blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:50 am
I described to you over and over the cremation process. I am telling you that one or more corpses were added after the main combustion. The operating manual even says this.
You have not shown this to have not been done. You have not shown anything forbidding what I am saying.
And we can't be certain of the internals of Birkenau's triple-muffle ovens even being the same as Buchenwald's - but I'm ok with this assumption.
EDIT: And I am not misunderstanding a durned thing - you are. I am talking throughput and you keep misunderstanding its relation to incineration rate. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. And the fuel requirements are dynamic.
You keep insisting that multiple corpses could be added after initial combustion, but you're missing the point. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate limits the heat, meaning each corpse takes about an hour to burn, regardless of when you add the next one. Adding corpses prematurely disrupts the necessary heat and gas flow.
The operating manual's suggestion (which of course was not meant to apply to your claim of gazillions of sequential cremations) doesn't change the technical realities outlined by Mattogno. The furnace's design and the grate's role in maintaining steady combustion make your throughput idea pointless. The cremation rate and throughput are tightly linked; you can't separate them.
You're wrong about the fuel requirements being dynamic. They're constrained by the furnace's design. Your approach ignores these limitations.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:50 am
I described to you over and over the cremation process. I am telling you that one or more corpses were added after the main combustion. The operating manual even says this.
You have not shown this to have not been done. You have not shown anything forbidding what I am saying.
And we can't be certain of the internals of Birkenau's triple-muffle ovens even being the same as Buchenwald's - but I'm ok with this assumption.
EDIT: And I am not misunderstanding a durned thing - you are. I am talking throughput and you keep misunderstanding its relation to incineration rate. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. And the fuel requirements are dynamic.
You keep insisting that multiple corpses could be added after initial combustion, but you're missing the point. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate limits the heat, meaning each corpse takes about an hour to burn, regardless of when you add the next one. Adding corpses prematurely disrupts the necessary heat and gas flow.
The operating manual's suggestion (which of course was not meant to apply to your claim of gazillions of sequential cremations) doesn't change the technical realities outlined by Mattogno. The furnace's design and the grate's role in maintaining steady combustion make your throughput idea pointless. The cremation rate and throughput are tightly linked; you can't separate them.
You're wrong about the fuel requirements being dynamic. They're constrained by the furnace's design. Your approach ignores these limitations.
The corpse is part of the fuel needed to burn the corpses. That is what I meant about dynamic fuel. You do not have Mattogno's simple example of a single corpse burning. The whole system needs to be considered with how that dynamic goes. You do not have a simple relation of F amount of fuel for each of ONE corpse. You have a dynamic fuel system going on for multiple corpses in various states.
Last edited by blake121666 on Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Auschwitz-Topf-Durations.jpg (158.78 KiB) Viewed 196 times
EDIT: "Coke per corpse" should be labeled as being in kilograms (kg) on the table shown.
For anyone following along, the coke consumption rate per gasifier per furnace (i.e. the rate at which coke is burned upon its grate during cremation) is the critical issue, here. The double and triple muffle Topf furnaces each had two gassifiers (and each of these had a coke consumption rate of 33.3 kg/hr). The eight muffle furnace had four of these gassifiers. This is the calculation you see in the table above. The total coke consumption rate for each furnace is divided by the number of muffles (or corpses) to give you the "flow per muffle". Then, you divide the "Coke per corpse" by the "flow per muffle" to get the estimated cremation duration. All of this is discussed in the same citation shown in the table's footnote, above.
EDIT: "Coke per corpse" should be labeled as being in kilograms (kg) on the table shown.
For anyone following along, the coke consumption rate per gasifier per furnace (i.e. the rate at which coke is burned upon its grate during cremation) is the critical issue, here. The double and triple muffle Topf furnaces each had two gassifiers (and each of these had a coke consumption rate of 33.3 kg/hr). The eight muffle furnace had four of these gassifiers. This is the calculation you see in the table above. The total coke consumption rate for each furnace is divided by the number of muffles (or corpses) to give you the "flow per muffle". Then, you divide the "Coke per corpse" by the "flow per muffle" to get the estimated cremation duration. All of this is discussed in the same citation shown in the table's footnote, above.
Reread my last post. I added some while you replied. You do not have a F amount fuel for each individual corpse situation.
