Challenge for Believers

[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.

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

I unironically have. My findings were that in 15 minutes I could get at least a 1% concentration in your average bathroom at idle and at least a 1% concentration in your average livingroom or den. I also ran time for 3% and 5% concentrations.

What you want is for me to transcribe my data here. Look, I didn't scribble this on the back of a napkin, I've been working on it for about a month man.

I also find it hard to believe grock STILL hasn't thought to look at displacement and calculate cfm...

Fine, I'll give you the cfm...

- Engine: M-17T
- Type: V-12 liquid-cooled
- Displacement: 46.92 liters
- Fuel Type: Gasoline (Petrol)
- Idle Speed: 570 RPM
- Redline: 1,700 RPM
- Air Flow at Idle (CFM): Approximately 475 CFM
- Air Flow at Redline (CFM): Approximately 1525 CFM

(At 1atm at 40°f at sea level)

[Nessie]

.....

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.

The "as described" part is important. The confusion is yours, as you are clearly confused as to how your argument is logically and evidentially flawed, which is why you repeatedly use that argument. Just because people describe how something worked in a way that you cannot work out how it was possible, does not therefore mean they all lied and that something did not happen. Your opinion on possibility has no evidential value. You would not accept an opinion that the gas chambers could have worked as described, as evidence they existed. So, an opinion they could not have worked as described is not evidence they did not exist.

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.

Please explain how people describing how something worked, that you can, in your opinion, demonstrate cannot have worked, is evidence to prove they all lied and that something did not happen.

You appear to be under the opinion that if someone saw something and then, years later, they are asked to describe how it worked, if they are being truthful, they will give an accurate description, but if they are lying they will give an inaccurate description. Memory fades, people make mistakes, they estimate and get it wrong, they miss out details. Those are proven issues with recall, that explain why they describe what they saw in ways that make what they saw appear too incredible to be possible. That is especially the case, when they describe something that is pretty incredible, such as mass gassings and cremations. But, no matter how unsatisfied you are with their descriptions, your opinion is not evidence to prove they all lied.

To prove there were no homicidal gassings inside the Kremas, you need evidence that something else took place. Revisionists understand that, as they do try to evidence something else happened. But then revisionism falls apart, as they come up with all sorts of different answers, which conflict with each other and the use of other buildings nearby. For example, mass showering. That might cover part of 1943, but when the nearby Sauna building with its showers was opened, what were the Kremas used for then? The air raid shelters hypothesis does not cover 1943, as the camp was not yet in range.

Fact is, there is a lot of evidence, from documents, witnesses, circumstances, motive and forensics to prove homicidal gassings and your opinion on witness descriptions does not a victory in any shape or form. Sorry to burst your bubble. Please learn more about logic and evidencing.

[Nazgul]

To prove there were no homicidal gassings inside the Kremas, you need evidence that something else took place.

Logical fallacy. You nor anyone else has provided sufficient proof of wrong doing as claimed. You rely on liars and what you think is circumstantial evidence of some sort. Very weak. I think in this case the whole world will be the jury, they are reaching conclusions now. Very few belief your version.

[Nessie]

To prove there were no homicidal gassings inside the Kremas, you need evidence that something else took place.

Logical fallacy.

Which one? You have just yet again shown your ignorance of evidencing. To prove something alleged did not happen, you prove what happened. To prove no gassings inside the Kremas, you find witnesses who speak to what did take place, or documents that clearly describe a process that did not involve gassing people and circumstantial evidence that contradicts gassings taking place.

You nor anyone else has provided sufficient proof of wrong doing as claimed.

In any other circumstance, the volume of evidence provided proves what happened. You just do not want to accept that gassings took place. If 100% of the witnesses spoke to the gas chambers inside the Kremas being used to delouse clothing, and documents recorded clothes being deloused and there was no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people disappearing inside the Kremas, you would correctly say there is sufficient evidence to prove delousing.

You rely on liars...

You have no evidence to prove everyone who worked there lied.

... and what you think is circumstantial evidence of some sort. Very weak. I think in this case the whole world will be the jury, they are reaching conclusions now. Very few belief your version.

The circumstantial evidence of selections, those not needed for work being sent to the Kremas, all their property being taken from the building, they did not leave, there were mass cremations and documents record the construction of undressing rooms, gas chambers and mass cremation ovens, is very strong.

