Challenge for Believers

[bombsaway]

So maybe 4% is a reasonable maximum for your theory to be tenable?

I'll calculate how long it would take to reach 7,000 ppm (0.7%) CO concentration in a 350 cubic meter space with an engine producing 4% CO in its exhaust.
Step 1: Convert volume units
350 cubic meters = 12,360 cubic feet
Step 2: Calculate CO output from the engine with 4% CO

Each cubic foot of exhaust contains 0.04 cubic feet of CO
If the engine produces 1,525 CFM at redline:

CO production rate = 1,525 CFM × 0.04 = 61.0 cubic feet of CO per minute



Step 3: Calculate required CO volume for target concentration

Required CO volume = 12,360 × 0.007 = 86.52 cubic feet of CO

Step 4: Calculate time to reach target concentration
Assuming perfect gas mixing and no leakage:
CopyTime (minutes) = Required CO volume ÷ CO production rate
Time = 86.52 ÷ 61.0 = 1.42 minutes (approximately 85 seconds)
Step 5: Account for real-world factors

Gas mixing inefficiency (mixing coefficient of 0.4):

Adjusted time = 1.42 ÷ 0.4 = 3.55 minutes


Air leakage (10% leakage rate):

Adjusted time = 3.55 × 1.1 = 3.91 minutes


Engine efficiency variations (at 75% of redline):

CO production rate = 61.0 × 0.75 = 45.75 cubic feet/minute
Adjusted time = 86.52 ÷ 45.75 × 1.1 ÷ 0.4 = 5.21 minutes



Mathematical conclusion
With 4% CO concentration in the exhaust, it would take approximately 4-5 minutes to reach the target 7,000 ppm lethal concentration in the 350 cubic meter space, accounting for real-world factors.
This timing falls between the results we calculated for 1.5% CO (10-14 minutes) and 5.1% CO (3-4 minutes), which is mathematically consistent since 4% is between 1.5% and 5.1%.
At 7,000 ppm (0.7%) CO concentration, victims would experience:

Severe headache, dizziness, and nausea within 1-2 minutes
Confusion and collapse within 5-10 minutes
Death within 10-20 minutes of continuous exposure

These calculations demonstrate that an engine producing 4% CO would create lethal conditions within the 20-minute window specified in your earlier question.

[Stubble]

Ask it for 1%, 3% and 5% times...

7k isn't your target, it's a mess and lots of kicking and screaming.

[bombsaway]

Ask it for 1%, 3% and 5% times...

7k isn't your target, it's a mess and lots of kicking and screaming.

It's a mess sure but it's fatal in 10-15 https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/car ... sywja5P5S0

7k is impossible for this hypothetical event you don't believe in?

[Stubble]

Ask it for 1%, 3% and 5% times...

7k isn't your target, it's a mess and lots of kicking and screaming.

It's a mess sure but it's fatal in 10-15 https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/car ... sywja5P5S0

7k is impossible for this hypothetical event you don't believe in?

Nobody describes cleaning up the vomit, or the piss, or the shit. You've got some description of that with homicidal gas vans though. What witnesses described is more consistent with much higher levels. 3%ish, although, you want to get there rapidly and you'll probably be at 5% before you shut off the motor.

We are assuming the 15 minute cycle time? Or the 30? Or the 10?

I digress.

I'm going to go close my eyes while time passes. I didn't get much vetting done on t4 and gas van stuff.

[bombsaway]

Ask it for 1%, 3% and 5% times...

7k isn't your target, it's a mess and lots of kicking and screaming.

It's a mess sure but it's fatal in 10-15 https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/car ... sywja5P5S0

7k is impossible for this hypothetical event you don't believe in?

Nobody describes cleaning up the vomit, or the piss, or the shit.

Assuming it's not described that means it didn't happen? I can't follow you on this logic, you have to go further than this. It might be true in some cases, but that's just a particular detail that YOU are placing importance on. Subjectivity

[Stubble]

It's a mess sure but it's fatal in 10-15 https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/car ... sywja5P5S0

7k is impossible for this hypothetical event you don't believe in?

Nobody describes cleaning up the vomit, or the piss, or the shit.

Assuming it's not described that means it didn't happen? I can't follow you on this logic, you have to go further than this. It might be true in some cases, but that's just a particular detail that YOU are placing importance on. Subjectivity

If it didn't happen as described, it means it didn't happen as described. That says something about the quality of the witnesses testimony don't it. One would think the would need to, corroborate the testimony with, something. Ground disturbances, human remains, ash, you know, evidence, like with the Kola study.

