Challenge for Believers

[Stubble]

One can not fill a 5lb bag with 5 grams of dirt Nessie.

There are witnesses to say that it happened so it happend.

And that's how it is evidenced. Rates of change in a system be damned.

Josiah Willard Gibbs is some place spinning in his grave and so is that Max Planck fellow.

[TlsMS93]

And that's how it is evidenced. Rates of change in a system be damned.

Josiah Willard Gibbs is some place spinning in his grave and so is that Max Planck fellow.

There are witnesses, far more than the Holocaust museums have gathered, who say they saw the sun dancing, so it danced.

[bombsaway]

I can not 'prove' that no person was executed with the exhaust from an M-17t engine. I can however demonstrate that the M-17t engine lacks sufficient capacity to be used to murder a warehouse full of people.

What are your calculations here?

I ran it Grok and Claude and got estimates far in excess of the estimated volume of the chambers at Treblinka, which are like 10 gas chambers at 40 cubic meters each.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/OU03Ch0j1nTeJ4CrqtYRfG3Rw

Low estimate was 670 and high was 77,000 cubic meters. LLMs are a nice easy way for you to check your math.

[Nessie]

I will just add that claim to the huge list of unevidenced claims you make

So in the smugness, self appreciation of no worth, you are stating that Hoess was not concerned about the potential execution of his own son and wife. His son was in England in custody.

Any prosecutor knows that what I said is evidenced. It is factual human psychology.

I will just add that to the huge list of occasions you use a logical fallacy

[Nessie]

Let's be very clear, I'm sufficiently able to very clearly say that people could not have been gassed in the method described by 'some' eyewitnesses.

I've already stated 'how' it 'could' have happened based off of the discharge/exhaust/emissions of the specific engine (a Soviet m17, oddly a licensed replica of a bmw engine, though that's a digression) expressed in cubic feet per minute and assuming a 'rich' fuel mixture on a 'cool' day (40°f specifically).

Output at idle is sufficient for an average bathroom to be lethal in a 15 minute window, at redline, a den or livingroom.

But, does that mean you are able to prove if gassings happened or not? Yes or no.

Nessie, I'm going to say this very slowly.

An M-17t engine is insufficient for mass executions performed in the space described.

While imminently capable of producing enough carbon monoxide to kill in an enclosed space, the space described is in excess of the lethality of the engine.

This does not in itself mean that an M-17t engine was not used as a weapon of homicide during ww2. It means that it could not have been used in the manner described, as it is insufficient for task.

I can not 'prove' that no person was executed with the exhaust from an M-17t engine. I can however demonstrate that the M-17t engine lacks sufficient capacity to be used to murder a warehouse full of people.

There is a difference between saying 'nothing' happened and saying that which is physically impossible did not occur.

One can not fill a 5lb bag with 5 grams of dirt Nessie.

I have highlighted the important parts, where you admit that your argument does not prove there were no gassings using an engine, as that style of argument is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Just because it cannot "have been used in the manner described" does not mean therefore all the witnesses lied and there was no gas chamber, as they are likely to have not been that great at remembering and describing the gassings and you just don't want to believe them.

Since your argument cannot act as proof, and it is logically flawed, why do you rely on it?

[Nessie]

One can not fill a 5lb bag with 5 grams of dirt Nessie.

There are witnesses to say that it happened so it happend.

And that's how it is evidenced. Rates of change in a system be damned.

Josiah Willard Gibbs is some place spinning in his grave and so is that Max Planck fellow.

If someone describes something in a way that it could not have worked, is that proof they lied and what they described did not happen? Yes or no.

[Stubble]

But, does that mean you are able to prove if gassings happened or not? Yes or no.

Nessie, I'm going to say this very slowly.

An M-17t engine is insufficient for mass executions performed in the space described.

While imminently capable of producing enough carbon monoxide to kill in an enclosed space, the space described is in excess of the lethality of the engine.

This does not in itself mean that an M-17t engine was not used as a weapon of homicide during ww2. It means that it could not have been used in the manner described, as it is insufficient for task.

I can not 'prove' that no person was executed with the exhaust from an M-17t engine. I can however demonstrate that the M-17t engine lacks sufficient capacity to be used to murder a warehouse full of people.

There is a difference between saying 'nothing' happened and saying that which is physically impossible did not occur.

One can not fill a 5lb bag with 5 grams of dirt Nessie.

I have highlighted the important parts, where you admit that your argument does not prove there were no gassings using an engine, as that style of argument is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Just because it cannot "have been used in the manner described" does not mean therefore all the witnesses lied and there was no gas chamber, as they are likely to have not been that great at remembering and describing the gassings and you just don't want to believe them.