[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

I unironically have. My findings were that in 15 minutes I could get at least a 1% concentration in your average bathroom at idle and at least a 1% concentration in your average livingroom or den. I also ran time for 3% and 5% concentrations.

What you want is for me to transcribe my data here. Look, I didn't scribble this on the back of a napkin, I've been working on it for about a month man.

I also find it hard to believe grock STILL hasn't thought to look at displacement and calculate cfm...

Fine, I'll give you the cfm...

- Engine: M-17T
- Type: V-12 liquid-cooled
- Displacement: 46.92 liters
- Fuel Type: Gasoline (Petrol)
- Idle Speed: 570 RPM
- Redline: 1,700 RPM
- Air Flow at Idle (CFM): Approximately 475 CFM
- Air Flow at Redline (CFM): Approximately 1525 CFM

(At 1atm at 40°f at sea level)

You're still not doing it. What's the co percentage coming out?

[Stubble]

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

I unironically have. My findings were that in 15 minutes I could get at least a 1% concentration in your average bathroom at idle and at least a 1% concentration in your average livingroom or den. I also ran time for 3% and 5% concentrations.

What you want is for me to transcribe my data here. Look, I didn't scribble this on the back of a napkin, I've been working on it for about a month man.

I also find it hard to believe grock STILL hasn't thought to look at displacement and calculate cfm...

Fine, I'll give you the cfm...

- Engine: M-17T
- Type: V-12 liquid-cooled
- Displacement: 46.92 liters
- Fuel Type: Gasoline (Petrol)
- Idle Speed: 570 RPM
- Redline: 1,700 RPM
- Air Flow at Idle (CFM): Approximately 475 CFM
- Air Flow at Redline (CFM): Approximately 1525 CFM

(At 1atm at 40°f at sea level)

You're still not doing it. What's the co percentage coming out?

Tell your ai to calculate it, not guess. Use your numbers.

Have you properly defined the engine yet?


Power: 368 kW at 1550-1650 rpm 493.5 bhp at 1550-1650 rpm...

Not 660 or whatever.

A source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/M-17T-ta ... el-t104346

[bombsaway]

What numbers are you using? This seems very important


For a historical engine like the M-17T, reaching CO levels of 6-8% of exhaust by volume would be entirely possible with aggressive carburetor adjustments. With extreme modifications and running conditions (very rich mixture, heavy load, restricted air), CO levels might even approach 10-12% of exhaust gas content.

These modifications would be relatively simple to implement on a carbureted engine like the M-17T, primarily involving carburetor adjustments and air intake restrictions. However, these changes would significantly reduce engine efficiency, increase fuel consumption, reduce power output at higher RPMs, and potentially cause carbon buildup and fouling of spark plugs.

For calculating exhaust CFM, one general approach for 4-cycle engines is to multiply the cubic inch displacement by the maximum RPM, divide by 3456, and then multiply by the volumetric efficiency (which ranges from 0.7-0.8 for carbureted engines, up to 2.0 with electronic fuel injection, and 0.9 for diesel engines).

For the exhaust CFM, we can make a rough calculation based on the engine specifications (46.92 liter displacement, operating at 1550-1650 RPM). Following the formula mentioned above and accounting for temperature expansion in the exhaust, this would result in a significant exhaust flow volume, likely several hundred CFM at minimum.

[Stubble]

Look, if I just give your ai the information, it doesn't arrive at it naturally. That's me contaminating the dataset.

So far as your co concentration guesses, that engine wouldn't run.

Calculate the cfm yourself, i gave you enough variables.

Calculate the co yourself. I ran 10.5:1 and 8.7:1 AFR's because those are reasonable. 10.5:1 would be fairly reliable. 8.7:1 is a maximum as it won't start without ether, but it will idle.

Your ai keeps forgetting to disregard thermal expansion because it is null by 4 to 8 feet.

You have to give your model a dataset, composed of values that at least approximate reality. You can't just grab numbers out of a hat...

[bombsaway]

Look, if I just give your ai the information, it doesn't arrive at it naturally. That's me contaminating the dataset.

So far as your co concentration guesses, that engine wouldn't run.

Calculate the cfm yourself, i gave you enough variables.

You have to give your model a dataset, composed of values that at least approximate reality. You can't just grab numbers out of a hat...