Then, things would have to be determined, like, scale of the events.

/shrug

Look, if it takes you 15 minutes to get to 7,000ppm, and then you have an le 50 of 15 minutes, you've got half an hour for your cycle time, minimum. You've got 1 guy, but, he is the only one describing trying to make a motor running super rich start, and it takes the longest. Then there is the whole 2 hours in a hermetically sealed room, but, we've already moved way past that little detail, and I didn't even bat an eye, and neither did you.

[bombsaway]

Nobody describes cleaning up the vomit, or the piss, or the shit.

Assuming it's not described that means it didn't happen? I can't follow you on this logic, you have to go further than this. It might be true in some cases, but that's just a particular detail that YOU are placing importance on. Subjectivity

If it didn't happen as described, it means it didn't happen as described. That says something about the quality of the witnesses testimony don't it. One would think the would need to, corroborate the testimony with, something. Ground disturbances, human remains, ash, you know, evidence, like with the Kola study.

Then, things would have to be determined, like, scale of the events.

/shrug

Look, if it takes you 15 minutes to get to 7,000ppm, and then you have an le 50 of 15 minutes, you've got half an hour for your cycle time, minimum. You've got 1 guy, but, he is the only one describing trying to make a motor running super rich start, and it takes the longest. Then there is the whole 2 hours in a hermetically sealed room, but, we've already moved way past that little detail, and I didn't even bat an eye, and neither did you.

I don't follow the logic, why they necessarily would have to testify to this detail, and if they didn't it couldn't have happened. You've used this logic before, which I find deeply suspect

Basically my stance is [things could have happened]--> that witnesses didn't mention

Given the relative brevity of witness testimony here, you would expect there to be a lot of details that weren't discussed.

[Stubble]

Because the testimony doesn't comport with reality.

Look, when you have piss, shit and vomit, and you have to clean it up, you mention it. It was mentioned with the gas vans.

Are your telling me that we have much 'better' testimony with that?

If you ascribe to the narrative than the narrative should comport with reality.

We haven't discussed how the exhaust was piped, the tel for the cfm, anything like that, all we have looked at is just 'can the engine produce this gas in a high enough amount to do this thing'. It can produce enough carbon monoxide to kill people confined in a bathroom sized space or in a livingroom sized space, and porting the exhaust into the room isn't a huge issue either.

You aren't content with that, you want a big gas chamber. You want 7% co by volume. You will get that 7% regardless of engine speed, exhaust length, afr, anything.

I already said it was possible something happened, because I can't prove nothing happened. I don't think anything happened, but, that doesn't actually matter, it is what I can prove.

Now, the first concession that was made is that the room wasn't hermetically sealed, because, well, that's fucking impossible. Then based off of volume of witness testimony, I assumed an engine that was rich but that would reliably start and run, and I assumed events that would comport with testimony (rapidly unconscious, dead in 10-15 minutes). To do that, I shrank the space.

That engine has massive cylinders, they hold a lot of oxygen, more than fuel even with the rich mixture. They are also moving relatively slow because they are heavy. This gives you a long combustion time. That rich mixture doesn't yield gobs of co. The engine will just go ahead and cook it off. That put me at 1.5% with a reliable mix after I modeled it.

You aren't happy with my model, so, you are going to go look at data from sports cars and from passenger cars. You do you.

In the mean time, I am going to collate my data and I'm going to write a paper.

I don't know why you can't follow the logic. Honestly, I don't really care if you can. It should be as obvious as the fingers on your hand. I'm not concealing anything from you.

You might say I'm concealing the CO content at 8.7:1 afr, but I'm not, I've given you enough variables, I'm just not giving it to you. You wouldn't like it any way, trust me.

I assume that when the narrative was getting penned, they picked a Soviet engine because if they had picked a German one, people would have assumed it would be efficient. Just so happens, the engine everyone has settled on is German. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

[bombsaway]

Because the testimony doesn't comport with reality.

Look, when you have piss, shit and vomit, and you have to clean it up, you mention it. It was mentioned with the gas vans.

Are your telling me that we have much 'better' testimony with that?

If you ascribe to the narrative than the narrative should comport with reality.

This is another irrelevant side quest. I suppose the no vomit thing in testimony is proof that Reinhardt gassings are a lie? It's obvious that CO poisoning is going to cause vomiting even at high ppm. Also the chamber still takes time to get to that high of a concentration.

Is this as far as we go? I don't think it's a strong argument. I suspect that there weren't too many witnesses whose primary job was taking out bodies, whereas this exists with gas vans. Only way for us to know is w a more thorough exegesis and comparison of testimony.