Last edited by blake121666 on Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:16 am
The corpse is part of the fuel needed to burn the corpses. That is what I meant about dynamic fuel. You do not have Mattogno's simple example of a single corpse burning. The whole system needs to be considered with how that dynamic goes. You do not have a simple relation of F amount of fuel for each of ONE corpse. You have a dynamic fuel system going on for multiple corpses in various states.
You're still missing the point. The corpse's contribution to the fuel is minimal compared to the coke's role in maintaining the required temperature. The 33.3 kg/hr rate of coke consumption sets a hard limit on the heat, which directly affects the cremation rate.
Your idea of "dynamic fuel" doesn't change the fact that the furnace's design, based on Mattogno's analysis, can't handle multiple corpses in the way you're suggesting. The technical constraints remain, no matter how you frame the fuel dynamics. The steady coke consumption rate and the grate's function ensure the process remains at a fixed pace, not the dynamic one you're imagining.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:16 am
The corpse is part of the fuel needed to burn the corpses. That is what I meant about dynamic fuel. You do not have Mattogno's simple example of a single corpse burning. The whole system needs to be considered with how that dynamic goes. You do not have a simple relation of F amount of fuel for each of ONE corpse. You have a dynamic fuel system going on for multiple corpses in various states.
You're still missing the point. The corpse's contribution to the fuel is minimal compared to the coke's role in maintaining the required temperature. The 33.3 kg/hr rate of coke consumption sets a hard limit on the heat, which directly affects the cremation rate.
Your idea of "dynamic fuel" doesn't change the fact that the furnace's design, based on Mattogno's analysis, can't handle multiple corpses in the way you're suggesting. The technical constraints remain, no matter how you frame the fuel dynamics. The steady coke consumption rate and the grate's function ensure the process remains at a fixed pace, not the dynamic one you're imagining.
That's enough. The corpse is the MAJORITY of the heat content in a cremation - not the external fuel. You do not know what you are talking about.
And you DO NOT "maintain temperature". As I told you, before the main combustion, drastic evaporative cooling is what is going on. Then the opposite after main combustion.
As per the last in your post: The GODDAM MANUAL says what I am saying, for crying out loud. Read that.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:23 am
That's enough. The corpse is the MAJORITY of the heat content in a cremation - not the external fuel. You do not know what you are talking about.
And you DO NOT "maintain temperature". As I told you, before the main combustion, drastic evaporative cooling is what is going on. Then the opposite after main combustion.
You're wrong. The corpse's heat content is not the majority; the coke is critical for maintaining the high temperatures needed for cremation. Mattogno's data clearly shows the furnace's reliance on a steady 33.3 kg/hr coke consumption rate, which sets the pace for cremation.
You're ignoring the technical constraints of the furnace design. While there's an evaporative cooling phase initially, the furnace must still maintain sufficient heat overall to complete the cremation process effectively. Your "dynamic fuel" idea doesn't change the fact that the furnace's operation is constrained by its coke throughput and grate capacity, which you continue to misunderstand.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:23 am
That's enough. The corpse is the MAJORITY of the heat content in a cremation - not the external fuel. You do not know what you are talking about.
And you DO NOT "maintain temperature". As I told you, before the main combustion, drastic evaporative cooling is what is going on. Then the opposite after main combustion.
You're wrong. The corpse's heat content is not the majority; the coke is critical for maintaining the high temperatures needed for cremation. Mattogno's data clearly shows the furnace's reliance on a steady 33.3 kg/hr coke consumption rate, which sets the pace for cremation.
You're ignoring the technical constraints of the furnace design. While there's an evaporative cooling phase initially, the furnace must still maintain sufficient heat overall to complete the cremation process effectively. Your "dynamic fuel" idea doesn't change the fact that the furnace's operation is constrained by its coke throughput and grate capacity, which you continue to misunderstand.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:28 am
Read the manual here
It says what I am telling you.
That is enough. Quit replying with, nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah.
Believe me, I am not misunderstanding anything. Quit posting.
Did and done. Here it is, for those following along with us:
BETRIEBSVORSCHRIFT
des koksbeheizten Topf-Dreimuffel-
Einäscheirungsofen
Vor Beschickung der beiden Koksgeneratoren mit Koks
muss der Rauchkanalschieber am Ofen geöffnet werden.
Nunmehr kann in den beiden Generatoren Feuer angefacht und
unterhalten werden, hierbei ist zu beachten, dass die Sekundarver-
schlüsse rechts und links der Ascheentnahmetüren (Koksgeneratoren) ge-
öffnet sind.
