Question to the revisionists

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Why Diesel?

#16

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Aug 2002, 06:18

Hi Airborne,

Thanks for posting the information, but I've seen it all before. I am looking for photos of vans that are claimed to have been used for murder. The Soviets claimed that Saurer diesel moving vans were used. Here is a photo of what they were like, although this is not a murder-van, of course. Saurers are diesels and therefore I think the story is bogus.

Image

I debated Roberto for something like two years on the old Third Reich forum about the absurdity of diesel exhaust for murder and have all the technical papers. A standard gasoline engine would have done the job admirably, so why diesel? Something is wrong with the story!

This simplified diagram from data conducted in the famous 1941 tests by Holtz and Elliott for the U.S. Bureau of Mines shows why a diesel engine must be put under a load in order to kill people. The short answer is that it is not practical to the point of nonsense, and that is why it didn't happen (although Roberto disagrees). Only when the engine load (horsepower) increases to near maximum does the carbon monoxide rise to dangerous levels. At little load there is more oxygen in the exhaust than even carbon dioxide. At Test B-13 (no load) there is 17% oxygen in the exhaust and normal air is 21%. Unless we can load the engine down heavily, diesel exhaust is not dangerous enough, and can be breathed for long enough to make our diesel gaschamber completely impractical. This is counterintuitive, however, which is why it makes great atrocity propaganda.
:)

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 29 Nov 2002, 12:00, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
wolfen
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 02 May 2002, 06:52
Location: New Hampshire, USA

#17

Post by wolfen » 15 Aug 2002, 08:34

So a diesel engine moving a truck with 130 people in it isn't under a heavy load!? :roll:


User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Diesel dedux...

#18

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Aug 2002, 16:55

wolfen wrote:So a diesel engine moving a truck with 130 people in it isn't under a heavy load!? :roll:
Maybe, maybe not. But some testimony says that the van was kept stationary. And a 500 hp tank engine sitting in an engine room and feeding ten gaschambers at Treblinka definitely is not under load. That would be equivalent to 373 thousand watts of mechanical power!

Furthermore, the Soviet Krasnodar testimony says that the people were given a short ride in the van to the mass-grave, and the Soviet autopsy report showed death from carbon monoxide poisoning (which could have been victims from a building fire during a bombardment or something less exotic, or a simple forgery).

Anyway, if you look at my chart, the engine has to be topped-out to a maximum load to raise the CO appreciably. A van engine is probably twice as big as the one under test here. But unless you max-it-out there will not be any carbon monoxide in the exhaust. And unless it is under heavy load, there is probably too much oxygen in the exhaust, which would slow even an ordinary suffocation process for a longer journey of people crammed inside a nearly-airtight compartment.

The Krasnodar/Kharkov trials from 1943 are the first of the Gas-Van claims made by the Allies. Simply put, the Soviet propagandists didn't think it through and the atrocity story may have then been copycatted. Becker-Rauff is probably a Nuremberg forgery, IMO.
:wink:

User avatar
Richard Murphy
Member
Posts: 753
Joined: 09 Mar 2002, 20:24
Location: Bletchley, England

#19

Post by Richard Murphy » 15 Aug 2002, 19:54

Oh God! Not this argument again!! 8O

Isn't the simplest explanantion that the vans were Gasoline powered, rather than diesel? Someone made a mistake (Soviet vehicles were almost all diesel powered, weren't they?), big deal.

Regards from the Park,

Rich

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#20

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Aug 2002, 20:15

Richard Murphy wrote:Oh God! Not this argument again!! 8O
:D :D
Isn't the simplest explanantion that the vans were Gasoline powered, rather than diesel? Someone made a mistake (Soviet vehicles were almost all diesel powered, weren't they?), big deal.
Maybe, but flying-saucers could have ion engines instead of fusion drives. :mrgreen: Anyway, the Soviet evidence presented in court says Saurer vans, and they are diesels. There is a strong convergence-of-evidence for diesel. That's why I'm looking for more info on the specific vans. The Yad Vashem photo of a Gas-Van is a Magirus-Deutz diesel.
:)

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#21

Post by Erik » 18 Aug 2002, 20:28

Oscar:
Question to the revisionists!

If mentaly handicaped people were killed with gas (noone dubts that I suppose). Why couldn´t others also be killed with gas?
Since Oscar is located in Sweden – like yours truly – maybe he suffers from a “language problem” – again, like yours truly??

He is clearly not suggesting that the revisionists claim that “gas” cannot kill. The parenthesis gainsays such an interpretation.

There are all kinds of gases, and some kill people, as we all know.

The replies above concentrate on the technical possibility of gas murder under the circumstances that existed in certain camps in the East. You might call this the “feasibility” aspect of mass murder with gas.This aspect is discussed in several threads on this Forum.

Dan(above):
The bigger question is whether a sophisticated nation like Germany would use a totally ineffecient method when a better alternative was readily available.
The doyen of Holocaust study, Raul Hilberg, writes like this in his standard history :

“Die deutsche Ausrottung der europäischen Juden war der erste vollendete Vernichtungsprozess der Weltgeschichte. Zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der westlichen Zivilisation hatten die Täter alle eine Tötungsoperation im Wege stehenden administrativen und moralischen Widerstände überwunden”. (Hilberg “Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden”, sid 1115 (Fischer 1999)).

“The German extirpation of the european Jews was the first complete(d?) extermination process in world history. For the first time in the history of western civilization had the murderers removed all administrative and moral resistance to a killing operation”. (my translation)

The revisionists challenge this description of the process by asking why the technical “resistance to a killing operation”of this order wasn’t removed at the same time. Diesel exhaust and Zyklon B were too ineffective or too cumbersome for the process as described by historians, according to their view.

The classic reply to this “view” is supplied by the French historian Vidal Naquet in an appeal or proclamation signed by 32 of the most prominent French historians and published 21. Feb 1979 in “Le Monde”(”La politique hitlerienne d’extermination”):

”Il ne faut pas se demander comment, techniquement, un telle meurtre de mass a été possible. Il a été possible techniquement puisqu’il a eu lieu”.

That is : ”You cannot ask how such a mass murder could have been possible technically – it was technically possible because it happened!”

If it happened, how can it be challenged in such a way?

One answer is : it cannot be challenged in such a away. The Holocaust is one of the best documented events in World History.(“Orthodoxy”)

Another answer is : it didn’t happen! The Jews are still around. Those of the Jews who died in WW2 died like many others at the time – because of WW2, not because of any Holocaust. ( “Denying of Holocaust” , alt. “of History”).

A third answer : it happened in another way than the historians have been relating it. (“Revisionism”).

The third answer obviously permits “challenges” of the sort that is going on here at ThirdReichForum.

Roberto, for example, is ready to “revise” the killing agent (diesel exhaust) at Treblinka. And if the revisionists can show where the Jews, brought there, were brought away from there – alive! – he is apparently prepared to revise history, too.

Roberto(above):
Which doesn't get him any further, of course, because his contentions against the technical accuracy of eyewitness descriptions of given killing devices, if pertinent, would still not matter a damn thing as long as he cannot tell us e.g. what, if not murder, happened to the 713,555 Jews from the Polish General Government who, according to Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943, were taken to Treblinka extermination camp until 31.12.1942.


Oscar’s question to the revisionists can be interpreted to concern the “moral” rather than the “technical” “feasibility” of the extermination process. (The emphasis is on “kill” rather than “gas” ).

I.e.:
If it was possible for the Nazis to kill mentally handicapped the way they did, what doubt can exist that they also killed the Jews the way they did?

But the Euthanasia Project (Aktion T 4) and the following reaction of the German churches etc, are also used to explain why the German KZ-camps were not used for extermination purposes. The Nazis feared a comparable reaction if the Germans found out what they did to the Jews.

The moral restistance to a killing operation was considered too strong to be removed (see Hilberg above) – in Germany!!

In Poland the process was more “feasible”, morally. In an occupied country, “the moral resistance” from a “public opinion” can safely be ignored(?), or be considered insurmountable under any circumstances.

Or perhaps Polish antisemitism against the less assimilated or integrated Jewry of the East made the moral resistance against a killing process less of a hindrance in Poland than in Germany? The Poles could see the material benefits of “landed property” of the Jews coming their way? It was harder to convince the German of such benefits to them(the Germans)?

This “explanation” creates problems of its own, as we can see.

The question that Oscar poses suggests a causal connection. Aktion T 4 and the Holocaust prove one another, on a “moral” level at least. If they were able to kill their own “kind” in that way (T 4), they certainly would have no qualms about killing “enemies” in that way!!

Gerhard L Weinberg

(In "A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II,"
somewhere; can be bought here :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 63-7567611)

states his informed (?) opinion that the Holocaust of the Jews was just the beginning of the Nazi project of eliminating “inferior” races or “race material” from the human populations at their command. Diabetes, myopia, low IQ, bad teeth etc would be cured by “elimination”. We would all be potential victims, or be parents and relatives of victims, to the Nazi racial policies, eventually.

These kinds of historical inferences are always used by the victors of wars, to assure the public opinion that it’s the good guys that’s ruling now.

But the German “public opinion” found the Aktion T 4 unacceptable, even during war. Would a victorious German people be less resistant, after a Nazi triumph? Or less able to resist?

