How did the sonderkommando deal with the settled and condensed cyanide in the homicidal gas chambers?

[blake121666]

I just now quickly looked through about half dozen references. I still think that HCN gas outgasses from hydrocyanic acid naturally. Adsorbents are added to keep it contained as I understand (or maybe misunderstand) it.

But of course you must be correct that the boiling point is what is stated - so why does it outgas at lower temperatures? I don't know chemistry well enough to explain it correctly. I vaguely remember others explaining it. I don't think any "activator" is involved though.

[blake121666]

From chatGPT:

Therefore, the vapor pressure of HCN decreases significantly at freezing temperatures, and it becomes even more negligible at lower subzero temperatures. However, in conditions near the freezing point, HCN remains highly volatile and still poses a risk due to its toxicity.

HCN remains highly volatile even at low temperatures because of its vapor pressure. I think I am right that the HCN gas evaporates out of its water bonds even at low temperatures due to its vapor pressure.

An actual chemist could clear it up for us though. I'm not a chemist.

[Stubble]

Then we need a chemist.

It is a liquid at 8°-80°f.

Perhaps products that are just hydrogen cyanide are meant to be used with a heat source.

That nist data shows boiling and the amount of energy necessary expressed in kj. I don't think that table would exist if it just offgassed of it's own accord in the liquid phase in any significant amount.

Hell, I think I read that it evaporates at .17atm at 60°f.

I can't find it now, it might be in the wiki.

[blake121666]

I think a more proper way to look at it is that its contact with air "vaporizes" it of its own accord due to its high vapor pressure - and only completely boils off at its boiling point.

So it'd be like gasoline in a carburetor maybe rather than strictly a "gas". Air then would be something of a catalyst for its "carburetion"!

I admit that sounds a bit silly but I think something like that is the case.

This wiki page about "volatility" describes it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_(chemistry)

So as I originally said, in a hot room the HCN is above boiling point and would desorb from water (to be reabsorbed and desorbed ... etc). Below boiling point, it would be in a vapor/liquid state - which is the state you described without fully considering its vapors given its volatility.

HCN is highly "volatile" and looks to naturally vaporize even at very low temperatures (below freezing). It would not be "just" in a liquid state as you imagined. Its vapors would still propagate.

But I'm saying the room was above boing point! And even if it wasn't, it was hot enough to be highly vaporized given its high vapor pressure.

[Stubble]

Dude, from the wiki you posted.

'Volatility itself has no defined numerical value, but it is often described using vapor pressures or boiling points (for liquids).'

8°f-80°f is liquid phase.

I guess I need to look more into evaporation rates, because evaporation can and often does occur under the boiling point.

That said, the wiki says to use the boiling point.

************************

Here are the variables for evaporation below boiling point for a liquid, I've still got more reading.

The rate of evaporation depends on several factors:

'Temperature: Higher temperatures increase the average kinetic energy of the molecules, making it easier for them to escape.

Humidity: In a drier environment, water evaporates faster because there is less water vapor in the air to inhibit evaporation.

Air movement: Wind or air currents can carry away the water vapor, allowing more molecules to escape.

Surface area: A larger surface area exposes more molecules to the air, increasing the likelihood of evaporation.'

When I was looking for the evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide, it kept showing me P/T charts. At 60°f it showed an air pressure of .17~ iirc. I'll keep looking. The P/T chart definitely didn't help me understand this.

*****************

Ok, in an ampule with a 10mm orifice it would take almost 9 hours to evaporate 1 gram of hydrogen cyanide at 60°f at 1atm at sea level.

I wouldn't call that blazing fast.

[blake121666]

Dude, from the wiki you posted.

'Volatility itself has no defined numerical value, but it is often described using vapor pressures or boiling points (for liquids).'

8°f-80°f is liquid phase.

I guess I need to look more into evaporation rates, because evaporation can and often does occur under the boiling point.

That said, the wiki says to use the boiling point.

************************

Here are the variables for evaporation below boiling point for a liquid, I've still got more reading.

The rate of evaporation depends on several factors:

'Temperature: Higher temperatures increase the average kinetic energy of the molecules, making it easier for them to escape.

Humidity: In a drier environment, water evaporates faster because there is less water vapor in the air to inhibit evaporation.

Air movement: Wind or air currents can carry away the water vapor, allowing more molecules to escape.

Surface area: A larger surface area exposes more molecules to the air, increasing the likelihood of evaporation.'

When I was looking for the evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide, it kept showing me P/T charts. At 60°f it showed an air pressure of .17~ iirc. I'll keep looking. The P/T chart definitely didn't help me understand this.

*****************

Ok, in an ampule with a 10mm orifice it would take almost 9 hours to evaporate 1 gram of hydrogen cyanide at 60°f at 1atm at sea level.

I wouldn't call that blazing fast.

I don't think you understood that wikipedia page.

At a given temperature and pressure, a substance with high volatility is more likely to exist as a vapour, while a substance with low volatility is more likely to be a liquid or solid.