Nachdem die Einäscherungskammern gut rotwarm (ca. 800°C)
sind können die Leichen hintereinander in die drei Kammern einge-
fahren werden.
Jetzt ist es zweckmässig das seitwärts am Ofen stehende
Oruckluftgebtäse anzustellen und ca. 20 Minuten laufen zu lassen.
Hierbei ist zu beobachten, ob zuviel oder zu wenig Frischluft in die
drei Kammern eintritt.
Die Regulierung der Frischluft erfolgt durch die Drehklappe
die sich in der Luftrohrleitung befindet. Weiterhin müssen die
rechts und links der Einführtüren angeordneten Lufteintritte halb
geöffnet werden.
Sobald die Leichenteile vom Schamotterost nach der dar-
unter liegende Ascheschrage gefallen sind, müssen diese mittels
der Kratze nach vorn zur Ascheentnahmetür gezogen werden. können diese Teile noch 20 Minuten zum Nachverbrennen lagern.
Dann wird die Asche in den Aschebehalter gezogen und zur Abkühl-
ung beiseite gestellt.
Zwischendurch werden neue Leichen in die Kammern
nach einander eingeführt.
Die beiden Koksgeneratoren müssen von Zeit zu Zeit
mit Brennstoff beschickt werden.
Jeden Abend müssen die Generatorroste von den Koks-
schlacken befreit und die Asch e herausgenommen werden.
Zu beachten ist ferner, das nach Betriebsschluss-sobald
die Generatoren leer gebrannt und Glutteile nicht mehr vorhanden
sind, alle Luftschieber und Türen, desgl. auch der Rauchkanalschie-
ber am Ofen geschlossen sein müssen um den Ofen nicht aus-
zukühlen.
Nach jeder Einäscherung steigt die Temperatur im Ofen.
Daher bitte beachten, dass die Innentemperatur nicht über 1000°C.
kommt (Weissglut).
Diese Temperatursteigerung kann durch Lufteinblasen
verhindert werden.
Unfortunately, you misinterpret the manual. It states that corpses are loaded "hintereinander" (one after another) into the chambers once they're at 800°C. This supports the single corpse per muffle process, not your idea of loading multiple at once. The manual doesn't change the technical limitations outlined by Mattogno. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate sets the heat limit, making your "dynamic fuel" idea still pointless. Quit ignoring the facts.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:28 am
Read the manual here
It says what I am telling you.
That is enough. Quit replying with, nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah.
Believe me, I am not misunderstanding anything. Quit posting.
Did and done. Here it is, for those following along with us:
BETRIEBSVORSCHRIFT
des koksbeheizten Topf-Dreimuffel-
Einäscheirungsofen
Vor Beschickung der beiden Koksgeneratoren mit Koks
muss der Rauchkanalschieber am Ofen geöffnet werden.
Nunmehr kann in den beiden Generatoren Feuer angefacht und
unterhalten werden, hierbei ist zu beachten, dass die Sekundarver-
schlüsse rechts und links der Ascheentnahmetüren (Koksgeneratoren) ge-
öffnet sind.
Nachdem die Einäscherungskammern gut rotwarm (ca. 800°C)
sind können die Leichen hintereinander in die drei Kammern einge-
fahren werden.
Jetzt ist es zweckmässig das seitwärts am Ofen stehende
Oruckluftgebtäse anzustellen und ca. 20 Minuten laufen zu lassen.
Hierbei ist zu beobachten, ob zuviel oder zu wenig Frischluft in die
drei Kammern eintritt.
Die Regulierung der Frischluft erfolgt durch die Drehklappe
die sich in der Luftrohrleitung befindet. Weiterhin müssen die
rechts und links der Einführtüren angeordneten Lufteintritte halb
geöffnet werden.
Sobald die Leichenteile vom Schamotterost nach der dar-
unter liegende Ascheschrage gefallen sind, müssen diese mittels
der Kratze nach vorn zur Ascheentnahmetür gezogen werden. können diese Teile noch 20 Minuten zum Nachverbrennen lagern.
Dann wird die Asche in den Aschebehalter gezogen und zur Abkühl-
ung beiseite gestellt.
Zwischendurch werden neue Leichen in die Kammern
nach einander eingeführt.
Die beiden Koksgeneratoren müssen von Zeit zu Zeit
mit Brennstoff beschickt werden.