Or would the Nazis have settled for a more constructive way of implementing their racial policies? More like their successors in the DDR? Anabolic steroids, and encouraging abortions of “unwanted” embryos? “Gene theraphy”?

The difference between the Nazis and “us” is perhaps that they made soap out of the corpses of the “unwanted”, and threw babies alive into ovens?

Is it a difference in sophistication? In brutality? But the policies are just the same?

There is a danger in differentiating too much between “us” and “them”. We tend to accept any myth, any legend as long as it’s about “them”, and blind ourselves to what the mirrors of history show “us”.

“Don’t fight prejudices. Use them!”(Pareto).

Perhaps that’s what is illustrated in the exchanges concerning soap receipts and human sacrifices on the following threads?

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 8&start=75

and

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... sc&start=0

It worked against the Jews for millennia. Why not try it the other way?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#22

Post by Roberto » 19 Aug 2002, 13:48

Scott Smith wrote:
Richard Murphy wrote:Oh God! Not this argument again!! 8O
:D :D
Isn't the simplest explanantion that the vans were Gasoline powered, rather than diesel? Someone made a mistake (Soviet vehicles were almost all diesel powered, weren't they?), big deal.
Scott Smith wrote:Maybe, but flying-saucers could have ion engines instead of fusion drives. :mrgreen:
Bullshit.
Scott Smith wrote:Anyway, the Soviet evidence presented in court says Saurer vans, and they are diesels.
Which means that either the Soviets made a mistake in their assessment of the evidence or the Saurer gas vans were custom-built models with gasoline engines. Big deal.
Scott Smith wrote:There is a strong convergence-of-evidence for diesel.
The depositions of defendants and witnesses that I know of either do not mention the type of engine at all or speak of gasoline engines:

1.
Die Wagen waren mittelschwere Renault-Lastwagen mit Ottomotor.
Former Chelmno gas van driver Walter Burmeister, quoted on page 114 of Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas.

My translation:
The vans were medium-sized Renault trucks with Otto engines.
2.
Hierbei handelte es sich um Gase, die durch den Benzinmotor erzeugt wurden...
From the confession of SS-Hauptscharführer Walter Piller, deputy commander of Chelmno during the second phase of mass killings at that camp (April 1944 to January 1945).

Source of quote: As above, page 141

My translation:
These were gases generated by the gasoline engine...
3.
Die Menschen wurden unterwegs vergiftet durch Gase und Abgasdämpfe, die durch das Verbrennen von Benzin im Motor entstanden sind.
From the testimony of Dr. Zalman Levinbuck, survivor of the Baranovici ghetto in Belorussia.

Source of quote: As above, page 91.

My translation:
On the way the people were poisoned by gases and exhaust fumes generated by the burning of gasoline in the engine.
Scott Smith wrote:That's why I'm looking for more info on the specific vans.
Cream cheese. The only thing the True Believer is looking for is something to make a fuss about.
Scott Smith wrote:The Yad Vashem photo of a Gas-Van is a Magirus-Deutz diesel.
Which means that it either doesn't show a gas van or something is wrong with Smith's contentions about the unsuitability of diesel engines for gassing.

As long as Smith cannot explain why it would not have been possible to make the exhaust of a diesel engine sufficiently toxic by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake of the engine, the latter possibility remains a strong contender.
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.

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.

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.
Jamie McCarthy, Pat Buchanan and the Holocaust

http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/
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.
Our fellow poster Michael Mills in a Usenet discussion featured under

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... senet.9806

I don't often agree with Mr. Mills, but I think his above statements contain all there is to be said about this issue.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Damage Control! SOS...

#23

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Aug 2002, 01:42

Yawn, we've covered all this before. The Soviet Krasnodar/Kharkov trials had witnesses alternatively referring to diesel murder-vans and Saurer murder-vans modified with exhaust piping into the interior, not new Otto engines. This Greuelpropaganda predates all the other Gas-Van claims. And it converges with the diesel engine claims made at Treblinka and Belzec.

And as far as blocking the air-intake, the Pattle and Stretch experiments on live animals (1957) discredit that thesis; with a blocked air-intake, the engine sputters to a quit before it puts out much CO.

Now, here is a more detailed example of the famous 1941 Holtz-Elliott test table from Engine B showing how the Fuel-Air ratio correlates with the load until the latter reaches asymptote, at which point the carbon monoxide rises markedly, and NOT until. Note that the F/A ratio rises mostly linearly but that that CO does not because it is a variable dependent first upon the saturation of the load curve. And in these overloaded states, according to the researchers, black smoke becomes manifest, not something conducive to engine reliability. Note also the amount of oxygen inherent in the exhaust unless the engine is loaded heavily.
:)

CLICK to Enlarge Image!
Attachments
hetbchart2.jpg
hetbchart2.jpg (25.21 KiB) Viewed 3577 times
Last edited by Scott Smith on 29 Nov 2002, 12:38, edited 3 times in total.

Hebden
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 18 May 2002, 14:00
Location: Kent

Re: Damage Control! SOS...

#24

Post by Hebden » 20 Aug 2002, 07:26

Scott Smith wrote:Yawn, we've covered all this before. The Soviet Krasnodar/Kharkov trials had witnesses alternatively referring to diesel murder-vans and Saurer murder-vans modified with exhaust piping into the interior, not new Otto engines
Is this correct? We cannot recall any specific witnesses who testified that the vans were Saurer. Please advise.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Damage Control! SOS...

#25

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Aug 2002, 08:07

Hebden wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Yawn, we've covered all this before. The Soviet Krasnodar/Kharkov trials had witnesses alternatively referring to diesel murder-vans and Saurer murder-vans modified with exhaust piping into the interior, not new Otto engines
Is this correct? We cannot recall any specific witnesses who testified that the vans were Saurer. Please advise.
Here is the post from the thread: Fun with DIESEL GAS-VANS at Krasnodar and Kharkov... (CLICK!)

Sat Mar 23, 2002 7:13 pm Post subject: More Gas-Vans...
SCOTT SMITH wrote: SOVIET War Documents

June, 1941—November, 1943
Addresses, notes, orders of the day, statements

Information Bulletin,
Embassy of the USSR, Washington, D.C.
Publication August 14, 1943,
pp. 171-172.

Statement of

EXTRAORDINARY STATE COMMITTEE

For the Ascertaining and Investigation of Crimes Committed by the German Fascist Invaders and Their Associates and Damage Caused by Them to Citizens, Collective Farms, Public Bodies, State Enterprises and institutions of the USSR

On the crimes of the German-fascist occupationists in the Stavropol area:


“…It has been established that the Germans engaged in mass extermination of the peaceful Soviet population by poisoning them with carbon monoxide in the specially adapted ‘murderess’ [sic] vans.

“War prisoner Fenichel stated: ‘Working as an auto mechanic I had chance to learn in detail the construction of the vans specially adapted for suffocating and exterminating people with exhaust gas. In the town of Stavropol the Gestapo had several such vans. They were constructed as follows:

“The body was approximately five meters long and two and one half meters wide. The height of the body was also approximately two and a half meters. The body was shaped like a railroad car without windows and lined inside with galvanized sheet-iron; on the floor, also covered with sheet-iron, lay a wooden grating. The door of the car was lined with rubber and tightly closed with an automatic lock. On the floor of the van under the grating were two metal pipes about one and a half inches in diameter and two and a half meters long. These pipes were connected with a transverse pipe of equal diameter (in the shape of a capital H). In these pipes were numerous holes one-half centimeter in width; from the transverse pipe down through a hole in the galvanized iron floor ran a rubber hose with a hexagonal nut at the end threaded to fit the thread on the end of the engine exhaust pipe. This hose was screwed to an exhaust pipe and when the engine is running all exhaust gas goes into the body of this hermetically sealed van. As a result of this concentration of gas a person inside dies within a short space of time. Seventy to eighty persons could be put into the body of the van. The van had a ‘Sauer’ engine; the body was constructed in Berlin, and on the left-hand side near the engine was a metal plate with the inscription: ‘Auto-Body Building Works of Joint Stock Company in Berlin.’”
A Saurer engine means a diesel, and the first post of that thread (below) specifically refers to DIESEL engines in the sources:

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:19 am Post subject: Fun with DIESEL GAS-VANS at Krasnodar and Kharkov...
SCOTT SMITH wrote: The following is taken from:

THE PEOPLE’S VERDICT: A Full Report on the Proceedings of the Krasnodar and Kharkov German Atrocity Trials.
Hutchinson and Co., Ltd.; London, New York: 1944.
“THE TRIAL

“In the case of the Fascist Invaders and their Accomplices in KRASNODAR and Krasnodar Territory

“July 14 to 17, 1943


“On 14 July, 1943, in the city of Krasnodar, in the North Caucasus, the trial was opened before a military Tribunal presided over by Justiciary Colonel N. Y. Mayorov, President of the Military Tribunal of the North Caucasian Front, of the case of the atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist invaders and their accomplices in the area of the city of Krasnodar and the Krasnodar Territory during the period of their temporary occupation. Justiciary Major General L. I. Yachenin acted as State Prosecutor.

“The defendants in the case were: I. Kladov, I. Kotomtsev, M. Lastovina, G. Misan, Y. Naptsok, V. Pavlov, I. Paramonov, N. Pushkarev, I. Rechkalov, V. Tischenko and G. Tuchkov. They were charged with committing crimes covered by Articles 58-1a and 51-1b of the Criminal Code of the R. S. F. S. R., i.e., treason to the country.