Hydrocyanic acid has high volatility explained by its high vapor pressure. The outgassing curve you posted is because of this fact. There's not much more to be said along theoretical lines such as the weeds you headed into. We're talking about the physical empirical facts of the substance. That it vaporizes in its liquid state is just the fact about it. There's nothing more to it than that.

From chatGPT:

High vapor pressure indicates that a significant number of HCN molecules transition from the liquid to the gaseous phase even at lower temperatures, making it highly volatile.

...

For context, HCN is far more volatile than water because its vapor pressure is much higher at the same temperature. This is why HCN can exist as a gas under standard conditions and why even small amounts of the liquid can quickly turn into a hazardous vapor.

In summary, the volatility of hydrocyanic acid is directly linked to its high vapor pressure, which arises from its weak intermolecular forces and the physical properties of the molecule.

[Stubble]

Well, I'll say this, I've learned more today about watching paint dry than I ever wanted to know. Good lord.

Sorry for busting your balls Blake, this is just counter intuitive as hell to me. I'm doing some more due diligence.

Hey, at least I learned a thing or 2 eh?

I'll be back.

[blake121666]

Green & McCarthy handle the outgassing here:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

And they don't assume a hot room such as I did.

I only vaguely remembered this. At the time, I had the misconceptions that Lueftl had. Namely EXTREMELY long evaporation and diffusion rates. I've since found that to not be the case I thought.

They're handling of the matter here is not bad - and for the whole shebang: gassing, ventilation, ... etc.

Nessie should get to know and cite this rather than his random ventilation data and such.

The only significant disagreement I would have today with this paper is their handling of the time until 100% died. I fall more on the over-30-minute side of that. But it doesn't much matter in their general handling here. Possibly some quibbles with other things here and there also.

[Nessie]

Green & McCarthy handle the outgassing here:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

....

Nessie should get to know and cite this rather than his random ventilation data and such.

....

From Green and McCarthy;

"The argument goes that what is physically impossible cannot be true, no matter what testimonial evidence, documentary evidence, or physical evidence is amassed to demonstrate it."

Revisionists have failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that gassings and cremations are physically impossible. Revisionists like to use witches as an analogy, Green and McCarthy use water running up hill;

"No number of witnesses suffices to prove that water can run uphill, and likewise all evidence regarding the Holocaust could be wiped away, if deniers could only prove that gassings were physically impossible."

German engineers, generally considered amongst the best in the world, undoubtedly could work out how to gas and cremated people using the Kremas. Most revisionists would grudgingly accept that, so the analogy with witches or water starts to fall apart, as the possible is being compared to the impossible. They then go into the known details of gassings and cremations, looking at what documents have survived, the witness descriptions and the limited physical remains of the Kremas.

What is grudgingly accepted as possible, becomes impossible, based on the documents, witnesses and physical evidence. Instead of demonstrating how gassings and cremations worked, revisionists argue that evidence is too flawed and questionable, to prove gassings and cremations worked. That is a weak argument compared to an argument that something that is physically impossible cannot have happened. "Is inherently physically impossible" is different to "As described is physically impossible". Claims water runs up hill or witches are casting spells are inherently impossible, Germans building gas chambers and cremation ovens are not.

That revisionists cannot imagine, or work out, how the gassings or cremations could have taken place as described by the witnesses, the documents and from the physical evidence, can be ascribed to their inabilities compared to German engineers. Since most revisionists are working well outwith their field of expertise, that is a reasonable conclusion to make. When a ventilation engineer who worked on the Kremas describes how the ventilation system worked, that is more compelling than the baffled thoughts of even someone trained and experienced in installing ventilation systems, let alone those with no experience.

Revisionists want me to discuss with them the technicalities of subjects that neither of us have any relevant training in. I don't because I understand that my lack of training means I am likely to be making mistakes. Revisionists are blissfully unaware of their limitations and plough on regardless, utterly convinced of their brilliance. Some humility would be more appropriate.

[blake121666]

Green & McCarthy handle the outgassing here:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

....

Nessie should get to know and cite this rather than his random ventilation data and such.

....

From Green and McCarthy;

"The argument goes that what is physically impossible cannot be true, no matter what testimonial evidence, documentary evidence, or physical evidence is amassed to demonstrate it."

Revisionists have failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that gassings and cremations are physically impossible. Revisionists like to use witches as an analogy, Green and McCarthy use water running up hill;

"No number of witnesses suffices to prove that water can run uphill, and likewise all evidence regarding the Holocaust could be wiped away, if deniers could only prove that gassings were physically impossible."

German engineers, generally considered amongst the best in the world, undoubtedly could work out how to gas and cremated people using the Kremas. Most revisionists would grudgingly accept that, so the analogy with witches or water starts to fall apart, as the possible is being compared to the impossible. They then go into the known details of gassings and cremations, looking at what documents have survived, the witness descriptions and the limited physical remains of the Kremas.

