<<Injection of CO2 might be necessary if you want the engine to work properly for a longer period of time with a restricted air intake, but not if the engine is to operate under such conditions for no more than 30 to 45 minutes at a time and efficiency for legitimate purposes such as power production is not a concern.>>
++Any evidence? ++
<<It’s up to the Reverend to show us that only by injecting CO2 you would obtain fuel-air ratios on the “rich” side without a load. I don’t see why this should be so.>>
No, it’s your theory that the load is irrelevant and that you can make a murder-machine simply by blocking the air-intake.
It’s my reasoning, and not only mine. The “it couldn’t have worked this way” – contention is Smith’s baby, and it’s to him and only to him that it matters. So let us see what he’s got to show for it.
Even with the Pattle & Stretch experiment using the small engine they only got 0.22% CO maximum, and the killing results were marginal.
Sure, because 0.22 % CO is not a lethal concentration. But comparison with the experiences of Holtz & Elliot and Elliot & Davis indicates that with a 70 bhp engine the CO concentration would
be lethal. Even more so with a 150 bhp engine, not to mention a 500 bhp engine.
The issue seems to be that without CO2 injection the engine will get damaged after running with a restricted air intake for some time. The question is: how long would it take for the engine to get damaged? If longer than 30 to 45 minutes, no sweat.
No, damage to the motor from mechanical overloading, and damage to the motor from excessive black smoke from lack of oxygen, are separate issues that normally go together when an engine is lugging. I don’t have any data on how long the motor will last if punished like this, but 30-45 minutes is a very long time under these conditions and that is at least once every day.
No data, just the Reverend’s assumptions. Considering the Reverend’s reliability in matters of Faith, that’s far too thin.
My point was that the motor would not RUN because by blocking the air-intake you restrict the amount of air that can be compressed, which otherwise gets hot and ignites the fuel. Blocking the air-intake on a large motor will cause it to misfire before it starves of oxygen; in other words, oxygen-starvation is not what is causing the misfires, but lack of gas to compress to provide ignition.
Maybe so, but how long would that take to happen with Pattle & Stretch’s method? And how long if the air intake were only partially restricted and the fuel supply increased to obtain a “rich” fuel-air ratio?
You can increase the compressed gas with CO2 injection and thereby also decrease the oxygen; however, to the extent that oxygen deprivation causes black smoke, as in an overloaded and straining (and consequently high fuel-air ratio) engine, it will shorten the life of the motor.
Making the engine run efficiently for legitimate purposes such as power production would be the least of the killers’ concerns. So would be an eventual shortening of the engine life, given that they had a vast pool of salvaged Soviet tank engines not required for military purposes at their disposal.
It has to pump gas, doesn’t it, and it can’t do that if it isn’t running. Remember, even the small engine of Pattle & Stretch could not have the CO raised any further and still run.
The issue is that a bigger engine would most probably produce exhaust with a much higher amount of CO under the conditions in which Pattle & Stretch ran their engine in the “D” experiments. How long did it take for their engine to stop running under these conditions?
++It would be boiling out the black smoke since you would have to open up the fuel just to keep it running.++
<<If so, what the heck? Any evidence, by the way? Or are we supposed to take the great technician’s word for it? >>
That would be wise since nobody from the Holo-sites knows what they are talking about.
They seem to know at least as much as the Reverend, despite his hollow mumbling. The difference being that the Reverend is also a Keeper of the Faith who will try to sell you the idea that light bulbs carry electricity inside if it serves his stance and he thinks he can get away with it.
But if you have access to a diesel truck or tractor with a standard transmission, give it a try. Go up a hill in high gear starting fairly slow, just about bucking, and when the engine starts to lug real good, floor the accelerator to maintain your speed without stalling. Maximum smoke if you do it right! If you can measure the CO in the exhaust that would be even better. (An automatic transmission won’t work because you cannot lug the motor.)
As I often told the Reverend, I couldn’t care less about whether the gassing engine was a diesel engine or a gasoline engine. The “it couldn’t have been a diesel” – contention is his baby. So let him do the demonstration that the exhaust of a huge engine couldn’t be made reliably lethal without “lugging”.
++But [CO2 injection] would allow the CO to shoot up without loading the motor much.++
<<As would restricting the air intake and/or increasing the fuel supply. Anyway, I’m glad to see that the Reverend is moving away a bit from his original “only under load” position. Let’s see what comes next.>>
I made this point a year ago when I studied the big yellowed volumes written by Holtz, Elliott, Davis, Marshall and Hurn, et al, on-exhaust-gas- recirculation in mines. I sent you some of it but you showed no interest other than calling me a liar when it took so long.[/quote]
The poor Reverend sounds like he’s about to burst out crying. Needless to say, his version of events is somewhat less than honest. And his regurgitating past grievances says a lot about the kind of fellow he is.