“The accused were defended by Advocates A. I Nazarevsky, V. I. Yakunenko and S. K. Kaznacheyev as appointed by the court.

“The morning session on the 14th was taken up with the preliminary formalities. At the afternoon session the indictment was read and before the court there was unfolded a frightful picture of the wholesale murder of innocent Soviet citizens who were killed in thousands by the German fascist invaders during their temporary occupation of Krasnodar Territory.

“The preliminary investigation, the indictment stated, had revealed that all these acts of murder, outrage, violence and plunder were committed by the punitive units of the German 17th Army, commanded by Colonel General Rueff.

“The immediate supervision and execution of all these acts of brutality were vested in the Krasnodar Gestapo, headed by the German Chief of the Gestapo, Colonel Christmann.

“The Gestapo had under its command a special punitive unit of the Secret Police called the Sonderkommando SS-10-a, which was immediately responsible for the perpetration of all atrocities.

“The investigation revealed that persons under arrest were tortured and that prisoners confined in the cellar of the Krasnodar Gestapo were burnt to death: that patients in the Krasnodar Municipal Hospital, at the Berezansk Medical Colony and also in the Territory Children’s Hospital at Tretya Rechka Kochety Farm, in the Ust-Labinskaya District, were killed wholesale.

“Lastly, the investigation revealed that many thousands of Soviet citizens were put to death by asphyxiation by means of carbon monoxide in motor vehicles specially equipped for this purpose, known as ‘murder vans.’

“The Sonderkommando SS-10-a was a punitive unit of the Gestapo, numbering about 200 men. The head of this Sonderkommando was Colonel Christmann, a German, Chief of the Gestapo. His immediate assistants in the work of exterminating Soviet citizens were the German officers: Rabbe, Boss, Sargo, Salge, Hahn, Erich Meier, Paschen, Winz and Hans Münster, the German Army Surgeons in the prison and the Gestapo, Herz and Schuster and also officials of the Gestapo, the interpreters Jakob Eicks and Scherterlan.

“Furthermore, the following traitors, now before the court as defendants in the case, were recruited by the Gestapo and participated in the perpetration of all the aforementioned atrocities: V. Tischenko, G. Tuchkov, I. Rechkalov, M. Lastovina, N. Pushkarev, G. Misan, J. Naptsok, I. Paramonov, I. Kotomtsev, V. Pavlov and I. Kladov.

“The investigation revealed the following definite cases of atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist invaders in the Krasnodar Territory:

“Soon after the occupation of Krasnodar, the cellar of the Krasnodar Gestapo was crammed with prisoners as a result of systematic raids upon and the wholesale arrest of the peaceful inhabitants. No investigation whatever was made into the cases of the hundreds and thousands of innocent people thus arrested. The latter were subjected to the most brutal violence and torture. Their fate was decided arbitrarily by Colonel Christmann, Chief of the Gestapo, who personally issued the orders for their physical extermination.

“In the autumn of 1942, the Germans began to utilize specially equipped motor vehicles, which the population called ‘murder vans,’ for the purpose of doing away with Soviet citizens.

These ‘murder vans’ were covered five-ton or seven-ton grey-painted motor trucks, driven by Diesel engines. The interior of these vans was lined with zinc-plated sheet iron. At the back they had double doors which closed hermetically. The floor consisted of a grating, beneath which their was a pipe that was connected with the exhaust pipe of the engine. The exhaust gas from the Diesel engine, which contained a high concentration of carbon monoxide, penetrated the interior of the van, causing the rapid poisoning and death from asphyxiation of the prisoners confined in it.

“Several times a week, and in January, before the Germans retreated from Krasnodar, two and three times a day, the ‘murder vans’ were filled with people confined in the cellar of the Gestapo, which was situated in 61 Orjonikidze Street. The loading of the vans was usually supervised by Captain Rabbe, Deputy Chief of the Gestapo and Governor of the Gestapo prison. Before being dragged from the cellar the prisoners were stripped of their clothing; then they were bundled into the ‘murder van’ 60 to 80 at a time. The doors of the van were then hermetically closed and the engine started. After standing with the engine running for several minutes, the van would drive to an anti-tank trench which had been dug outside the Measuring Instruments Factory on the outskirts of Krasnodar. As a rule, the murder vans were escorted by a convoy of police from the Sonderkommando SS-10-a. By the time the vans reached the anti-tank trench the people were asphyxiated by the gas. The bodies were flung into the trench and buried. Men, women and children were bundled into the van without discrimination.

“In the course of time, in spite of the efforts the Germans made to keep this fiendish method of exterminating Soviet citizens a secret, the inhabitants living in the neighbourhood of the Gestapo premises, and through them, the entire population, learned of the use to which these vans were being put.

“The prisoners in the cellar of the Gestapo also learned of the purpose of the ‘murder vans,’ and on being loaded into them they offered resistance. At the time of loading the courtyard of the Gestapo premises echoed with their shrieks and wailing. Owing to this they were seized and dragged into the van by force. Soon after the engine was started the shrieks of these unfortunate people gradually subsided as they succumbed to the gases….”
(Op Cit, pp. 7-9, Emphasis Added.)

Of course, diesel engines NEVER produce "a high-concentration of carbon monoxide," EXCEPT in the very fertile imaginations of Greuelpropagandists.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#26

Post by Roberto » 20 Aug 2002, 12:48

Scott Smith wrote:Yawn, we've covered all this before.
Yeah, with Smith always failing to make his point and withdrawing with his tail between his legs.
Scott Smith wrote:The Soviet Krasnodar/Kharkov trials had witnesses alternatively referring to diesel murder-vans and Saurer murder-vans modified with exhaust piping into the interior, not new Otto engines.
I still have to see a witness mentioning a diesel engine in Smith’s transcriptions. Did I miss something?
Scott Smith wrote:This Greuelpropaganda
What’s would be so particularly grueling about the use of diesel engines as opposed to gasoline engines for gassing, Reverend?

Why would a “Greuelpropagandist” take the trouble to make one into the other?
Scott Smith wrote:predates all the other Gas-Van claims.
Which, I presume, is the reason why Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck (see my last post) expressly mentioned gasoline engines. :lol:
Scott Smith wrote:And it converges with the diesel engine claims made at Treblinka and Belzec.
A convergence that exists only in Smith’s weird little mind, I would say.

Not only is it quite a stretch from gas vans in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union to the mentioned extermination camps in Poland the sites of which were discovered two years later, the Reverend has also not been able so far to produce a single eyewitness testimonial regarding Treblinka that expressly described the gassing engine used there as a diesel engine.

As to Belzec, the only existing testimonial from someone who actually saw the engine – that of Rudolf Reder – expressly mentions a gasoline engine.
Scott Smith wrote:And as far as blocking the air-intake, the Pattle and Stretch experiments on live animals (1957) discredit that thesis; with a blocked air-intake, the engine sputters to a quit before it puts out much CO.
Cream cheese.

In the Pattle and Stretch experiments, their tiny 6 bhp engine produced far more CO when the air intake was restricted than by any other method, including almost full load. The concentration was not enough to be lethal for human beings because the engine in question was very small. The engines used by Holtz & Elliot (40 bhp, 70 bhp) had much more CO in the exhaust under similar running conditions. In the Elliot & Davis experiments with a 150 bhp engine, the CO concentration was higher and the oxygen concentration lower than in the experiments with Holtz & Elliot’s bigger engine, at the same fuel-air ratio. Which suggests that the bigger a diesel engine is, the more toxic its exhaust is likely to be.

As to the engine having “sputtered to a quit”, how long did that take to happen, Reverend? More or less than 30-45 minutes, the time required for a gassing at Treblinka according to most eyewitness testimonials?
Scott Smith wrote:Now, here is a more detailed example of the famous 1941 Holtz-Elliott test table from Engine B showing how the Fuel-Air ratio correlates with the load until the latter reaches asymptote, at which point the carbon monoxide rises markedly, and NOT until. Note that the F/A ratio rises mostly linearly but that that CO does not because it is a variable dependent first upon the saturation of the load curve. And in these overloaded states, according to the researchers, black smoke becomes manifest, not something conducive to engine reliability. Note also the amount of oxygen inherent in the exhaust unless the engine is loaded heavily.
:)
Yawn. Smith’s beaten old graph for the umpteenth time, meaningless because it does not show the dependence of the fuel-air ratio on the amount of fuel injected into the engine in Holtz & Elliot’s experiments:

Experiment #; Power (load hp); Rpm; Fuel; volume gas; Fuel-Air ratio; CO2%; O2%; CO%; NOx (ppm); H2%:

B13; 00.0hp; 1400rpm; 04.56lbs/hr; 4500cf/hr; 0.013 (77:1); 02.7%; 17.14%; 0.041% (410ppm); 167ppm; 0.0%

B14; 08.8hp; 1410rpm; 06.89lbs/hr; 4460cf/hr; 0.020 (50:1); 04.2%; 15.13%; 0.028% (280ppm); 267ppm; 0.0%

B15; 17.5hp; 1400rpm; 09.56lbs/hr; 4180cf/hr; 0.029 (35:1); 06.2%; 12.20%; 0.024% (240ppm); 378ppm; 0.0%

