Answer to Jonathan Swift on Diesels...

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:19 am)

grapple wrote:Sailor

Another missing element is the fuel system. While a generator might have a fuel tank mounted on the engine, a truck or tank engine would have a separate fuel tank. I see no mention of if the fuel tank was taken out of the truck or tank and delivered with the engine or whether they had to provide one themselves and no mention of hooking up the fuel tank and fuel lines. Also no mention of checking the fuel system since on newly installed engines air in the lines or blockage of the fuel is a common problem.

Interesting point but it would not be difficult to do. If it was a gasoline engine a fuel tank greater than a gallon would need to be mounted outside, perhaps a fuel drum on a stand. Rubber hose could even be used for the fuel line if necessary. The engine already has a mechanical fuel pump so no problem with the fuel and line. If it were a diesel engine a five-gallon can could be used inside the building and there are even screw-on attachments that go on the standard 20 liter "Jerrycan" that have a straw and a fitting to attach a rubber hose.

Second since the engine is water-cooled did they also get the radiator from the tank or truck as well as the associated piping? Also how did they mount this radiator since they did not have the truck or tank to mount it on?

Another good point but not hard to solve. The engine already has a waterpump, radiator, and fan. The radiator would have to be mounted somewhere so that good airflow will cool the engine, although if it is never loaded it will not generate as much heat. With a generator-set, the engine has special mounts that bolt easily onto a frame, which can then be bolted onto bolts poured into the concrete. The radiator and so on is mounted onto that. A diesel under load, e.g., an electric generator, would need to duct the radiator air outside probably, or at least be in a very airy room. Other arrangements could be to pump circulation coolant into a big tank and forget about a radiator, or use a double radiator arrangement and mount them outside in the breeze, or fit an electric fan on a radiator. Lots of ways to solve this problem but how did Fuchs do it? If he can't provide the details then his story is suspect. This guy should have been cross-examined on the murder-weapon itself. But I doubt the defense had any interest in challenging anything of interest to historians or challegning to the overall nature of NS criminality.

Seem to me that they would have been better off getting a truck and hooking up the exhaust to the Gas chamber since that way they would have all of the auxiliary parts needed to operate the engine. Also if the truck broke down they could have simply driven another truck over and used it. Did they not supposedly have experience with Gassing trucks? That is of course if this was a truck with a Gasoline engine not a Diesel engine since we all know how hard it would have been to kill with Diesel exhaust.

Exactly. Chelmno is said to have had a truck or car simply pull-up and pipe exhaust into garages.

The Holocaust promoters keep saying that the Germans were highly competent and efficient killers but everywhere in the Holocaust story is see decisions made that make no sense from a practical or engineering point of view.

None at all. At Treblinka there are at least accounts that the diesel engines were used for generating electricity. But that is diesel. At Sobibor, I don't know why you would bother with salvaging a gasoline truck engine and retrofiting a generator from scratch for power. You would still need the generator, too. Perhaps pumping water into a tank for bathing would be a logical use for a gasoline motor that would only be run when necessary to fill the tank. You would still have to retrofit it, and Fuchs seems to have left out the details.

If you were retrofitting an engine for a generator, you would need a 1500 rpm model, and the hardest part would be figuring out the drivetrain. Lining up belts and pulleys would be a pain. Perhaps some coupling from a transmission drive-shaft as a power-take-off would be the easiest. You would also have to regulate the speed and voltage based on the load, which might vary. A diesel makes sense to supply permanent power but gasoline does not and it is a lot of bother to play Monster Garage besides. Couldn't the SS just order an electrical generator-set?

As to the engine that is said to have been used at the camp being in neutral or in gear, it would not matter since with nothing hooked up to the output of the transmission it would not change anything. I do not speak German, could the word mean idle instead of neutral or is there a separate German word that means idle (operate at low speed) rather than neutral (not being in gear). I am trying to give the Holocaust promoters the benefit of the doubt since talking about the engine being at idle makes sense, talking about the engine being in neutral does not.