The CFM was calculated based on this which was sourced https://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/CFM.html

For calculating exhaust CFM, one general approach for 4-cycle engines is to multiply the cubic inch displacement by the maximum RPM, divide by 3456, and then multiply by the volumetric efficiency (which ranges from 0.7-0.8 for carbureted engines, up to 2.0 with electronic fuel injection, and 0.9 for diesel engines).

Why would that engine not run at 7%? No offense you're just making blanket statements w no justification

[bombsaway]

Re expansion

You're absolutely right, and that's an important consideration for practical applications. If the exhaust gases are being funneled through a long pipe into a room, the thermal effects would change significantly:

### Cooling Effects in Extended Exhaust Systems

When exhaust gases travel through a long pipe:

1. **Heat Transfer**: The hot gases rapidly transfer heat to the pipe walls through convection and conduction.

2. **Temperature Gradient**: The gas temperature decreases exponentially with distance from the engine.

3. **Volume Contraction**: As the gases cool, they contract according to the ideal gas law.

### Practical CFM at Room Temperature

If we assume the gases cool to near room temperature (let's say 80°F/27°C) by the time they enter the room:

1. **Final Volume Ratio**: The gases would contract back to a volume closer to the original intake volume (with a slight increase due to combustion products).

2. **Actual Flow Rate**: The CFM measured at the room entry point would be significantly lower than at the engine exhaust ports.

3. **Pressure Considerations**: The system would still need to handle the initial high-temperature, high-volume flow at the engine exhaust ports to avoid backpressure issues.

### CO Concentration Remains Unchanged

The key point for your question is that while volume changes with temperature, the concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) as a percentage of the exhaust gases remains essentially unchanged. Whether the exhaust is hot or has cooled to room temperature, a 6-8% CO concentration would remain 6-8% of the total gas mixture.

This means that if you're concerned with CO output in a confined space, the concentration is the critical factor, not the temperature-dependent volume. A high CO engine like a modified M-17T would still deliver that high CO percentage to the room, regardless of cooling in the delivery pipe.

[Stubble]

This isn't an over square flat plane, it is a low rpm under square.

The combustion cycle will have to be modeled. You obviously haven't done that.

It's a tractor, not an indie car....

Good lord.

Are you starting to see why this should have been it's own thread? Can you understand why I didn't write you a 300 page paper in 1 post yet?

You have to define the variables. There are LOTS of them. You can't just make general assumptions.

The part where it thinks the room is the combustion chamber and will need to be reinforced to deal with the exhaust expansion is mildly hilarious.

[bombsaway]

This isn't an over square flat plane, it is a low rpm under square.

The combustion cycle will have to be modeled. You obviously haven't done that.

It's a tractor, not an indie car....

Good lord.

Are you starting to see why this should have been it's own thread? Can you understand why I didn't write you a 300 page paper in 1 post yet?

You have to define the variables. There are LOTS of them. You can't just make general assumptions.

The part where it thinks the room is the combustion chamber and will need to be reinforced to deal with the exhaust expansion is mildly hilarious.

Did you define all the variables? And you're just not showing me for inexplicable reason? Let the llm see and be influenced by your work, that's fine

If it takes 300 pages, until.you do that your theory is unverifiable

[Stubble]

Look, if I just give your ai the information, it doesn't arrive at it naturally. That's me contaminating the dataset.

So far as your co concentration guesses, that engine wouldn't run.

Calculate the cfm yourself, i gave you enough variables.

You have to give your model a dataset, composed of values that at least approximate reality. You can't just grab numbers out of a hat...

The CFM was calculated based on this which was sourced https://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/CFM.html

For calculating exhaust CFM, one general approach for 4-cycle engines is to multiply the cubic inch displacement by the maximum RPM, divide by 3456, and then multiply by the volumetric efficiency (which ranges from 0.7-0.8 for carbureted engines, up to 2.0 with electronic fuel injection, and 0.9 for diesel engines).

Why would that engine not run at 7%? No offense you're just making blanket statements w no justification

The reasons are many. Basically because the mixture is too rich and you will get things like preignition, stalling etc.

8.7:1 is as rich as you can get without damaging the engine and for it to actually run, like to actually idle.

[bombsaway]

Look, if I just give your ai the information, it doesn't arrive at it naturally. That's me contaminating the dataset.

So far as your co concentration guesses, that engine wouldn't run.

Calculate the cfm yourself, i gave you enough variables.

You have to give your model a dataset, composed of values that at least approximate reality. You can't just grab numbers out of a hat...