B16; 24.6hp; 1410rpm; 12.45lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.039 (26:1); 08.4%; 09.26%; 0.027% (270ppm); 448ppm; 0.0%

B12; 37.8hp; 1400rpm; 18.12lbs/hr; 3950cf/hr; 0.056 (18:1); 12.4%; 03.44%; 0.058% (580ppm); 364ppm; 0.0%

B70; 40.2hp; 1400rpm; 21.29lbs/hr; 3700cf/hr; 0.070 (14:1); 13.8%; 00.80%; 0.700% (07kppm); 346ppm; 0.1%

B72; 41.0hp; 1400rpm; 24.41lbs/hr; 3650cf/hr; 0.084 (12:1); 12.1%; 00.30%; 3.500% (35kppm); 277ppm; 1.3%

B69; 40.6hp; 1400rpm; 29.63lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.094 (11:1); 10.2%; 00.30%; 6.000% (60kppm); 186ppm; 0.4%


The dependence of the exhaust composition on the fuel supply was explained by Holtz & Elliot as follows:
Holtz & Elliot 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 on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at 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.
So much for the honesty of Smith’s “science”.
SCOTT SMITH wrote: SOVIET War Documents

June, 1941—November, 1943
Addresses, notes, orders of the day, statements

Information Bulletin,
Embassy of the USSR, Washington, D.C.
Publication August 14, 1943,
pp. 171-172.

Statement of

EXTRAORDINARY STATE COMMITTEE

For the Ascertaining and Investigation of Crimes Committed by the German Fascist Invaders and Their Associates and Damage Caused by Them to Citizens, Collective Farms, Public Bodies, State Enterprises and institutions of the USSR

On the crimes of the German-fascist occupationists in the Stavropol area:


“…It has been established that the Germans engaged in mass extermination of the peaceful Soviet population by poisoning them with carbon monoxide in the specially adapted ‘murderess’ [sic] vans.

“War prisoner Fenichel stated: ‘Working as an auto mechanic I had chance to learn in detail the construction of the vans specially adapted for suffocating and exterminating people with exhaust gas. In the town of Stavropol the Gestapo had several such vans. They were constructed as follows:

“The body was approximately five meters long and two and one half meters wide. The height of the body was also approximately two and a half meters. The body was shaped like a railroad car without windows and lined inside with galvanized sheet-iron; on the floor, also covered with sheet-iron, lay a wooden grating. The door of the car was lined with rubber and tightly closed with an automatic lock. On the floor of the van under the grating were two metal pipes about one and a half inches in diameter and two and a half meters long. These pipes were connected with a transverse pipe of equal diameter (in the shape of a capital H). In these pipes were numerous holes one-half centimeter in width; from the transverse pipe down through a hole in the galvanized iron floor ran a rubber hose with a hexagonal nut at the end threaded to fit the thread on the end of the engine exhaust pipe. This hose was screwed to an exhaust pipe and when the engine is running all exhaust gas goes into the body of this hermetically sealed van. As a result of this concentration of gas a person inside dies within a short space of time. Seventy to eighty persons could be put into the body of the van. The van had a ‘Sauer’ engine; the body was constructed in Berlin, and on the left-hand side near the engine was a metal plate with the inscription: ‘Auto-Body Building Works of Joint Stock Company in Berlin.’”
Scott Smith wrote:A Saurer engine means a diesel,
Or a custom-built gasoline engine, more adequate than a diesel for use in cold Russian weather.
Scott Smith wrote:and the first post of that thread (below) specifically refers to DIESEL engines in the sources:
Unless I missed something, it says nothing about how the Soviet court arrived at this conclusion. Maybe they just made the (not necessarily correct) “Saurer = diesel” equation, like Smith did.
Scott Smith wrote:Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:19 am Post subject: Fun with DIESEL GAS-VANS at Krasnodar and Kharkov...
What does the heading of the thread tell us about the Reverend’s mind?
SCOTT SMITH wrote: The following is taken from:

THE PEOPLE’S VERDICT: A Full Report on the Proceedings of the Krasnodar and Kharkov German Atrocity Trials.
Hutchinson and Co., Ltd.; London, New York: 1944.
“THE TRIAL

“In the case of the Fascist Invaders and their Accomplices in KRASNODAR and Krasnodar Territory

“July 14 to 17, 1943


“On 14 July, 1943, in the city of Krasnodar, in the North Caucasus, the trial was opened before a military Tribunal presided over by Justiciary Colonel N. Y. Mayorov, President of the Military Tribunal of the North Caucasian Front, of the case of the atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist invaders and their accomplices in the area of the city of Krasnodar and the Krasnodar Territory during the period of their temporary occupation. Justiciary Major General L. I. Yachenin acted as State Prosecutor.

“The defendants in the case were: I. Kladov, I. Kotomtsev, M. Lastovina, G. Misan, Y. Naptsok, V. Pavlov, I. Paramonov, N. Pushkarev, I. Rechkalov, V. Tischenko and G. Tuchkov. They were charged with committing crimes covered by Articles 58-1a and 51-1b of the Criminal Code of the R. S. F. S. R., i.e., treason to the country.

“The accused were defended by Advocates A. I Nazarevsky, V. I. Yakunenko and S. K. Kaznacheyev as appointed by the court.

“The morning session on the 14th was taken up with the preliminary formalities. At the afternoon session the indictment was read and before the court there was unfolded a frightful picture of the wholesale murder of innocent Soviet citizens who were killed in thousands by the German fascist invaders during their temporary occupation of Krasnodar Territory.

“The preliminary investigation, the indictment stated, had revealed that all these acts of murder, outrage, violence and plunder were committed by the punitive units of the German 17th Army, commanded by Colonel General Rueff.

“The immediate supervision and execution of all these acts of brutality were vested in the Krasnodar Gestapo, headed by the German Chief of the Gestapo, Colonel Christmann.

“The Gestapo had under its command a special punitive unit of the Secret Police called the Sonderkommando SS-10-a, which was immediately responsible for the perpetration of all atrocities.

“The investigation revealed that persons under arrest were tortured and that prisoners confined in the cellar of the Krasnodar Gestapo were burnt to death: that patients in the Krasnodar Municipal Hospital, at the Berezansk Medical Colony and also in the Territory Children’s Hospital at Tretya Rechka Kochety Farm, in the Ust-Labinskaya District, were killed wholesale.

“Lastly, the investigation revealed that many thousands of Soviet citizens were put to death by asphyxiation by means of carbon monoxide in motor vehicles specially equipped for this purpose, known as ‘murder vans.’

“The Sonderkommando SS-10-a was a punitive unit of the Gestapo, numbering about 200 men. The head of this Sonderkommando was Colonel Christmann, a German, Chief of the Gestapo. His immediate assistants in the work of exterminating Soviet citizens were the German officers: Rabbe, Boss, Sargo, Salge, Hahn, Erich Meier, Paschen, Winz and Hans Münster, the German Army Surgeons in the prison and the Gestapo, Herz and Schuster and also officials of the Gestapo, the interpreters Jakob Eicks and Scherterlan.

“Furthermore, the following traitors, now before the court as defendants in the case, were recruited by the Gestapo and participated in the perpetration of all the aforementioned atrocities: V. Tischenko, G. Tuchkov, I. Rechkalov, M. Lastovina, N. Pushkarev, G. Misan, J. Naptsok, I. Paramonov, I. Kotomtsev, V. Pavlov and I. Kladov.

“The investigation revealed the following definite cases of atrocities perpetrated by the German fascist invaders in the Krasnodar Territory:

“Soon after the occupation of Krasnodar, the cellar of the Krasnodar Gestapo was crammed with prisoners as a result of systematic raids upon and the wholesale arrest of the peaceful inhabitants. No investigation whatever was made into the cases of the hundreds and thousands of innocent people thus arrested. The latter were subjected to the most brutal violence and torture. Their fate was decided arbitrarily by Colonel Christmann, Chief of the Gestapo, who personally issued the orders for their physical extermination.

“In the autumn of 1942, the Germans began to utilize specially equipped motor vehicles, which the population called ‘murder vans,’ for the purpose of doing away with Soviet citizens.

These ‘murder vans’ were covered five-ton or seven-ton grey-painted motor trucks, driven by Diesel engines. The interior of these vans was lined with zinc-plated sheet iron. At the back they had double doors which closed hermetically. The floor consisted of a grating, beneath which their was a pipe that was connected with the exhaust pipe of the engine. The exhaust gas from the Diesel engine, which contained a high concentration of carbon monoxide, penetrated the interior of the van, causing the rapid poisoning and death from asphyxiation of the prisoners confined in it.

“Several times a week, and in January, before the Germans retreated from Krasnodar, two and three times a day, the ‘murder vans’ were filled with people confined in the cellar of the Gestapo, which was situated in 61 Orjonikidze Street. The loading of the vans was usually supervised by Captain Rabbe, Deputy Chief of the Gestapo and Governor of the Gestapo prison. Before being dragged from the cellar the prisoners were stripped of their clothing; then they were bundled into the ‘murder van’ 60 to 80 at a time. The doors of the van were then hermetically closed and the engine started. After standing with the engine running for several minutes, the van would drive to an anti-tank trench which had been dug outside the Measuring Instruments Factory on the outskirts of Krasnodar. As a rule, the murder vans were escorted by a convoy of police from the Sonderkommando SS-10-a. By the time the vans reached the anti-tank trench the people were asphyxiated by the gas. The bodies were flung into the trench and buried. Men, women and children were bundled into the van without discrimination.

“In the course of time, in spite of the efforts the Germans made to keep this fiendish method of exterminating Soviet citizens a secret, the inhabitants living in the neighbourhood of the Gestapo premises, and through them, the entire population, learned of the use to which these vans were being put.

“The prisoners in the cellar of the Gestapo also learned of the purpose of the ‘murder vans,’ and on being loaded into them they offered resistance. At the time of loading the courtyard of the Gestapo premises echoed with their shrieks and wailing. Owing to this they were seized and dragged into the van by force. Soon after the engine was started the shrieks of these unfortunate people gradually subsided as they succumbed to the gases….”
(Op Cit, pp. 7-9, Emphasis Added.)

Of course, diesel engines NEVER produce "a high-concentration of carbon monoxide," EXCEPT in the very fertile imaginations of Greuelpropagandists.
Bullshit in bold, red and underlined is still bullshit.

Even if Smith had a point regarding the inadequacy of diesel exhaust for gassing – which he has so far failed to demonstrate, see above – this would only mean that the gassing engine was actually a gasoline engine and that the Soviet court was in error concerning the type of the engine. A minor inaccuracy in the court’s findings, which seem remarkably accurate if compared to those of the Munich County Court court at the trial against Dr. Kurt Christmann (mentioned as “Colonel Christmann, Chief of the Gestapo” in the Soviet judgment) that ended on 19.12.1980:
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.864
Tatkomplex: Kriegsverbrechen
Angeklagte:
Chri., Dr. Kurt 10 Jahre
Gerichtsentscheidungen:
LG München I 801219
BGH 821111
Tatland: GUS
Tatort: Krasnodar, Marjanskaja
Tatzeit: 4208-4302
Opfer: Zivilisten, Widerstandskämpfer
Nationalität: Sowjetische
Dienststelle: Einsatzgruppen EK10a
Verfahrensgegenstand: Tötung in Krasnodar inhaftierter Partisanen, Angehöriger von Partisanen - darunter zweier Kinder - und partisanenverdächtiger Zivilisten durch Vergasen mittels 'Gaswagen' . Verhaftung von etwa 60 Partisanen, Partisanenverdächtigen und Kommunisten aus dem Dorfe Marjanskaja sowie Erschiessung eines Teiles der Festgenommen am Kubanfluss
Source of quote:

http://www.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Tatortfr.htm

My translation:
Case No. 864
Crime Category: War Crimes
Accused: Chri., Dr. Kurt 10
Court decisions:
Munich County Court 801219
Federal Supreme Court 821111
Country where the crime was committed: CIS (former USSR)
Crime Location: Krasnodar, Marjanskaja
Crime Date: 4208-4302
Victims: Civilians, resistance fighters
Nationality: Soviet
Office: Einsatzgruppen EK10a
Subject of the proceeding: Killing of partisans imprisoned at Krasnodar, relatives of partisans - thereof two children – and civilians suspect of partisan activity by means of ‘gas vans’. Detention of about 60 partisans, partisan suspects and communists from the village Marjanskaja and shooting of a part of the detainees by the Kuban river

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Diesel Dedux, redux...

#27

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Aug 2002, 23:01

Roberto wrote:I still have to see a witness mentioning a diesel engine in Smith’s transcriptions. Did I miss something?
Obviously you did. Another funny one is the guy that survived the carbon monoxide from the diesel Gas-Van by urinating on a rag like in a WWI movie during a chlorine gas attack. :mrgreen:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:This Greuelpropaganda
What’s would be so particularly grueling about the use of diesel engines as opposed to gasoline engines for gassing, Reverend?
The German word Greuel=atrocity, in English, but it is a nice pun with the English gruel, as in punishing, not as in eating plain cereal. :roll:
Why would a “Greuelpropagandist” take the trouble to make one into the other?
For most people diesel engines make a horrible smell and really cause bad smog, but actually they are much better in terms of air pollution than gasoline engines. 8O It is counterintuitive because you can smell diesel exhaust and sometimes see it, so it must be VERY bad. That diesel exhaust is relatively benign is unthinkable to the layman (including journalists and lawyers) and therefore it makes great atrocity propaganda, a more HORRIBLE way to die--indeed, but only because it would hardly kill at all, and thus it would be a completely absurd mass-murder weapon.
Roberto wrote:
Yawn. Smith’s beaten old graph for the umpteenth time, meaningless because it does not show the dependence of the fuel-air ratio on the amount of fuel injected into the engine in Holtz & Elliot’s experiments:
Experiment #; Power (load hp); Rpm; Fuel; volume gas; Fuel-Air ratio; CO2%; O2%; CO%; NOx (ppm); H2%:

B13; 00.0hp; 1400rpm; 04.56lbs/hr; 4500cf/hr; 0.013 (77:1); 02.7%; 17.14%; 0.041% (410ppm); 167ppm; 0.0%

B14; 08.8hp; 1410rpm; 06.89lbs/hr; 4460cf/hr; 0.020 (50:1); 04.2%; 15.13%; 0.028% (280ppm); 267ppm; 0.0%

B15; 17.5hp; 1400rpm; 09.56lbs/hr; 4180cf/hr; 0.029 (35:1); 06.2%; 12.20%; 0.024% (240ppm); 378ppm; 0.0%

B16; 24.6hp; 1410rpm; 12.45lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.039 (26:1); 08.4%; 09.26%; 0.027% (270ppm); 448ppm; 0.0%

B12; 37.8hp; 1400rpm; 18.12lbs/hr; 3950cf/hr; 0.056 (18:1); 12.4%; 03.44%; 0.058% (580ppm); 364ppm; 0.0%

B70; 40.2hp; 1400rpm; 21.29lbs/hr; 3700cf/hr; 0.070 (14:1); 13.8%; 00.80%; 0.700% (07kppm); 346ppm; 0.1%

B72; 41.0hp; 1400rpm; 24.41lbs/hr; 3650cf/hr; 0.084 (12:1); 12.1%; 00.30%; 3.500% (35kppm); 277ppm; 1.3%

B69; 40.6hp; 1400rpm; 29.63lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.094 (11:1); 10.2%; 00.30%; 6.000% (60kppm); 186ppm; 0.4%
My graph is for convenience, as most people have trouble with tables (above), which I had posted numerous times. I prepared two versions of the graph, small-simple, and LARGE-detailed--and if Roberto had read the thread above, he would see that I posted the more elaborate one that DOES show the Fuel-Air ratio (the line in ORANGE). A fuel-consumption line (see table), whether in pounds or kilograms, will correlate perfectly with the F/A ratio shown by the orange line (graph) but with different units.

My only hesitation is that I don't like to post oversized images because they make text hard to read (and I have a big monitor). But I couldn't shrink the big one and still make it readable without starting over.

So here it is again:

CLICK! Image
Roberto wrote:The dependence of the exhaust composition on the fuel supply was explained by Holtz & Elliot as follows:
Holtz & Elliot 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 on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at 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.
So much for the honesty of Smith’s “science”.
A diesel engine doesn't have a mixture control; they don't work that way. All Holtz and Elliott did was open the throttle up all the way (past normal) and then overload the motor at the normal range of 1400 rpm. The F/A ratio correlates with the CO output ONLY IF the load is full (i.e., the BLACK horsepower line is near asymptote).
Bullshit in bold, red and underlined is still bullshit.
And Spam is still SPAM.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 22 Aug 2002, 18:17, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#28

Post by Roberto » 21 Aug 2002, 12:50

Roberto wrote:I still have to see a witness mentioning a diesel engine in Smith’s transcriptions. Did I miss something?
Scott Smith wrote:Obviously you did.
Show me.
Scott Smith wrote:Another funny one is the guy that survived the carbon monoxide from the diesel Gas-Van by urinating on a rag like in a WWI movie during a chlorine gas attack. :mrgreen:
Don’t change the subject. Show me the witness who spoke of diesel engines.
Scott Smith wrote:This Greuelpropaganda
Roberto wrote:What’s would be so particularly grueling about the use of diesel engines as opposed to gasoline engines for gassing, Reverend?
Scott Smith wrote:The German word Greuel=atrocity, in English, but it is a nice pun with the English gruel, as in punishing, not as in eating plain cereal. :roll:
The compliment is appreciated.
Roberto wrote:Why would a “Greuelpropagandist” take the trouble to make one into the other?
Scott Smith wrote:For most people diesel engines make a horrible smell and really cause bad smog, but actually they are much better in terms of air pollution than gasoline engines. 8O It is counterintuitive because you can smell diesel exhaust and sometimes see it, so it must be VERY bad. That diesel exhaust is relatively benign is unthinkable to the layman (including journalists and lawyers) and therefore it makes great atrocity propaganda, a more HORRIBLE way to die--indeed, but only because it would hardly kill at all, and thus it would be a completely absurd mass-murder weapon.
Says Mr. Smith, whose arguments in support of such contentions are rather fallacious.

To me it would never have occurred that dying from the fumes of a diesel engine is more horrible than dying from the fumes of a gasoline engine.