I agree. Fuchs is retrofitting equipment, though, and it doesn't exactly come with OFF-NEUTRAL-MURDER settings, so his descriptions are puzzling.
:)
Last edited by Scott on Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

grapple
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:51 pm

Postby grapple » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:43 am)

I have thought some more about the testimony of Sgt. Fuchs and I am listing all of my questions about it that should have been asked in a proper courtroom. Some will be repeats of my previous comments.

1. The testimony sounds like the whole evolution from picking up the engine, its delivery, its installation, getting it running, its gassing of people took only one day. This might be possible if the engine was a generator or compressor mounted in an enclosed mounting but sounds impossible for a truck or tank engine without a proper foundation and auxiliary parts mounting.

2. His testimony puts the fact of it being a tank or truck engine and the size of the engine, number of cylinders in (parenthesis). Why was this done if it was part of what he was testifying? Was this description part of other testimony that we do not have.

3. He says that he picked up and unloaded the engine but says nothing about the associated parts such as radiator, fuel tank, batteries, mounting hardware, lubricating oil and filters, and the various hoses, pipes, fittings and tools needed.

4. Since he does not say anything about putting oil in the engine does that mean it came with oil already in it. If this is so did he have to add oil after moving the engine since anytime I have moved engines with oil in them and I have had to add oil to make up for what I spilled.

5. Was the engine overhauled prior to it being received, it does not sound like it since there are problems with both its valves and its ignition. If it was not overhauled would not a mechanic change the oil and either replace or clean the filters. I see no description of this.

6. Since this is suppose to be a Gas Engine why is there no description of checking the Carburetor since this is a great source of problems in such an engine. Especially a surplus Russian engine which probably used bad fuel or would be dirty from storage or transport. Did he have to clean the jets or floats of fuel deposits?

7. The engine was mounted on a concrete foundation. Since he cannot describe the exact type, or size of the engine how could they prepare the foundation to be ready to accept that particular engine. Since the testimony describes no difficulty or parts being fabricated for mounting the engine how did they know where and what type of mountings were needed in the concrete. Simply placing a truck or tank engine on a concrete floor would not work due to vibration. Especially one that operated for months needed to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

8. No description of the radiator or its mountings or piping. No description of checking to make sure the engine would not overheat in its makeshift setup.

9. No description of a fuel tank or piping

10. No description of batteries or other starting methods. Especially when the engine would not start at the beginning. A heavy engine would quickly drain a battery especially if there were problems with both the ignition and valves. It must have taken some time to find both of these problems and fix them. Did he have a way of recharging the battery or have another standing by. No description of checking the charging system. I am assuming a battery since there is no description of what was used.

11. How did they know what size fitting would connect the exhaust of the engine to the piping of the Gas Chamber since they did not know the model or manufacture of the engine. Also where did he get this fitting from or how did he make it.

12. No description of any problems of back pressure on the exhaust being a problem or even being checked. Proper sizing of the exhaust vents in the Gas Chamber itself would be important, too small would cause problems for the engine, too large would allow fresh air into the chamber.

13. There is no description of using any Shop or Garage at the Camp. No description of any difficulties getting parts, material, or tools. No description of using any substitute materials or methods due to lack of materials or tools.

14. There is no description of any spare fuel, oil or air filters provided for an engine that is supposed to run for months.

I find the lack of details and the ignoring of obvious problems to be troubling. I have done some work with both Gasoline and Diesel engines and have worked with many Engine Mechanics and the testimony does not seem to describe what a mechanic would say about installing such an engine. Especially one that is obviously a makeshift setup.

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:44 am)

Lots of good points. I have also installed gasoline and diesel generators in buildings.

I was wondering the same as you why Fuchs told us in parentheses that it was a V-motor of 200 horsepower, or if this was Rückerl or somebody editing... I'm not sure how you testify in parentheses.
:wink:

And I'm really curious how Fuchs just slammed the motor onto the concrete and bolted it down. As you can see from the diagram below, all there is on the bottom is a flimsy oilpan. The mounts are on the block above.
:oops: :roll:

Image

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Feb 23, 2003 6:05 pm)

grapple wrote:11. How did they know what size fitting would connect the exhaust of the engine to the piping of the Gas Chamber since they did not know the model or manufacture of the engine. Also where did he get this fitting from or how did he make it.