What is grudgingly accepted as possible, becomes impossible, based on the documents, witnesses and physical evidence. Instead of demonstrating how gassings and cremations worked, revisionists argue that evidence is too flawed and questionable, to prove gassings and cremations worked. That is a weak argument compared to an argument that something that is physically impossible cannot have happened. "Is inherently physically impossible" is different to "As described is physically impossible". Claims water runs up hill or witches are casting spells are inherently impossible, Germans building gas chambers and cremation ovens are not.

That revisionists cannot imagine, or work out, how the gassings or cremations could have taken place as described by the witnesses, the documents and from the physical evidence, can be ascribed to their inabilities compared to German engineers. Since most revisionists are working well outwith their field of expertise, that is a reasonable conclusion to make. When a ventilation engineer who worked on the Kremas describes how the ventilation system worked, that is more compelling than the baffled thoughts of even someone trained and experienced in installing ventilation systems, let alone those with no experience.

Revisionists want me to discuss with them the technicalities of subjects that neither of us have any relevant training in. I don't because I understand that my lack of training means I am likely to be making mistakes. Revisionists are blissfully unaware of their limitations and plough on regardless, utterly convinced of their brilliance. Some humility would be more appropriate.

I meant handle the ventilation as he did there. But yes, you should read the whole thing to get a good understanding of the whole gassing/ventilation process.

I might discuss it over at rodoh with you. I have been posting too much here and am being redundant.

[TlsMS93]

Pressac was a pharmacist and for a long time he was still the guy exterminationists went to when they were in trouble. If for every Holocaust topic we have to have a PhD in the area discussed then close the forum and let's all go away.

[Nessie]

Pressac was a pharmacist and for a long time he was still the guy exterminationists went to when they were in trouble. If for every Holocaust topic we have to have a PhD in the area discussed then close the forum and let's all go away.

No, just accept that when discussing something outwith your field of expertise, or for which you have no training in, you are more likely to make mistakes.

[Stubble]

Just doing the Johnny Appleseed thing spreading this around.

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/32/item ... humans.mp4

[HansHill]

Green & McCarthy handle the outgassing here:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

And they don't assume a hot room such as I did.

I only vaguely remembered this. At the time, I had the misconceptions that Lueftl had. Namely EXTREMELY long evaporation and diffusion rates. I've since found that to not be the case I thought.

They're handling of the matter here is not bad - and for the whole shebang: gassing, ventilation, ... etc.

Nessie should get to know and cite this rather than his random ventilation data and such.

The only significant disagreement I would have today with this paper is their handling of the time until 100% died. I fall more on the over-30-minute side of that. But it doesn't much matter in their general handling here. Possibly some quibbles with other things here and there also.

There are some other issues here that you seem to have missed.

From the article you linked:

We acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify, but point out that in actuality, the Zyklon B was heated beyond the temperatures assumed in our work.

and one of Green's most prominent citations, the Irmscher paper:

In any event the calculation of relationships could not be made using this procedure in cases in which the humidity in the room is high thereby depositing upon the evaporating surfaces water or snow (depending upon the temperature) which significantly diminish the rate of evaporation.

The first quote I have presented here addresses Green's failure to control for temperature of the pellets themselves, or to reproduce the alleged conditions of the theoretical gassing, that is, his claim that the pellets were pre-heated.

The second quote illustrates from Green's own source, that the results presented could not be made using this procedure when we introduce the variable of humidity - which Green has not controlled for (along with temperature).

Another thing you seem to have missed is Rudolf's responses regarding the humidity issue:

Dr. Green has ignored the fact that the evaporation of HCN from the carrier of Zyklon B is slowed down massively (besonders stark) in the case of high relative humidity in the air as would have been the case in an assumed homicidal gassing. This would have led to a higher amount of Zyklon B to be applied in order to achieve a similar release of HCN in the same period of time.

And subsequently:

Thus, what Green did say is that the AMOUNT of Zyklon B (per volume and gassing) used for both delousing and (alleged) homicidal gassings was similar, whereas I speak of the actual "concentrations of HCN [...] necessary to kill the alleged victims in the time as testified by all 'witnesses.'" These are two different things! Green says it would have been significantly lower, and I showed that it had to be in the same order of magnitude, "basing mainly on the data we can get from capital punishment in the USA." It is these data we have about homicidal gassing -- the only reliable ones that exist -- which is what Green ignores. So I have not misrepresented or misunderstood anything. It is Green who overlooked the difference between applied amount and effective concentration.

I will agree with you that their handling is "not bad" i would even say Green represents the pinnacle of the Orthodox side, and comes across as far more competent than others such as Markiewicz, Bailer, Pressac etc, however for a complete picture you must also reflect upon Rudolf's responses.

[AreYouSirius]

I would like revisionists to learn more about witness testimony, memory and recollection, so that they do not make so many mistakes regarding the assessment of witness evidence.

I would like exterminationists to learn more about the fallibility of witness testimony, memory and recollection—and also neutrally and dispassionately assess a witnesses’s potential motives or proclivity to embellish or fib—so that they do not fall prey to tall tales when assessing witness statements and whether they are valid artifacts of evidence.