And I think I’m speaking for “most people”, especially the overwhelming majority of non-technical folks who barely know the difference between one and the other.

Anyone who honestly thinks otherwise please raise his or her hand.

Any idea why your “Greuelpropagandists” didn’t rein in Mssrs. Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck (who expressly spoke of gasoline engines), old boy?

Or why, if your “Greuelpropagandists” gave so much importance to the type of engine, most eyewitness testimonials on the gas van killings say nothing at all about that?
Roberto wrote:Yawn. Smith’s beaten old graph for the umpteenth time, meaningless because it does not show the dependence of the fuel-air ratio on the amount of fuel injected into the engine in Holtz & Elliot’s experiments:

Experiment #; Power (load hp); Rpm; Fuel; volume gas; Fuel-Air ratio; CO2%; O2%; CO%; NOx (ppm); H2%:

B13; 00.0hp; 1400rpm; 04.56lbs/hr; 4500cf/hr; 0.013 (77:1); 02.7%; 17.14%; 0.041% (410ppm); 167ppm; 0.0%

B14; 08.8hp; 1410rpm; 06.89lbs/hr; 4460cf/hr; 0.020 (50:1); 04.2%; 15.13%; 0.028% (280ppm); 267ppm; 0.0%

B15; 17.5hp; 1400rpm; 09.56lbs/hr; 4180cf/hr; 0.029 (35:1); 06.2%; 12.20%; 0.024% (240ppm); 378ppm; 0.0%

B16; 24.6hp; 1410rpm; 12.45lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.039 (26:1); 08.4%; 09.26%; 0.027% (270ppm); 448ppm; 0.0%

B12; 37.8hp; 1400rpm; 18.12lbs/hr; 3950cf/hr; 0.056 (18:1); 12.4%; 03.44%; 0.058% (580ppm); 364ppm; 0.0%

B70; 40.2hp; 1400rpm; 21.29lbs/hr; 3700cf/hr; 0.070 (14:1); 13.8%; 00.80%; 0.700% (07kppm); 346ppm; 0.1%

B72; 41.0hp; 1400rpm; 24.41lbs/hr; 3650cf/hr; 0.084 (12:1); 12.1%; 00.30%; 3.500% (35kppm); 277ppm; 1.3%

B69; 40.6hp; 1400rpm; 29.63lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.094 (11:1); 10.2%; 00.30%; 6.000% (60kppm); 186ppm; 0.4%
Scott Smith wrote:My graph is for convenience, as most people have trouble with tables (above), which I had posted numerous times.
Well, I have more problems with graphs. I like to see the figures.
Scott Smith wrote:I prepared two versions of the graph, small-simple, and LARGE-detailed--and if Roberto had read the thread above, he would see that I posted the more elaborate one that DOES show the Fuel-Air ratio (the line in ORANGE). A fuel-consumption line (see table), whether in pounds or kilograms, will correlate perfectly with the F/A ratio shown by the orange line (graph) but with different units.
Congratulations on having included the fuel-air ratio, which I duly noticed. The essential element still missing is the development of the fuel supply, and this omission makes the graph worthless.
Roberto wrote:The dependence of the exhaust composition on the fuel supply was explained by Holtz & Elliot as follows:
Holtz & Elliot 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 on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at 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.
So much for the honesty of Smith’s “science”.
Scott Smith wrote:A diesel engine doesn't have a mixture control; they don't work that way. All Holtz and Elliott did was open the throttle up all the way (past normal) and then overload the motor at the normal range of 1400 rpm. The F/A ratio correlates with the CO output ONLY IF the load is full (i.e., the BLACK horsepower line is near asymptote).
To corroborate this contention, Smith would have to show us how the fuel-air ratio and the composition of the exhaust would have developed if the load had not been increased.

As Holtz & Elliot tell us, the composition of the exhaust is chiefly a function of air-fuel ratio.

Which is easy to understand even for a technical layman: the more fuel and the less air intake, the less air there will be to burn the fuel, the less oxygen and the more products of incomplete combustion (such as CO) there will be in the exhaust.

From which follows that the fuel-air ratio and thus the toxicity of the exhaust can be influenced by increasing the fuel supply (the key factor for obtaining “rich” exhaust, according to Holtz & Elliot), restricting the air intake (the method of Pattle & Stretch), or doing both.

Load has an impact on the fuel-air ratio insofar as it keeps the engine from turning faster and thus taking in more air, but it is for Smith to demonstrate that without a load the increase of engine speed and thus air intake would match however great an increase of the fuel supply to keep the fuel-air ratio from going up.

And even if that were so, a slight artificial restriction of the air intake (not necessarily the almost total blocking performed by Pattle & Stretch) would solve the problem from a gassing point of view.

A colleague of Smith’s mentor Friedrich Paul Berg wrote the following in the course of a Usenet discussion with the genius:
14309 of alt.revisionism: Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.delphi.com!usenet From: [email protected] Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Diesel A, B, C's and Scott Mullins Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 23:24:56 -0500 Organization: Delphi ([email protected] email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <2vt3du$[email protected]> 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.
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ ... /berg.0794

Whereupon the genius seems to have fallen silent – understandably so.
Roberto wrote:Bullshit in bold, red and underlined is still bullshit.
Scott Smith wrote:And Spam is still SPAM.
“Spam” meaning the evidence and argument that take Smith’s articles of faith apart, right?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#29

Post by Scott Smith » 21 Aug 2002, 17:20

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:I still have to see a witness mentioning a diesel engine in Smith’s transcriptions. Did I miss something?
Obviously you did.
Show me.
You can get the books that I cited on the Krasnodar trial yourself. I've also seen the film of the trial with the confessions and the public executions, which is available for sale at Brandeis University. On the next page, after the story of the woman whose child has some kind of black knockout grease smeared on her lips to get tossed into the van, The People's Verdict text reads: "The above facts were established by the depositions of witnesses Makarov, Kaktonistov, Mokhno, and others," and then it goes right into Ivan Ivanovich Kotov's urine story. :mrgreen:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Another funny one is the guy that survived the carbon monoxide from the diesel Gas-Van by urinating on a rag like in a WWI movie during a chlorine gas attack. :mrgreen:
Don’t change the subject. Show me the witness who spoke of diesel engines.
Okay!
The People's Verdict wrote: [The accused Tischenko] "answered in great detail showing that he was quite familiar with the whole business. These vans were five-ton or seven-ton motor trucks, he said, with bodies built over them. These had double walls and false windows which gave them the appearance of motor buses. At the rear of each vehicle there was a door that closed hermetically. The floor consisted of a grating under which ran the exhaust tube from the diesel engine by which the vehicle was driven. The exhaust gas penetrated the interior of the vehicle. When the vehicle was standing with the engine running, death ensued within seven minutes; when it was in motion death ensued in ten minutes."

(Op Cit, p. 13.)
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:This Greuelpropaganda
What’s would be so particularly grueling about the use of diesel engines as opposed to gasoline engines for gassing, Reverend?
The German word Greuel=atrocity, in English, but it is a nice pun with the English gruel, as in punishing, not as in eating plain cereal. :roll:
The compliment is appreciated.
I know you have a sense of humor in there. :D
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Why would a “Greuelpropagandist” take the trouble to make one into the other?
For most people diesel engines make a horrible smell and really cause bad smog, but actually they are much better in terms of air pollution than gasoline engines. 8O It is counterintuitive because you can smell diesel exhaust and sometimes see it, so it must be VERY bad. That diesel exhaust is relatively benign is unthinkable to the layman (including journalists and lawyers) and therefore it makes great atrocity propaganda, a more HORRIBLE way to die--indeed, but only because it would hardly kill at all, and thus it would be a completely absurd mass-murder weapon.
Says Mr. Smith, whose arguments in support of such contentions are rather fallacious.
Says you! :P
Roberto wrote:To me it would never have occurred that dying from the fumes of a diesel engine is more horrible than dying from the fumes of a gasoline engine.

And I think I’m speaking for “most people”, especially the overwhelming majority of non-technical folks who barely know the difference between one and the other.

Anyone who honestly thinks otherwise please raise his or her hand.
Nobody doesn't know the sight and smell of diesel truck/bus exhaust, Roberto. And everybody knows that engine exhaust kills. They just assume that diesel kills better. It doesn't.
Any idea why your “Greuelpropagandists” didn’t rein in Mssrs. Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck (who expressly spoke of gasoline engines), old boy?
Were they part of the Soviet Krasnodar trial in July of 1943, or the Kharkov trial in December of 1943?
Or why, if your “Greuelpropagandists” gave so much importance to the type of engine, most eyewitness testimonials on the gas van killings say nothing at all about that?
Well, Pravda certainly did. The Krasnodar trial was reported on from July 15-19, 1943.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Yawn. Smith’s beaten old graph for the umpteenth time, meaningless because it does not show the dependence of the fuel-air ratio on the amount of fuel injected into the engine in Holtz & Elliot’s experiments:
I prepared two versions of the graph, small-simple, and LARGE-detailed--and if Roberto had read the thread above, he would see that I posted the more elaborate one that DOES show the Fuel-Air ratio (the line in ORANGE). A fuel-consumption line (see table), whether in pounds or kilograms, will correlate perfectly with the F/A ratio shown by the orange line (graph) but with different units.
Congratulations on having included the fuel-air ratio, which I duly noticed.
No you didn't. I long-ago posted both graphs on page 2 of the original thread:

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:48 pm Post subject: TECHNICAL Illiteracy...
CLICK! Fun with DIESEL GAS-VANS at Krasnodar and Kharkov...
Roberto wrote:The essential element still missing is the development of the fuel supply, and this omission makes the graph worthless.
Nonsense.

Get out a pencil and plot the numbers yourself. Rounding them off, the numbers for the fuel consumption in pounds/hr for each test from B-13 to B-69 is: 5, 7, 10, 13, 18, 21, 24, 30. This is a slope that almost parallels the orange line, but not quite as steep. The CO (red line) does not move AT ALL until after the engine becomes overloaded (black line), in spite of a steadily increasing fuel consumption and richer F/A ratio (orange line).
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:The dependence of the exhaust composition on the fuel supply was explained by Holtz & Elliot as follows:
Holtz & Elliot 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 on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at 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.
So much for the honesty of Smith’s “science”.
A diesel engine doesn't have a mixture control; they don't work that way. All Holtz and Elliott did was open the throttle up all the way (past normal) and then overload the motor at the normal range of 1400 rpm. The F/A ratio correlates with the CO output ONLY IF the load is full (i.e., the BLACK horsepower line is near asymptote).
To corroborate this contention, Smith would have to show us how the fuel-air ratio and the composition of the exhaust would have developed if the load had not been increased.
That's obvious from Test B-13, at no-load. The more work you do (horsepower) the more fuel you burn, the more CO2 that is generated and O2 consumed. The graph shows this clearly! On a diesel engine you can't change the Fuel-Air ratio independently of the load because it doesn't use a carburetor.
As Holtz & Elliot tell us, the composition of the exhaust is chiefly a function of air-fuel ratio.

Which is easy to understand even for a technical layman: the more fuel and the less air intake, the less air there will be to burn the fuel, the less oxygen and the more products of incomplete combustion (such as CO) there will be in the exhaust.
Yes, which is a function of the load with a compression-ignition (diesel) engine because it always operates with excess air to compress.
From which follows that the fuel-air ratio and thus the toxicity of the exhaust can be influenced by increasing the fuel supply (the key factor for obtaining “rich” exhaust, according to Holtz & Elliot), restricting the air intake (the method of Pattle & Stretch), or doing both.
Turning the engine faster by giving it more throttle will not affect anything; you need to have a load to work against so that the engine will lug.
Load has an impact on the fuel-air ratio insofar as it keeps the engine from turning faster and thus taking in more air, but it is for Smith to demonstrate that without a load the increase of engine speed and thus air intake would match however great an increase of the fuel supply to keep the fuel-air ratio from going up.
Holtz and Elliott graph other engine-speeds but not in conjunction with the obvious load, unfortunately. However, a diesel engine always swallows an excess of air for compression, and increasing the fuel will simply make the engine turn faster until it reaches its mechanical limits. Any unburned fuel being blown through the exhaust is not going to do the job either; you need to have a load to work against.
And even if that were so, a slight artificial restriction of the air intake (not necessarily the almost total blocking performed by Pattle & Stretch) would solve the problem from a gassing point of view.
No, because a diesel engine has to compress a massive volume of intake-air in order to fire. Pattle & Stretch encountered this misfiring, which made the intake blocking self-limiting, and thus limited the CO that they could get as well. Effectively, they put a load on their small engine with the blockage and thus had to remove the external test-load because the engine lost too much power.
Roberto wrote:A colleague of Smith’s mentor Friedrich Paul Berg wrote the following in the course of a Usenet discussion with the genius:
Mullins wrote: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.
Mullins has not shown this with any data.
Mullins wrote: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.
Look at the graph again: The CO2 is directly proprtional to the LOAD, because work is being done. To get high CO2 and low oxygen the engine has to be loaded. To get high CO, the engine has to be loaded to saturation and then (and only then) does CO begin to rise as the throttle is raised past normal limits.
Mullins wrote: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.
Nonsense. Holzgaswagen were ubiquitous, as I have amply shown. And these CO gas-generators are easy to make. Even in 1937, as many as 11% of military vehicles used wood-gas, but the Army preferred diesels for obvious reasons. By 1942, ALL non-tactical vehicles were converted to Holzgas on Speer's orders.

And, all of this has been covered before, as you know.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#30

Post by Roberto » 21 Aug 2002, 19:42

Roberto wrote:I still have to see a witness mentioning a diesel engine in Smith’s transcriptions. Did I miss something?
Smith wrote:Obviously you did.
Roberto wrote:Show me.
Scott Smith wrote:You can get the books that I cited on the Krasnodar trial yourself.
Why should I bother to? The diesel fuss is your baby.
Scott Smith wrote:I've also seen the film of the trial with the confessions and the public executions, which is available for sale at Brandeis University. On the next page, after the story of the woman whose child has some kind of black knockout grease smeared on her lips to get tossed into the van, The People's Verdict text reads: "The above facts were established by the depositions of witnesses Makarov, Kaktonistov, Mokhno, and others," and then it goes right into Ivan Ivanovich Kotov's urine story. :mrgreen:
What – if anything - did “Makarov, Kaktonistov, Mokhno, and others” say about diesel engines?
The People's Verdict wrote: [The accused Tischenko] "answered in great detail showing that he was quite familiar with the whole business. These vans were five-ton or seven-ton motor trucks, he said, with bodies built over them. These had double walls and false windows which gave them the appearance of motor buses. At the rear of each vehicle there was a door that closed hermetically. The floor consisted of a grating under which ran the exhaust tube from the diesel engine by which the vehicle was driven. The exhaust gas penetrated the interior of the vehicle. When the vehicle was standing with the engine running, death ensued within seven minutes; when it was in motion death ensued in ten minutes."

(Op Cit, p. 13.)
Good. This means that either it was a diesel engine and Smith’s technical arguments are worth nothing, or that Tischenko was mistaken about the type of engine, or that his interrogators misunderstood him. Big deal.
Smith wrote:Nobody doesn't know the sight and smell of diesel truck/bus exhaust, Roberto. And everybody knows that engine exhaust kills. They just assume that diesel kills better.
That’s why so many people try to commit suicide with diesel exhaust, I presume. :lol:
Roberto wrote:Any idea why your “Greuelpropagandists” didn’t rein in Mssrs. Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck (who expressly spoke of gasoline engines), old boy?
Smith wrote:Were they part of the Soviet Krasnodar trial in July of 1943, or the Kharkov trial in December of 1943?
No. Is this question supposed to mean that Smith thinks his “Diesel Greuelpropagandists” were active only at those two trials?

Burmeister’s deposition was made before a West German court, but Piller wrote his account in Soviet captivity, by the way.
Roberto wrote:Or why, if your “Greuelpropagandists” gave so much importance to the type of engine, most eyewitness testimonials on the gas van killings say nothing at all about that?
Smith wrote:Well, Pravda certainly did. The Krasnodar trial was reported on from July 15-19, 1943.
Don’t run away from my question. I have read all of the at least two dozen eyewitness descriptions of and documents on gas van killings transcribed in Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Only three thereof mention the type of engine at all, and these three expressly speak of gasoline engines.

Question again: How does this fit into Smith’s contention that the eyewitness testimonials and documents were manipulated by “Greuelpropagandists” who badly wanted to make out that the gas vans had diesel engines?
Roberto wrote:Congratulations on having included the fuel-air ratio, which I duly noticed.
Smith wrote:No you didn't. I long-ago posted both graphs on page 2 of the original thread:

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:48 pm Post subject: TECHNICAL Illiteracy...
CLICK! Fun with DIESEL GAS-VANS at Krasnodar and Kharkov...
If so, I didn’t miss anything. The graphs don’t contain all necessary data and are thus worthless, as I said.
Roberto wrote:The essential element still missing is the development of the fuel supply, and this omission makes the graph worthless.
Smith wrote:Nonsense.
Sounds rather feeble.
Smith wrote:Get out a pencil and plot the numbers yourself. Rounding them off, the numbers for the fuel consumption in pounds/hr for each test from B-13 to B-69 is: 5, 7, 10, 13, 18, 21, 24, 30. This is a slope that almost parallels the orange line, but not quite as steep. The CO (red line) does not move AT ALL until after the engine becomes overloaded (black line), in spite of a steadily increasing fuel consumption and richer F/A ratio (orange line).
See, my friend, eye-washing attempts like the above are the reason why I prefer tables to graphs:

Experiment #; Power (load hp); Rpm; Fuel; volume gas; Fuel-Air ratio; CO2%; O2%; CO%; NOx (ppm); H2%:

B13; 00.0hp; 1400rpm; 04.56lbs/hr; 4500cf/hr; 0.013 (77:1); 02.7%; 17.14%; 0.041% (410ppm); 167ppm; 0.0%

B14; 08.8hp; 1410rpm; 06.89lbs/hr; 4460cf/hr; 0.020 (50:1); 04.2%; 15.13%; 0.028% (280ppm); 267ppm; 0.0%

B15; 17.5hp; 1400rpm; 09.56lbs/hr; 4180cf/hr; 0.029 (35:1); 06.2%; 12.20%; 0.024% (240ppm); 378ppm; 0.0%