Nevertheless, you are still incorrect that restricting the air-intake would do the job without a load; only with a small engine and that was marginal.
That’s what the Reverend would like to make believe, without being able to demonstrate it.
The Reverend keeps repeating his “load” nonsense without having properly explained why load is a must and why the same effect cannot be achieved by restricting the air intake and/or increasing the fuel supply of the engine.
I think I have explained it many times. My latest effort is on the other thread: http://quantum.phpwebhosting.com/~marcu ... &start=100
Effort already taken apart, see the other thread.
++The MedoMan knows [the LOAD is] nonsense but he doesn't know what it is! Really, if you don't understand it by now I doubt you ever will.++
<<The Reverend is again playing big fat technician. I have done nothing else than to read the reports of Holtz & Elliot and Pattle & Stretch, where it is stated that the composition of a diesel engine’s exhaust is chiefly a function of the fuel-air ratio, and that this ratio depends on how much air there is to completely burn the fuel.>>
Well, yes, in a chemical sense, that is true about the fuel-air ratio. Stoichiometry is the ideal fuel-air ratio, where all fuel is completely burned and there is no excess oxygen. But we have a diesel engine here, not a garden-variety oil burner—which, btw, would make an excellent CO generator with a rich mixture.
But a diesel engine ALWAYS works with excess air UNLESS there is a heavy load to work against, and then you can make the fuel-air ratio overly rich, usually in the futile attempt to overload the motor (as in taking a hill in the wrong gear).
Same old soap. The load is not a must for making the fuel-air ratio “rich”, as often explained.
Perhaps the Believer can show us some high fuel-air ratios where there was no load—other than the small motor of Pattle & Stretch, which had an unconventional load put on it.
I would rather have the Believer explain what would have happened if Holtz & Elliot has run experiment B-13 with 29.63 lbs/hr of fuel, 6.5 times the amount they actually used. The “it could not have worked” baloney is his baby, after all, not mine.
We have to take the unique physics of diesel engines into additional account because we have different goals, to deliberately make carbon monoxide, not prevent it. Holtz and Elliott managed to limit the load merely with a fuel stop so that the engine couldn’t be gunned, thereby limiting its load like a truck going up a hill with a block underneath the accelerator pedal, which would then just grind to a halt and quit. That quick-and-dirty solution was easier than regulating the load, though not foolproof either if, for example, the engine starts lugging, without actually quitting, at a lower than normal rpm, as might happen during an electrical brownout.
Interesting, but where does that get us?
Ergo an increase of the fuel supply, as in Holtz & Elliot’s experiments B-70, B-72 and B-69, or a restriction of the air intake, as in Pattle & Stretch’s experiment D1, will bring up the fuel-air ratio, it also being possible to combine both methods.
“Methods,” that’s just Nizkor talking!
No, Reverend, that’s my own reasoning. And not only mine.
They need some way to justify the idea that the motor(s) were supposedly just sitting there cranking out gas and didn’t approach the problem from the eyes of an engineer, let alone adopt a critical standpoint that perhaps some of these fine Jews and Communists could have simply been lying about those nasty Nazis, their intractable enemies.
Blah, blah, blah. A rather pointless lie that would have been, making a gasoline engine into a diesel engine or making people killed in some other way into people killed by gassing. Cut out the crap, Reverend, and try to think logically, like I do.
Here’s an interesting article about Treblinka historiography:
Jean-François Steiner's Bodyguard of Lies, by Orest Slepokura.
Another “Revisionist” sack full of cattle manure, I presume. Inveterate liars accusing others of lying. Strictly for the birds.
Smith has never been able to explain what is wrong with these assumptions, regarding which I am by no means alone:
“The data at the COHQ site imply that the exhaust of a poorly tuned diesel engine could produce a CO concentration in the air high enough to be reliably lethal. If so, it is possible that poorly tuned diesel engines were used at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka for homicidal purposes. If that is the case, it should be reflected in testimony, ie there should be accounts of experiments with the tuning to find the setting that would produce a sufficiently high level of CO in the exhaust. Perhaps this is a topic for further research. Alternatively, it is possible that gasoline engines were used, but that would mean that a number of witnesses, such as Gerstein, were mistaken.”
Michael Mills in a Usenet article featured under http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... senet.9806
Sorry, but there is no such data at COHQ, despite Nizkor’s claim, which Mr. Mills apparently inferred.
Trying to teach people to read, Reverend? The above quote obviously contains Michael Mills’ very own reasoning based on what he found on the COHQ site.
The COHQ people are quite understandably cautious against citizens thinking that diesel engine exhaust is “safe,” and hence the “poorly tuned diesel” misnomer.
What Smith would like to believe, as usual. Can he show us what exactly is written in this respect on the COHQ site?
Under the right circumstances, yes, a diesel engine can kill.
And those circumstances are not too hard to bring about, whether Smith likes it or not.
“Let's look first at his claim about diesel engines. Many things are wrong with the diesel argument, and this will be the topic of a future webpage at this site. Here is the quickest way to debunk the claim: if the operator of the diesel engine races it up to high RPM and then restricts the air intake, the engine can be made to run arbitrarily rich, producing extremely low levels of oxygen.”
No, McCarthy is all wet and has no evidence to support this. Here science is being shoehorned to follow Survivor claims, not leading the way to debunk those claims. McCarthy/Nizkor don’t care how diesel engines work; they only want fodder for their Gospel of Genocide.
For all of Smith’s hollow slander, the fact is that McCarthy is just following the same logical train of thought that I have. It is up to Smith to demonstrate what is wrong with his reasoning, which makes all the sense in the world.
“The victims at the Reinhard camps were suffocated to death, not killed with carbon monoxide, because, although an intentionally-mistuned diesel produces enough carbon monoxide to kill you, the lack of oxygen will kill you first.”
Gee, that’s funny, Höß and everybody says it was carbon monoxide.
Did Höß see the victims? No, he didn’t. The only more detailed descriptions of the dead bodies we have were provided by Dr. Pfannenstiel and Karl Alfred Schluch, who witnessed the gassings at Belzec. Both descriptions suggest that what may have been intended to be death by carbon monoxide poisoning was actually death by suffocation – probably due to the speed at which the exhaust of a large engine filled the gas chambers, a phenomenon similar to the one described by Becker in regard to the gas vans in his letter to Rauff of 26 May 1942.
Nobody had this CO2 or “mistuning” theory until after Berg pointed out that carbon monoxide from a diesel engine was bogus. Then it was, “damage control, boys—man the pumps!”
The fact is that no one gave a damn about the type of engine used for gassing at Treblinka (why should anyone have cared about this irrelevant minor detail?) until Berg and Buchanan came up with their bullshit. Some people then thought it necessary to provide some clarifications for the benefit of gullible souls who might be taken in by that propaganda crap.
McCarthy/Nizkor have absolutely no evidence about the victims of the Reinhardt camps being killed by suffocation instead of CO except for Dr. Pfannenstiel’s observation that he saw some blue bodies (and the Good Doktor never admitted to seeing a gassing or a gaschamber, btw).
The observations of Pfannenstiel and Schluch are more than enough evidence to assume that the cause of death was actually suffocation:
188.8.131.52 Alfred Schluch had worked at the euthanasia institutes of Grafeneck and Hadamar prior to his assignment to Belzec in February or March 1942. He described the routine killing procedure of the Belzec camp as follows:
After unloading, the ambulant Jews proceeded to the assembly place. At the unloading the Jews were told that they were going to be resettled and before that had to be bathed and disinfected. The speech was given by Wirth and also by his translator, a Jewish capo. Next the Jews were then led to the undressing barracks. In one of the barracks the men and in the other the Jewish women and children had to undress.
After undressing the male Jews and the women with children were led separately through the tube. ...My position in the tube was quite near the undressing barracks. Wirth had installed me there, because in his opinion I could have a pacifying effect on the Jews. I had to direct the Jews along the path to the gas chamber after they left the undressing barracks. I believe that I made the way to the gas chambers easier for the Jews, because they must have been convinced from my words or gestures that they were actually to be bathed. After the Jews had entered the gas chambers, the doors were tightly closed by Hackenholt himself or by the Ukrainians assigned to him. Then Hackenholt started the motor that was used for the gassing. After about 5 to 7 minutes--and I only estimate the length of time--the peephole into the gas chamber was looked through to establish whether everyone was dead. Only then were the outer doors opened and the gas chambers aired out. ...After the gas chambers were aired out, a Jewish work commando under the direction of a capo arrived and took the corpses out of the chambers. I was also occasionally assigned to supervise at this place. Thus I can exactly describe the procedures, because I saw and experienced everything myself.
The Jews had been very tightly packed into the gas chambers. For this reason the corpses did not lie on the ground, but all leaned in a jumble this way and that, the one backwards, the other forwards, one prone to the side, the other kneeling, each according to the space around. The corpses were at least partially besmirched with excrement and urine, others in part with saliva. The lips and nose tips of some of the corpses had turned blue. With some the eyes were closed, with others the eyes had rolled.
The corpses were pulled out of the chambers and immediately examined by one of the dentists. The dentist removed rings from the fingers and pulled out gold teeth. The valuables recovered in this way were tossed into a box that had been provided. After this procedure the corpses were thrown into the large graves nearby.
From Prof. Browning’s expert opinion submitted at the Irving-Lipstadt trial.
Source of quote: http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/e ... .asp#5.4.2
Emphasis is mine.
Next morning, a shipment of Jews - men, women, and some children - arrived...They were ordered to strip completely and to hand over their possessions. They were informed that they were to be incorporated into a working process and must be deloused to prevent epidemics. They would also have to inhale something. After the women's hair had been cut off, the whole shipment of people was taken to a building containing six rooms. On that occasion, to my knowledge, only four [of these] were used. After these people had been shut up in the rooms, the exhaust gas from an engine was piped in. Gerstein stated that it took about eighteen minutes before quiet was restored inside. While the Jews were being taken in, the rooms were lit up with electric light and everything passed off peacefully. But when the lights were turned off, loud cries burst out inside, which then gradually died away. As soon as everything was quiet again, the doors in the outside walls were opened, the corpses were brought out, and, after being searched for gold teeth, they were stacked in a trench. Here, too, the work was done by Jews. No doctor was present. I noticed nothing special about the corpses, except that some of them showed a bluish puffiness about the face. But this is not surprising since they had died of asphyxiation.
From the deposition of Wilhelm Pfannenstiel before the Darmstadt Court, June 6, 1950.
Source of quote: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/p/ ... fannen.001
Emphasis is mine.
The above quoted depositions are clear enough, aren’t they? The one of Pfannenstiel, incidentally, also shows Smith’s contention that “the Good Doktor never admitted to seeing a gassing or a gaschamber”
to be just another of the Reverend’s transparent lies.
“A properly-tuned diesel engine running at idle cannot kill: this is true. But unlike the locomotive engineer in Buchanan's example, who was concerned with saving the lives of trapped people, the Nazis had no qualms about opening the engine's throttle and restricting the air intake.
Pat Buchanan and the Holocaust, by Jamie McCarthy.
For one thing, an engine running at 1400 rpm, as in our test data, is not at “idle.” It is revved somewhat substantially. The difference between Test B-13 and the others to B-12 is the LOAD, and setting the throttle to meet that load. Only when the engine cannot be loaded any more does a rising fuel supply also correlate to rising CO, as my graph amply shows in the tests to the right of B-12.
Cut out the obfuscating nonsense, Reverend. The question is what would have happened if B-13, where the engine had no load on it at all, had been run not with 4.56lbs/hr but with 29.63lbs/hr of fuel, with or without simultaneously restricting the air intake. Smith is again invited to demonstrate that it would not have been possible to make the fuel-air ratio sufficiently “rich” in this manner. The diesel irrelevancy is his baby, after all.
Here is Berg’s article about the famous Pat Buchanan controversy at the height of the Demjanjuk affair
Let me guess what’s in there: The “Hoaxbuster” praising Buchanan for his valiant stand against those evil Jews and exhorting his followers to
Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.
(“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum. http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10
Am I right?
Article 14309 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.delphi.com!usenet From: email@example.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Diesel A, B, C's and Scott Mullins Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 23:24:56 -0500 Organization: Delphi (firstname.lastname@example.org
email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1f.delphi.com X-To: Friedrich Berg
Friedrich Berg writes: >engine, Diesel engine and even the automobile. I can't really believe >that Mullins can be that stupid--but, then again, perhaps he is?
I dont believe any useful purpose is served by calling people names. Why cannot you keep this discussion at a professional level? If you are an engineer that should not be too difficult. I also happen to be a mechanical engineer with probably more years experience that many of you have. I see nothing technically wrong in accepting that a diesel engine exhausting into a closed room provided with an exhauster would fill the room with a lethal gas. The percentage of CO is not only a function of load but also of the air/fuel ratio. It is quite possible to run a diesel engine "rich" at part-load as well as at full-load. It won't be efficient but it would produce higher percentages of CO. Apart from all of this people forced into a closed chamber filled with exhaust gases would not only die from CO but would also be asphyxiated. And finally, the argument about gas producers being a better source of CO is technically correct but not practical because gas producers are basically custom-built and certainly not as readily available during the war at a camp near the war zones than diesel engines.
Let's try to cut out the emotions and keep this at a dispassionate technical level.
From a Usenet discussion transcribed under
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ ... /berg.0794