This is another very good point. Some accounts say the exhaust went into the chamber via the shower fixtures themselves. I find that preposterous for the very reasons you've described. And with a diesel engine you would have carbon particulates clogging the showerheads besides.

Nor could you hermetically seal the chamber. There would have to be a vent that allowed the pressure to be vented easily, or simply a leaky room. With a gasoline engine the carbon monoxide does all the work so it can be a little drafty. A home garage will do, for example.

With a diesel engine you would not only have to have the engine heavily-loaded so that the oxygen content of the exhaust is very low, but also have enough overpressure so that no oxygen can enter the chamber from the exhaust vent. Death would be by CO2 suffocation and not carbon monoxide poisoning since it is very difficult to raise the CO of diesel exhaust. The diesel method is absurd since it essentially demands a dummy-load to raise the CO2 content (lower the O2 content) of the exhaust.

But the gasoline engine version, while technically quite possible, is somewhat lacking in versimilitude. Was this the best the West German and Israeli courts could do with the story?
:)

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:09 am)

Holtz & Elliott test table, Engine "B" p. 99.


Click Image To Enlarge!

Image

"The Significance of Diesel-Exhaust-Gas Analysis", by J.C. Holtz and M.A. Elliott, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 63, 1941, p. 97-105.

8)
Last edited by Scott on Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:50 am)

These curves seem to be for a rather small engine, maybe 25 HP rated output. Would the exhaust analysis be similar for a 250 HP or 500 HP engine?

If I remember correctly, the holocaust witness testimonies mentioned also an electrical diesel-generator set for the alleged gas chamber and these are usually quite a bit larger.

I think that also tests were made in England using the exhaust fumes from a diesel engine on animals (rabbits?), and that it took a long time (hours?) to kill those animals.

Anyway, the graphs show clearly that the diesel engine has to be loaded up quite a bit in order to produce a significant amount of CO and relatively little O.

Standby diesel-generator sets have to be quite a bit oversized usually, simple load matching does not do. This is because of the large startup inrush currents for electrical motor loads. A 100 KW load may require a 250 KW rated generator or more. It is a somewhat complicated calculation.

:D
fge

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:50 pm)

Sailor wrote:These curves seem to be for a rather small engine, maybe 25 HP rated output. Would the exhaust analysis be similar for a 250 HP or 500 HP engine?

F.P. Berg says, yes; these curves are valid for any diesel ever made, and I agree.

If I remember correctly, since I don't have the Holtz & Elliott paper in front of me right now, the text rates the engine or the dynamometer at about 38 brake-horsepower at 1400 rpm, which is what all the tests are conducted at, and test B-12 therefore represents maximum load. Beyond that the horsepower flattens out and it is impossible to coax more than 41 bhp out of it even with the throttle opened wide. You can see it overload once the CO level rises sharply because it cannot turn any faster to inhale more air.

If I remember correctly, the holocaust witness testimonies mentioned also an electrical diesel-generator set for the alleged gas chamber and these are usually quite a bit larger.

It depends on what the power requirements for the specific camp are. A German truck would have an engine of about 50-100 bhp; a Soviet tank, an engine of about 500 bhp @ 1500 rpm, and a WWII submarine at least 1,000 bhp; that would be 74.6, 373, and 746 mechanical kilowatts respectively.

To get electrical kilowatts with such equipment we would need to derate for conversion efficiency to about 67 percent. This would give us maximum load, not the typical load. We would also need to size our genset to be loaded at from 30 to 80 percent about eighty percent of the time. With this engine that would be a mechanical load between B-14 and B-16, so yes, normal power would be about 25 bhp.

I think that also tests were made in England using the exhaust fumes from a diesel engine on animals (rabbits?), and that it took a long time (hours?) to kill those animals.

Yes, the 1958 tests by Pattle & Stretch were on live animals: mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs. The mice were the most sensitive to CO, while the guinea pigs were the most sensitive to nitrous oxides in the tests where the CO was low. What is not usually cited was the time it took to kill the animals, and in some tests many of the animals survived or did not die for many days later after a five-hour test. In the worst CO test at 0.22 percent it still took about an hour and a half to kill all the mice.

Anyway, the graphs show clearly that the diesel engine has to be loaded up quite a bit in order to produce a significant amount of CO and relatively little O.