The CFM was calculated based on this which was sourced https://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/CFM.html

For calculating exhaust CFM, one general approach for 4-cycle engines is to multiply the cubic inch displacement by the maximum RPM, divide by 3456, and then multiply by the volumetric efficiency (which ranges from 0.7-0.8 for carbureted engines, up to 2.0 with electronic fuel injection, and 0.9 for diesel engines).

Why would that engine not run at 7%? No offense you're just making blanket statements w no justification

The reasons are many. Basically because the mixture is too rich and you will get things like preignition, stalling etc.

8.7:1 is as rich as you can get without damaging the engine and for it to actually run, like to actually idle.

The rebuttal has some technical merit but is overstating the limitations, especially when considering older engines like the M-17T. Let me address this point by point:

### Air-Fuel Ratio and Engine Operation

1. **Air-Fuel Ratio Limits**: Modern engines typically operate at stoichiometric ratio (14.7:1) for optimal efficiency. The 8.7:1 ratio mentioned would indeed be very rich for a modern engine.

2. **Historical Context**: However, older carbureted engines, especially those from the 1930s like the M-17T, were routinely designed to run richer than modern engines. These engines lacked electronic controls and were often set rich to prevent overheating and detonation.

3. **Design Differences**: The M-17T has several features that allow it to operate with very rich mixtures:
- Larger combustion chambers with lower compression (6:1) compared to modern engines
- Simpler intake design with less precise mixture control
- More robust materials designed to handle the heat of aviation applications
- Greater cylinder-to-cylinder variation in mixture distribution

### Preignition and Other Issues

Preignition is actually more commonly associated with lean mixtures or high compression, not extremely rich mixtures. Rich mixtures tend to have a cooling effect because of the excess fuel absorbing heat during vaporization.

The real issues with extremely rich mixtures include:

1. **Fouling**: Spark plug fouling from carbon deposits
2. **Reduced Power**: At some point, too much fuel displaces too much air
3. **Fuel Washdown**: Cylinder wall lubrication issues from excess fuel
4. **Inconsistent Combustion**: Misfires and rough running

### Real-World Evidence

Historical engines did run with extremely rich mixtures in certain applications:

1. **Military Applications**: Aircraft engines during WWII were often run rich during combat power settings
2. **Racing Engines**: Vintage racing engines often ran extremely rich mixtures for cooling effects
3. **Cold Weather Operation**: Cold starting required extremely rich mixtures

### Practical Reality

The M-17T could likely operate at a much richer mixture than modern engines without immediately stalling or suffering catastrophic damage. However, it would:

1. Be extremely inefficient
2. Run rough with reduced power
3. Produce heavy black smoke from unburned fuel
4. Experience rapid carbon buildup

An 8.7:1 air-fuel ratio is not necessarily the absolute limit for all engines, especially vintage designs. The M-17T, with its aircraft engine heritage, larger displacement, and robust design could likely tolerate richer mixtures for short periods than many other engines.

While 6-8% CO output would require an extremely rich mixture that would compromise performance, it's not beyond the physical capability of this type of engine to run in such a condition, especially if modifications were made specifically to allow it to operate in this state.

[Stubble]

This isn't an over square flat plane, it is a low rpm under square.

The combustion cycle will have to be modeled. You obviously haven't done that.

It's a tractor, not an indie car....

Good lord.

Are you starting to see why this should have been it's own thread? Can you understand why I didn't write you a 300 page paper in 1 post yet?

You have to define the variables. There are LOTS of them. You can't just make general assumptions.

The part where it thinks the room is the combustion chamber and will need to be reinforced to deal with the exhaust expansion is mildly hilarious.

Did you define all the variables? And you're just not showing me for inexplicable reason? Let the llm see and be influenced by your work, that's fine

If it takes 300 pages, until.you do that your theory is unverifiable

Dude, you are the one using ai for this, like I said, I can walk you through it, but, it really needs it's own thread.

Yes, I have defined the variables. No, I am not going to contaminate your dataset. I will lead you to water, but I won't give you my canteen.

The thing about this is that facts are facts. I understand you can put garbage in to your ai and get garbage out. That's because you obviously aren't actually trying to model the situation.

Look at your last post. It's not an attempt at truth, it is an attempt at refutation, and it's wrong.

You and your ai obviously don't know anything about working with a carbureted engine. I can get 170hp out of 1L with 4 CV carbs and set the valve lash to within one half of a human hairs breadth to ideal.

/shrug