Im going with 6% for the raw co output. Then more than half is lost to inefficiency. We have death in 10-15 minutes and remember co levels continue to rise. 5 minutes after 7000 is reached, we are probably above 10k

[Nessie]

It is a fact that you will die in an enclosed space, which does not even need to gas tight, if engine exhaust fumes cause the CO to rise to fatal levels.

It does not matter that you cannot work out how it would have worked from witness descriptions of the engine and gas chambers, your opinion has no evidential value.

[Nazgul]

It is a fact that you will die in an enclosed space, which does not even need to gas tight, if engine exhaust fumes cause the CO to rise to fatal levels.

It does not matter that you cannot work out how it would have worked from witness descriptions of the engine and gas chambers, your opinion has no evidential value.

Witnesses: all spies, tortured people and liars. That is all you have, that is all you ever had and yet the snake oil gets peddled day after day. 10 years ago at RODOH that is all you ever had, and years later nothing is added to the pool. The record is stuck on repeat.

[Nessie]

It is a fact that you will die in an enclosed space, which does not even need to gas tight, if engine exhaust fumes cause the CO to rise to fatal levels.

It does not matter that you cannot work out how it would have worked from witness descriptions of the engine and gas chambers, your opinion has no evidential value.

Witnesses: all spies, tortured people and liars. That is all you have, that is all you ever had and yet the snake oil gets peddled day after day. 10 years ago at RODOH that is all you ever had, and years later nothing is added to the pool. The record is stuck on repeat.

You are stuck on repeat, never acknowledging your logical and evidential flaws. To me, it is obvious that claiming all the witnesses lied, because of the ways they described gassings, therefore there were no gas chambers, is a logically flawed argument. To me, it is obvious that the way you declare all the witnesses to be liars, is not evidentially valid. Ten years, and you still don't understand and you are stuck on repeat.

[HansHill]

You are stuck on repeat, never acknowledging your logical and evidential flaws. To me, it is obvious that claiming all the witnesses lied, because of the ways they described gassings, therefore there were no gas chambers, is a logically flawed argument. To me, it is obvious that the way you declare all the witnesses to be liars, is not evidentially valid. Ten years, and you still don't understand and you are stuck on repeat.

Its not flawed, because it's supported by the physical record of evidence, and our understanding of the physical properties of HcN.

"The witnesses are lying" is the only good faith assessment of their behaviour that is consistent with the physical evidence.

[Nessie]

You are stuck on repeat, never acknowledging your logical and evidential flaws. To me, it is obvious that claiming all the witnesses lied, because of the ways they described gassings, therefore there were no gas chambers, is a logically flawed argument. To me, it is obvious that the way you declare all the witnesses to be liars, is not evidentially valid. Ten years, and you still don't understand and you are stuck on repeat.

Its not flawed, because it's supported by the physical record of evidence, and our understanding of the physical properties of HcN.

It is your reliance on your "understanding" that is the flaw. Just because you cannot understand how it was possible, does not therefore mean it did not happen. No matter how well supported your understanding is, the evidence is that mass gassings took place inside the Kremas. Logically, when your understanding of what is possible, is contradicted by the evidence of what happened, then your understanding is wrong.

"The witnesses are lying" is the only good faith assessment of their behaviour that is consistent with the physical evidence.

The revisionist argument is that there is insufficient HCN residue for there to have been gassings. That does not stop many revisionists arguing that the Kremas were used as delousing chambers! Revisionist understanding is contradictory! There are chemists who have expressed and evidenced their understanding, that gassings are consistent with the lower levels of detected HCN. They are supported by the evidence of gassings. The argument you use is the equivalent to the chemists arguing that detected levels of HCN are consistent with mass gassings, therefore mass gassings happened, with no evidence of mass gassings having taken place.

[Stubble]

Im going with 6% for the raw co output. Then more than half is lost to inefficiency. We have death in 10-15 minutes and remember co levels continue to rise. 5 minutes after 7000 is reached, we are probably above 10k

Uh, what? I don't think you understand the problem.

How long is your exhaust pipe, does it have any bends in it, do you have any static pressure?

How do you insure even distribution of the exhaust across the chambers?

These are the kinds of problems you are running in to with your insistence on your big gas chamber.

So far as you 6% goes, since you are just going to pick, why not round up to 10%, or just use 7%. Your ai loves 7%. If you are just going to grab a number out of thin air, you can grab whatever you want, why not 100%?