B16; 24.6hp; 1410rpm; 12.45lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.039 (26:1); 08.4%; 09.26%; 0.027% (270ppm); 448ppm; 0.0%

B12; 37.8hp; 1400rpm; 18.12lbs/hr; 3950cf/hr; 0.056 (18:1); 12.4%; 03.44%; 0.058% (580ppm); 364ppm; 0.0%

B70; 40.2hp; 1400rpm; 21.29lbs/hr; 3700cf/hr; 0.070 (14:1); 13.8%; 00.80%; 0.700% (07kppm); 346ppm; 0.1%

B72; 41.0hp; 1400rpm; 24.41lbs/hr; 3650cf/hr; 0.084 (12:1); 12.1%; 00.30%; 3.500% (35kppm); 277ppm; 1.3%

B69; 40.6hp; 1400rpm; 29.63lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.094 (11:1); 10.2%; 00.30%; 6.000% (60kppm); 186ppm; 0.4%


Highlighted now beside the amount of fuel are the contents of oxygen and CO. What is observable is that

i) in B13 to B16, neither the fuel supply nor the load have an influence on the content of carbon monoxide, while the oxygen content goes down to a level near the survival minimum of 8 % in B16;

ii) what changes significantly between B12 on the one hand and B72, B70 and B69 on the other is not the load, but the fuel supply, which (as Holtz & Elliot pointed out) is more than 60 % above B12 in B69;

iii) the oxygen content goes down from 3.44 % (already far below the survival minimum) in B12 to 0.30 % in B69;

iv) the CO content jumps up from 0.058 % in B12 to 6.0 % (10-12 times he lethal dose) in B-69.
Holtz & Elliot 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 on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at 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.
Emphasis is mine. If I understand Holtz & Elliot correctly, fuel was already being injected at full throttle in experiment B12, but the adjustment on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump checked the fuel supply so as to keep the fuel-air ratio below the one at which “there is just sufficient air to burn the fuel completely”. When that adjustment was changed, fuel entered the engine unchecked and brought the fuel-air ratio to levels at which “the air present is inadequate to burn the fuel completely, and the concentration of products of incomplete combustion increased rapidly.”

While I agree that this was easier to bring about under load than without a load, I see no reason to assume that a six-fold increase of the fuel entering the engine would not have resulted in at least a three-fold increase of the fuel-air ratio in relation to B-13, bringing the oxygen content to the already critical level of B-16 by that method alone. A slight restriction of the air intake would then have brought the oxygen content below the level required to sustain human life – and the CO2 content to a level high enough to induce fatal “CO2 narcosis”, according to your fellow “Revisionist” Richard Miller.
Smith wrote:The F/A ratio correlates with the CO output ONLY IF the load is full (i.e., the BLACK horsepower line is near asymptote).
Roberto wrote:To corroborate this contention, Smith would have to show us how the fuel-air ratio and the composition of the exhaust would have developed if the load had not been increased.
Smith wrote:That's obvious from Test B-13, at no-load. The more work you do (horsepower) the more fuel you burn, the more CO2 that is generated and O2 consumed. The graph shows this clearly!
Stop beating around the bush. We’re talking about means to achieve the same without putting the engine under load.
Smith wrote:On a diesel engine you can't change the Fuel-Air ratio independently of the load because it doesn't use a carburetor.
Says Smith, who, I repeat, must demonstrate that B13 with a fuel supply of 29.63lbs/hr would not result in an exhaust composition at least as toxic at that of B16.
Roberto wrote:As Holtz & Elliot tell us, the composition of the exhaust is chiefly a function of air-fuel ratio.

Which is easy to understand even for a technical layman: the more fuel and the less air intake, the less air there will be to burn the fuel, the less oxygen and the more products of incomplete combustion (such as CO) there will be in the exhaust.
Smith wrote:Yes, which is a function of the load with a compression-ignition (diesel) engine because it always operates with excess air to compress.
A function of the load, or of an unrestricted increase of the fuel supply, coupled or not with a restriction of the air intake.
Roberto wrote:From which follows that the fuel-air ratio and thus the toxicity of the exhaust can be influenced by increasing the fuel supply (the key factor for obtaining “rich” exhaust, according to Holtz & Elliot), restricting the air intake (the method of Pattle & Stretch), or doing both.
Smith wrote:Turning the engine faster by giving it more throttle will not affect anything; you need to have a load to work against so that the engine will lug.
Always the same beaten phrases. More throttle will have no effect on the fuel-air ratio if compensated by increased air intake due to the faster turning of the engine. To what extent this would be so when the amount of fuel is increased more than six-fold in relation to B-13 is what I would like to see.
Roberto wrote:Load has an impact on the fuel-air ratio insofar as it keeps the engine from turning faster and thus taking in more air, but it is for Smith to demonstrate that without a load the increase of engine speed and thus air intake would match however great an increase of the fuel supply to keep the fuel-air ratio from going up.
Smith wrote:Holtz and Elliott graph other engine-speeds but not in conjunction with the obvious load, unfortunately. However, a diesel engine always swallows an excess of air for compression, and increasing the fuel will simply make the engine turn faster until it reaches its mechanical limits.
As above:

Always the same beaten phrases. More throttle will have no effect on the fuel-air ratio if compensated by increased air intake due to the faster turning of the engine. To what extent this would be so when the amount of fuel is increased more than six-fold in relation to B-13 is what I would like to see.
Smith wrote:Any unburned fuel being blown through the exhaust is not going to do the job either; you need to have a load to work against.
Smith’s jolly jumping from one extreme to another doesn’t exclude the possibility that the situation was neither of the extremes but one where, in Holtz & Elliot’s words, “the air present is inadequate to burn the fuel completely, and the concentration of products of incomplete combustion increased rapidly”.

By “products of incomplete combustion” Holtz & Elliot mean CO and oxides of nitrogen, if I understand them correctly.

And then there’s the oxygen content, a very critical factor. In a situation of “unburned fuel being blown through the exhaust” there would be hardly any oxygen in the exhaust, causing death by suffocation once the exhaust had replaced the existing atmosphere with itself.
Roberto wrote:And even if that were so, a slight artificial restriction of the air intake (not necessarily the almost total blocking performed by Pattle & Stretch) would solve the problem from a gassing point of view.
Smith wrote:No, because a diesel engine has to compress a massive volume of intake-air in order to fire. Pattle & Stretch encountered this misfiring, which made the intake blocking self-limiting, and thus limited the CO that they could get as well. Effectively, they put a load on their small engine with the blockage and thus had to remove the external test-load because the engine lost too much power.
Maybe misfiring would eventually occur. But this would not be problematic if it took more than 30-45 minutes for the engine to misfire. I also doubt that the situation faced by Pattle & Stretch would occur if increase of the fuel supply was combined with a slight complementary restriction of the air intake.
Roberto wrote:A colleague of Smith’s mentor Friedrich Paul Berg wrote the following in the course of a Usenet discussion with the genius:
Mullins wrote: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.
Smith wrote:Mullins has not shown this with any data.
Not that it matters, but how do you know it’s Mullins?

Berg’s opponent, whoever he is, may not have shown any data, but he’s a mechanical engineer according to his own words, and what he writes makes perfect sense to me. The one who has to provide data supporting his absurd contentions is the father of the “diesel hoax” baby, as I see it – good old FPB.
Mullins wrote: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.
Smith wrote:Look at the graph again: The CO2 is directly proprtional to the LOAD, because work is being done. To get high CO2 and low oxygen the engine has to be loaded. To get high CO, the engine has to be loaded to saturation and then (and only then) does CO begin to rise as the throttle is raised past normal limits.
Same old soap, as already explained above. Look at the table, and you will see how the contents of CO2 and oxygen develop in function of the fuel supply rather than in function of the load.
Mullins wrote: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.
Smith wrote:Nonsense. Holzgaswagen were ubiquitous, as I have amply shown. And these CO gas-generators are easy to make. Even in 1937, as many as 11% of military vehicles used wood-gas, but the Army preferred diesels for obvious reasons. By 1942, ALL non-tactical vehicles were converted to Holzgas on Speer's orders.
Well, this ubiquity of producer gas vehicles or devices is not what becomes apparent from a contemporary document once rubbed under Berg’s nose:
The machines in question are not at present available in Germany in sufficient quantity and must be specially built. Brack thinks that their manufacture in Germany itself would create more difficulties than if they were made locally. For this reason he prefers to send his men directly to Riga, particularly his chemist, Kallmeyer, who will take care of what is needed. I should like to point out that SS Major Eichmann, a specialist in Jewish questions in the RSHA, agrees with this procedure.
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ ... -available

But the death blow to his “Holzgas” nonsense, as I see it, was dealt by Berg himself when he wrote:
Those generators were extremely dangerous--everyone had to know that because gas leaks were not only toxic but also highly explosive! When the engines were shutoff, the generators would keep on generating until the internal fire could be extinguished.
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ ... -available

Did he expect the killers to run the risk of gassing themselves or blowing themselves up, when they could safely use an engine for the gassing?
Smith wrote:And, all of this has been covered before, as you know.
:)
Yeah, sure.

Much a do about absolutely nothing, because the best that Smith can hope to demonstrate is that gassing engines incorrectly described as diesel engines were actually gasoline engines burning diesel fuel or gasoline.

Big deal.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”