Since your argument cannot act as proof, and it is logically flawed, why do you rely on it?

You seem confused. I said it was demonstrable that the gassings could not have occurred as described. I thought I was very clear.

You even highlighted where I said such.

Now, personally, I don't think anyone was gassed in a homicidal gas chamber and I do personally think anyone who claims to have witnessed such or handled the dead after is indeed lying. That is however beside the point. Point being it is demonstrable the event could not have occurred as described.

For me this is not a coup de grace. It is short of 'total victory'. It is still victory however, even if somewhat muted by the fact that exhaust gas can be lethal under the correct circumstances.

[Stubble]

I can not 'prove' that no person was executed with the exhaust from an M-17t engine. I can however demonstrate that the M-17t engine lacks sufficient capacity to be used to murder a warehouse full of people.

What are your calculations here?

I ran it Grok and Claude and got estimates far in excess of the estimated volume of the chambers at Treblinka, which are like 10 gas chambers at 40 cubic meters each.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/OU03Ch0j1nTeJ4CrqtYRfG3Rw

Low estimate was 670 and high was 77,000 cubic meters. LLMs are a nice easy way for you to check your math.

We can take it step by step and I can make you prove it for yourself, open a thread and I will walk you through it. It has been enough of a diversion in this thread already.

Basically I didn't go to x and ask AI to do it.

You should link that grock answer if you like that methodology. We can go through it and look at the variables together. Let's just say, mistakes were made there.

Note that grock admits a 1% concentration as potentially minimum. I ran for time to 1%, 3% and 5% concentrations. I also didn't use weight, I used cubic feet per minute. I can work with grock's methodology though as it isn't too dissimilar from mine. Where is fails is with the variables. It has made a series of mistakes. Forgivable as it is a child.

[bombsaway]

I can not 'prove' that no person was executed with the exhaust from an M-17t engine. I can however demonstrate that the M-17t engine lacks sufficient capacity to be used to murder a warehouse full of people.

What are your calculations here?

I ran it Grok and Claude and got estimates far in excess of the estimated volume of the chambers at Treblinka, which are like 10 gas chambers at 40 cubic meters each.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/OU03Ch0j1nTeJ4CrqtYRfG3Rw

Low estimate was 670 and high was 77,000 cubic meters. LLMs are a nice easy way for you to check your math.

We can take it step by step and I can make you prove it for yourself, open a thread and I will walk you through it. It has been enough of a diversion in this thread already.

Basically I didn't go to x and ask AI to do it.

You should link that grock answer if you like that methodology. We can go through it and look at the variables together. Let's just say, mistakes were made there.

Note that grock admits a 1% concentration as potentially minimum. I ran for time to 1%, 3% and 5% concentrations. I also didn't use weight, I used cubic feet per minute. I can work with grock's methodology though as it isn't too dissimilar from mine. Where is fails is with the variables. It has made a series of mistakes. Forgivable as it is a child.

Make another thread and present all you work, variables, assumptions etc

Also what is your confidence about gassings being impossible with this kind of engine? If your confidence is high it's definitely worth my time to go through it w you

[Stubble]

What are your calculations here?

I ran it Grok and Claude and got estimates far in excess of the estimated volume of the chambers at Treblinka, which are like 10 gas chambers at 40 cubic meters each.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/OU03Ch0j1nTeJ4CrqtYRfG3Rw

Low estimate was 670 and high was 77,000 cubic meters. LLMs are a nice easy way for you to check your math.

We can take it step by step and I can make you prove it for yourself, open a thread and I will walk you through it. It has been enough of a diversion in this thread already.

Basically I didn't go to x and ask AI to do it.

You should link that grock answer if you like that methodology. We can go through it and look at the variables together. Let's just say, mistakes were made there.

Note that grock admits a 1% concentration as potentially minimum. I ran for time to 1%, 3% and 5% concentrations. I also didn't use weight, I used cubic feet per minute. I can work with grock's methodology though as it isn't too dissimilar from mine. Where is fails is with the variables. It has made a series of mistakes. Forgivable as it is a child.

Make another thread and present all you work, variables, assumptions etc

Also what is your confidence about gassings being impossible with this kind of engine? If your confidence is high it's definitely worth my time to go through it w you

Dude, I'm not going to write a book here, especially not while I have these other irons in the fire.

Basically the variables in your model are wrong. My methodology was to calculate the cfm, then to estimate the carbon monoxide concentration, then to estimate time to lethal concentration.

I ended up with basically a bathroom sized space at idle for a 15 minute window assuming an idle speed of 570rpm. I ended up with a livingroom or den sized room at redline assuming a redline of 1700rpm.