Exactly.

Standby diesel-generator sets have to be quite a bit oversized usually, simple load matching does not do. This is because of the large startup inrush currents for electrical motor loads. A 100 KW load may require a 250 KW rated generator or more. It is a somewhat complicated calculation.

A 250 kilowatt motor-generator should do that job nicely. If you have the motor sized too big it is not loaded enough normally to be economical, but it has to be big enough to handle occasional peaks.

This works out to 100kW/0.8 for 80 percent load = 125kW electrical.

Then 125kW/0.67 efficiency factor to convert to or from mechanical watts = 187 kW (mechanical).

Then to convert to horsepower 187kW x 746 W/HP = 250 horsepower.

Therefore, a typical W-2 Soviet diesel engine for a tank rated at 500 bhp @ 1500 rpm (for 50 hertz alternating current with a four-pole generator) would be good for peak power of about 200 electrical kilowatts.

The above considerations have to do with the size of the engine, not necessarily the electrical generator itself, or for handling power-factor corrections and enormous peak-loads like starting big electric motors, but it should work for a general rule of thumb.

:D
Last edited by Scott on Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:15 pm)

Former SS man Kurt Franz confessed according to Rückerl: NS-Vernichtungslager during his trial in Düsseldorf, Germany, in 1965, that in Treblinka the people were killed with the exhaust fumes from a diesel-generator set.

The witness Jan Wiernik testified something similar, and added that the engine was from an old Soviet tank.

I cannot believe this.

A diesel generator is usually purchased as a set from the same manufacturer. Mattogno/Graf added in their book “Treblinka” a facsimile of the specification for a diesel for such a set for Auschwitz, which includes:

Matching coupling flange and coupling bolts, gear switching equipment, switchable oil filters, manual pump to pre-grease the bearings, built in lubricating pump and cylinder lubrication device, lubrication pressure indicator, compressed air starting equipment including compressed air tank, pressure indicator and air pressure piping, charging valve, manual RPM adjuster (the AC current frequency has to be kept constant), fuel day tank with fuel indicator and manual pump, fuel filter, oil drip pan, water cooled exhaust pipe, muffler and exhaust temperature indicator.

The generator comes usually with excitation and voltage regulating equipment and electrical switchgear.

The whole thing is assembled on a common channel frame and anchored to the concrete foundation.

Why not buy the whole thing as a set like in Auschwitz, rather than to fiddle with a Soviet old tank engine? That makes no sense.

That Treblinka and all the other Reinhard camps were equipped with such diesel-generators is quite believable. They usually run witout interruption all the time.

Would it be possible that the engines in questine were gasoline engines or wood-gas engines? Most people don’t know the difference any way. True. But why would Viernik testify to a diesel engine? Did maybe someone tell him to say this?
And for the size under consideration the engine would be a diesel.

fge

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:55 pm)

Has anyone actually ever seen one of these diesel contraptions, or did Army group north carry them back to Berlin along with the Electric conveyor belt, after landscape gardening Aushwitz ?

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:02 am)

Holtz (1941) and Pattle (1957) Downloads are available here in PDF format or as individual pages at VHO:

www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/DieselExhaust.html

www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/Holtz.pdf

www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/ToxDiesel.html

www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/Pattle.pdf

These two papers are constantly referred to in discussions of the Diesel Gaschamber question.

:D

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:37 pm)

So what's your point Scott ?

The emissions of a Diesel engine whilst on a dyno...So !

What I mean is. Is there no single piece of evidence to prove that a diesel engine was ever put to the use, the Industry is suggesting ? You know like a photograph, or any physical sign of these contraptions when the camps were over-run. If there is, I would like to see it, because all I have seen so-far is post-war speculation and mock-up's.

And don't bother me with Zionist induced forced confession's.

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Nov 16, 2003 1:00 am)

I'm not sure I have any point other than that for technical reasons the diesel engines that were almost certainly used to provide camp power were NOT used for homicide.

:D

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:54 am)

Scott, thanks for posting the tables of technical backup data for F. Berg's diesel exhaust essays. I also tried to OCR the scanned pages. My OCR program squawked with "not enough memory". I think that it is too old.

fge


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests