thread.

In individual threads on different topics, if the subject of honesty in argument comes up, refer the reader to the url of the "intellectual honesty thread" on that person. That way the reader can judge for his or her self who is credible and who is not.

[demonio]

The diesel has to be as deadly if not deadlier in its own way as it spews out more irrantants/toxins than Gasolene, maybe not as much CO2 but again this is heavy duty displacement. If the engine has to move a tank of at least 20 tons than im pretty sure there would be a lot of exhaust output.

THe point is how long those particulates would take to kill a bunch of people. They would, but it would take too long. If the diesels were used to kill people, it was by a fuel additive specifically meant to kill people, or the engine were put under a load, or something of that nature. When you read about people dieing in garages with the car running, it's always gasoline engines, not diesel engines.

If there was an additive. Could it be this "ROPA" that a survivor mentioned ?

No, "ROPA" ("a kind of oil, a crude oil", according to Eliahu Rosenberg's deposition at the Eichmann Trial) seems to be a Polish term for crude petrol or diesel oil. There are reports from the Polish resistance that mention a toxic additive to the fuel, however. There is also one report mentioning gasoline engines, IIRC. Whatever is was, hundreds of thousands died from it, and no one taken to that place, except for a handful of excapees, ever left it alive.

I agree wholeheartedly

[Scott Smith]

And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty

Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty."

Now isn't it funny to see Smith lose his temper and throw insults around in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he was lying rather lamely when, after reading my conclusions derived from Miller’s thesis more than once, he tried to make believe that I considered 2.7 % CO2 to be lethal?

Anyone who read my exposition should have understood that I consider a CO2 level above 7 % to be lethal and that, according to my calculations, that level would be reached in the situation under discussion after 30 minutes when the CO2 coming in with the exhaust added to the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. In my post of Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:13 pm on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=30

I even showed my calculations, as follows: [...]

Oh, excuse me.

A little silliness is part of Smith's nature, right?

You are saying that at test B-13 on the chart (no-load on the engine at 2.7% CO2 and 17.14% oxygen) the gas composition magically accumulates to test B-15 or B-16 which is a CO2 level of around 7% and not quite enough oxygen to safely breathe (about 10.5%), and also over a 50% loading on the motor.

No, that's not what I'm saying, as Smith well knows. I'm saying that part of the CO2 in the chamber (the larger part) would be produced by the victims themselves through exhalation and another part (the smaller part) would come in with the exhaust from the unloaded engine as in experiment B13. Smith continues to deliberately misrepresent my statements and thus keeps displaying his dishonesty.

[Sorry, but as explaned previously, the engine is forcing in so much exhaust that oncee there has been a circulation or two in a few minutes, the gas composition of the chamber will be the same as the exhaust going in, even though the subjects inside are consuming oxygen and exhaling CO2. They cannot compete with the air pumped by the engine, which has a breatheable quantity of oxygen in the exhaust (unless substantially loaded, as shown).

As he continues to repeat his unsubstantiated theory that the incoming exhaust would completely displace the existing atmosphere in the gas chamber, even though it seems more likely and compatible with the laws of physics that the heavier components of the incoming exhaust, like carbon dioxide, would displace the lighter components of the existing atmosphere, like oxygen, while the heavier ones remained behind and combined with the carbon dioxide of the incoming exhaust to an atmosphere containing an excessive concentration of this toxic substance.

Oh, Roberto! I know you pull out the "dishonesty" bit when you get flustered--but cool off some. I know what you are saying but I disagree with it.

CO2 accumulates in the bottom of a grain silo because it is generated slowly from decomposition. It therefore settles to the bottom. We see a similar effect with bottles of Italian salad dressing that have been sitting in the refrigerator. The oil and vinegar/water separate.

Now in a postulated diesel gaschamber that wouldn't be the case because (with an unloaded engine) you are CONTINUOUSLY pumping 17% oxygen in along with 2.7% CO2. There is also oxygen consumed by the victims and CO2 exhaled. Which will be the greater factor?

Well, I don't know the combined lung capacity of the victims since it is not entirely clear how many there are even to draw an average figure. However, I do know the size of the diesel engine (assuming it is a W-2, which is a safe assumption if it was captured from Soviet equipment). The twelve-lung W-2 has a total displacement of 38 liters. If it were running at a standard 1500 rpm, then the four-stroke engine would displace 28.5 cubic meters per minute. If the gas chamber were 200 cubic meters then it would displace all the air inside in seven minutes. Of course it might take several displacements to force all the initial air out as the new air (exhaust) will mix with the old. But with such rapid exchange I would liken this to shaking the bottle of salad dressing rather vigorously. After fifteen minutes (let alone thirty) the times of a standard gassing according to most Holo-sources (some as short as ten minutes), I don't see how anyone could "reasonably" (I won't say honestly) say that the gas composition of the chamber was not in fact nearly identical to the gas composition of the raw diesel exhaust--which contains 17% oxygen and is in fact breatheable for some period of time measured in HOURS.

(Feel free to check my figures as you have found mistakes in the past--unintentional of course.)

But the fact is, it is your theory of the rapid separation of gases (leading to CO2 buildup) that is unproved.

Now, if you want your diesel gaschamber to work. Simply load the motor to an equivalent shown on the graph of B-16 to B-12. For a 500 bhp diesel like a W-2 that would be about 338-463 mechanical horsepower. And that is one hell of a load! If we convert it into real world electrical values with a dynamo, it is 169-231 kilowatts (approximately), or the power needed to light 1,690 to 2,310 lightbulbs of 100 watts each!

However, I'm certain that this arrangement would leave anyone inside braindead through displacing O2 with CO2 in fifteen minutes or less. If we continue the procedure for thirty minutes we are certain to have reached a LD100 relationship (100% dead), IMHO.

Since this arrangement would require a massive dummy-load, which would be completely superfluous if a gasoline engine were used, and since it would be incompatible with the practical generation of camp power (contrary to what lay "eyewitnesses" might have thought), I conclude for technical reasons that the diesel gaschamber idea is absurd.

Therefore it didn't happen. Not even by the Nazis. And not even to our favorite Victims.