The engine redline for the aircraft variant was slightly higher at 2,200 rpm, so I ran that too, but, it doesn't change the values much.

Again, we can go over it if you make a thread. Also, I will reiterate that my methodology wasn't too dissimilar from your llm. My results were different because I used different variables that I vetted.

[bombsaway]

We can take it step by step and I can make you prove it for yourself, open a thread and I will walk you through it. It has been enough of a diversion in this thread already.

Basically I didn't go to x and ask AI to do it.

You should link that grock answer if you like that methodology. We can go through it and look at the variables together. Let's just say, mistakes were made there.

Note that grock admits a 1% concentration as potentially minimum. I ran for time to 1%, 3% and 5% concentrations. I also didn't use weight, I used cubic feet per minute. I can work with grock's methodology though as it isn't too dissimilar from mine. Where is fails is with the variables. It has made a series of mistakes. Forgivable as it is a child.

Make another thread and present all you work, variables, assumptions etc

Also what is your confidence about gassings being impossible with this kind of engine? If your confidence is high it's definitely worth my time to go through it w you

Dude, I'm not going to write a book here, especially not while I have these other irons in the fire.

Basically the variables in your model are wrong. My methodology was to calculate the cfm, then to estimate the carbon monoxide concentration, then to estimate time to lethal concentration.

I ended up with basically a bathroom sized space at idle for a 15 minute window assuming an idle speed of 570rpm. I ended up with a livingroom or den sized room at redline assuming a redline of 1700rpm.

The engine redline for the aircraft variant was slightly higher at 2,200 rpm, so I ran that too, but, it doesn't change the values much.

Again, we can go over it if you make a thread. Also, I will reiterate that my methodology wasn't too dissimilar from your llm. My results were different because I used different variables that I vetted.

I'm not that interested tbh, if it's a serious assertion on your part you're should show your work


Here is the AI critique of your comments

No CO Production Rate: They don’t disclose their assumed CO output or exhaust CO percentage, key to calculating lethal volume.



Dismissal Without Specificity: Saying my variables are “wrong” without pointing to which ones (fuel consumption? exhaust volume? CO fraction?) weakens their critique.

[Stubble]

Make another thread and present all you work, variables, assumptions etc

Also what is your confidence about gassings being impossible with this kind of engine? If your confidence is high it's definitely worth my time to go through it w you

Dude, I'm not going to write a book here, especially not while I have these other irons in the fire.

Basically the variables in your model are wrong. My methodology was to calculate the cfm, then to estimate the carbon monoxide concentration, then to estimate time to lethal concentration.

I ended up with basically a bathroom sized space at idle for a 15 minute window assuming an idle speed of 570rpm. I ended up with a livingroom or den sized room at redline assuming a redline of 1700rpm.

The engine redline for the aircraft variant was slightly higher at 2,200 rpm, so I ran that too, but, it doesn't change the values much.

Again, we can go over it if you make a thread. Also, I will reiterate that my methodology wasn't too dissimilar from your llm. My results were different because I used different variables that I vetted.

I'm not that interested tbh, if it's a serious assertion on your part you're should show your work


Here is the AI critique of your comments

No CO Production Rate: They don’t disclose their assumed CO output or exhaust CO percentage, key to calculating lethal volume.



Dismissal Without Specificity: Saying my variables are “wrong” without pointing to which ones (fuel consumption? exhaust volume? CO fraction?) weakens their critique.

I'll write a technical paper on it at some point in the not distant future.

You can start with the 1,000ppm lethality garbage, but there are many more mistakes, like thinking the gas is expanded by 30% because it is super hot. Go stick your finger in your exhaust. If you think that's because of the catalytic converter and crap like that (which actually make the exhaust retain heat) try with a straight piped harley. By 4'-8' the exhaust gas is close enough to ambient as to ignore thermal expansion.

You are literally just wasting my time here anyway, because like you said, you aren't actually interested.

[bombsaway]

Dude, I'm not going to write a book here, especially not while I have these other irons in the fire.

Basically the variables in your model are wrong. My methodology was to calculate the cfm, then to estimate the carbon monoxide concentration, then to estimate time to lethal concentration.

I ended up with basically a bathroom sized space at idle for a 15 minute window assuming an idle speed of 570rpm. I ended up with a livingroom or den sized room at redline assuming a redline of 1700rpm.

The engine redline for the aircraft variant was slightly higher at 2,200 rpm, so I ran that too, but, it doesn't change the values much.

Again, we can go over it if you make a thread. Also, I will reiterate that my methodology wasn't too dissimilar from your llm. My results were different because I used different variables that I vetted.

I'm not that interested tbh, if it's a serious assertion on your part you're should show your work


Here is the AI critique of your comments

No CO Production Rate: They don’t disclose their assumed CO output or exhaust CO percentage, key to calculating lethal volume.