Jeden Abend müssen die Generatorroste von den Koks-
schlacken befreit und die Asch e herausgenommen werden.
Zu beachten ist ferner, das nach Betriebsschluss-sobald
die Generatoren leer gebrannt und Glutteile nicht mehr vorhanden
sind, alle Luftschieber und Türen, desgl. auch der Rauchkanalschie-
ber am Ofen geschlossen sein müssen um den Ofen nicht aus-
zukühlen.
Nach jeder Einäscherung steigt die Temperatur im Ofen.
Daher bitte beachten, dass die Innentemperatur nicht über 1000°C.
kommt (Weissglut).
Diese Temperatursteigerung kann durch Lufteinblasen
verhindert werden.
Unfortunately, you misinterpret the manual. It states that corpses are loaded "hintereinander" (one after another) into the chambers once they're at 800°C. This supports the single corpse per muffle process, not your idea of loading multiple at once. The manual doesn't change the technical limitations outlined by Mattogno. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate sets the heat limit, making your "dynamic fuel" idea still pointless. Quit ignoring the facts.
It says to do that after main combustion - not full incineration. You then have 2 corpses in the muffle.
"In between, new corpses can be introduced into the chambers one after the other".
It also says "After each cremation, the temperature in the oven rises". The burning of the corpse overcompensates for the evaporative cooling. The temperature is dynamic and the corpse itself is typically the greatest fuel in a cremation.
blake121666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:40 am
It says to do that after main combustion - not full incineration. You then have 2 corpses in the muffle.
"In between, new corpses can be introduced into the chambers one after the other".
It also says "After each cremation, the temperature in the oven rises". The burning of the corpse overcompensates for the evaporative cooling. The temperature is dynamic and the corpse itself is typically the greatest fuel in a cremation.
You're wrong. The manual says "hintereinander" means one after another, not simultaneously. The coke rate limits heat, making your idea of multiple corpses unworkable. The temperature dynamics don't change the furnace's technical constraints. Stop misinterpreting the manual.
This thread (on the 'Auschwitz Index') is becoming derailed. I've created another thread to continue the conversation on cremation capacity, if desired: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=171
Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:10 pm
Then what in the hell does this memo from Wirths have to do with the assertion that lk#2 was an undressing room for people to be gassed in lk#1?
I mean, seriously. You are the one who said they wanted to autopsy gassing victims. That was all you, not me. Rolling your eyes doesn't change that. It is a distraction form the point.
That memo has jack and shit to do with an undressing room in lk#2, and jack left town.
It is evidence an undressing room was being planned for the Krema. Can you show me a mortuary, where autopsies are performed, that has an undressing room?
What, part, of, that, memo, refers, to, lk#2, being, an, undressing room?
If I recall correctly, plate 17 of the blueprints has the proposed (though never realised) undressing room in the vestibule between lk#1 and lk#2. That's not lk#2 being an undressing room.
This memo does not belong with the others, straight up.
If it was not included and then you found out about it, you would criticise HC for hiding it. It is better, in principle, to include evidence which is not apparently relevant.
It is evidence an undressing room was being planned for the Krema. Can you show me a mortuary, where autopsies are performed, that has an undressing room?
What, part, of, that, memo, refers, to, lk#2, being, an, undressing room?
If I recall correctly, plate 17 of the blueprints has the proposed (though never realised) undressing room in the vestibule between lk#1 and lk#2. That's not lk#2 being an undressing room.
This memo does not belong with the others, straight up.
If it was not included and then you found out about it, you would criticise HC for hiding it. It is better, in principle, to include evidence which is not apparently relevant.
Bullshit.
Let's move on to the next irrelevant memo from the list, I suggest your hot air memo #1.
Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:19 pm
What, part, of, that, memo, refers, to, lk#2, being, an, undressing room?
If I recall correctly, plate 17 of the blueprints has the proposed (though never realised) undressing room in the vestibule between lk#1 and lk#2. That's not lk#2 being an undressing room.
This memo does not belong with the others, straight up.
If it was not included and then you found out about it, you would criticise HC for hiding it. It is better, in principle, to include evidence which is not apparently relevant.
Bullshit.
Let's move on to the next irrelevant memo from the list, I suggest your hot air memo #1.
Wirths memo asks for an undressing room and space for post mortems and to store files. Should file storage and post mortems be added to the revisionist list of what the Kremas were used for, bomb shelter, shower, delousing chamber and corpse store.