Dismissal Without Specificity: Saying my variables are “wrong” without pointing to which ones (fuel consumption? exhaust volume? CO fraction?) weakens their critique.

I'll write a technical paper on it at some point in the not distant future.

You can start with the 1,000ppm lethality garbage, but there are many more mistakes, like thinking the gas is expanded by 30% because it is super hot. Go stick your finger in your exhaust. If you think that's because of the catalytic converter and crap like that (which actually make the exhaust retain heat) try with a straight piped harley. By 4'-8' the exhaust gas is close enough to ambient as to ignore thermal expansion.

You are literally just wasting my time here anyway, because like you said, you aren't actually interested.

These discussions don't interest me especially, but I'm willing to do it as an exercise

AI is responding to your points

Addressing the Rebuttal
1,000 ppm Lethality “Garbage”: Fair point—1,000 ppm isn’t instantly lethal in 10 minutes; it’s hazardous (headache, nausea) but takes hours to kill. For rapid lethality, 10,000 ppm (1%) causes unconsciousness in 10–15 minutes, and 50,000 ppm (5%) is fatal in minutes. I’ll use 10,000 ppm as a practical threshold for “lethal within 10 minutes,” aligning with severe danger in a short window.

Thermal Expansion Overestimate: You’re right—assuming a 3x volume increase from 20°C to 600°C ignores rapid cooling. Exhaust exits hot (600°C), but by 4–8 feet, it’s closer to ambient (20–50°C) due to mixing with air, especially without a catalytic converter (which retains heat). For a straight-piped engine like the M-17, I’ll assume no significant thermal expansion beyond the intake air volume (1x), adjusting only slightly for combustion effects if needed.

Other Mistakes: You hint at more errors but don’t specify. I’ll assume fuel consumption, AFR, or CO percentage might be off and test them against realistic bounds.



Final Answer
CO Produced in 10 Minutes:
Idle: 6.64 m³.

Full Power: 25.73 m³.

Largest Lethal Space (10,000 ppm):
Idle: 664 cubic meters.

Full Power: 2,573 cubic meters.

Continue feeding it information. It's revising down estimates but is still easily within range.https://x.com/i/grok/share/6u92H44Q2qGlcgybSz7A1HjsC

[Stubble]

One of the problems here is that your ai is spitballing, as admitted. It calculated volume without even considering rpm range.

It didn't vet the horsepower rating (600).

It is using the wrong engine type anyway, an M-17, not an M-17t. The t variant is slightly different in power output, construction (reinforced crankcase etc. The list goes on.

Then there is air fuel, it wants me to provide numbers, but it molests it's own estimates anyhow. Look, at 8.7:1 idle will be lumpy, it won't start without ether and it will foul plugs quickly, but it will run. That's as rich as you can get. That won't give you 7% co by volume. I don't have time to explain why. I feel no need to hold groks hand on this. I used 10.5:1 and I also used 8.7:1. Neither changed outcome much.

Your ai has no clue what it is doing and it is grasping at straws and providing you with ridiculous numbers. I am not going to go set up an x account and clean up its mess.

I'll just publish a technical paper on it. You can try to rebut that I guess, but, it won't be impeachable.

/shrug

I'm not going to tie myself up for hours explaining to you why you are still wrong.

So far as giving you the co production rates, don't spitball them, get them. Good lord. This thing just assumes I'm making stuff up.

[bombsaway]

One of the problems here is that your ai is spitballing, as admitted. It calculated volume without even considering rpm range.

It didn't vet the horsepower rating (600).

It is using the wrong engine type anyway, an M-17, not an M-17t. The t variant is slightly different in power output, construction (reinforced crankcase etc. The list goes on.

Then there is air fuel, it wants me to provide numbers, but it molests it's own estimates anyhow. Look, at 8.7:1 idle will be lumpy, it won't start without ether and it will foul plugs quickly, but it will run. That's as rich as you can get. That won't give you 7% co by volume. I don't have time to explain why. I feel no need to hold groks hand on this. I used 10.5:1 and I also used 8.7:1. Neither changed outcome much.

Your ai has no clue what it is doing and it is grasping at straws and providing you with ridiculous numbers. I am not going to go set up an x account and clean up its mess.

I'll just publish a technical paper on it. You can try to rebut that I guess, but, it won't be impeachable.

/shrug

I'm not going to tie myself up for hours explaining to you why you are still wrong.

So far as giving you the co production rates, don't spitball them, get them. Good lord. This thing just assumes I'm making stuff up.

You haven't presented your findings, you just say they're unimpeachable. I'll believe.it when I see it