Challenge for Believers

[Stubble]

Are you familiar with fuel maps and why they exist?

At 10.5:1 at 40°f at sea level assuming I'm right about the thermal 'balance point' of the motor at this afr (I had to guess with the cooling system) this should be the co content.

There is enough oxygen to burn, the combustion time is sufficient etc.

Now, there are lots of variables. You asked me for the co content at that afr. I had specified the ambient and the elevation. You want the 8.7:1 now. I still have table building to do.

This takes time.

Your model won't even do it.

It will sure as hell defend your position though, that's for sure. It is also mildly retarded and makes some incredibly stupid statements from time to time. Of course, it's a baby, so, I should be too hard on it.

Now, with my background in HVAC-R I can tell you how much air weighs to the grain, and as a mechanic, I know quite a bit about the operation of internal combustion engines. Ultimately though, at some point, you are going to start getting into credentialism, I'm almost certain.

I'm not going to lay down my engineering degree on this alter yet, and it isn't actually specifically to Stoichiometry, so, you could ostensibly throw your hands over your head and scream 'I am the great cornholio' or whatever. That wouldn't really negate the facts though man.

Perhaps this will be like the horse, because the more I think about it, the less I think your side will listen and the more I think credentialism would become the focus.

/shrug

[bombsaway]

Are you familiar with fuel maps and why they exist?

At 10.5:1 at 40°f at sea level assuming I'm right about the thermal 'balance point' of the motor at this afr (I had to guess with the cooling system) this should be the co content.

There is enough oxygen to burn, the combustion time is sufficient etc.

Now, there are lots of variables. You asked me for the co content at that afr. I had specified the ambient and the elevation. You want the 8.7:1 now. I still have table building to do.

This takes time.

Your model won't even do it.

It will sure as hell defend your position though, that's for sure. It is also mildly retarded and makes some incredibly stupid statements from time to time. Of course, it's a baby, so, I should be too hard on it.

Now, with my background in HVAC-R I can tell you how much air weighs to the grain, and as a mechanic, I know quite a bit about the operation of internal combustion engines. Ultimately though, at some point, you are going to start getting into credentialism, I'm almost certain.

I'm not going to lay down my engineering degree on this alter yet, and it isn't actually specifically to Stoichiometry, so, you could ostensibly throw your hands over your head and scream 'I am the great cornholio' or whatever. That wouldn't really negate the facts though man.

Perhaps this will be like the horse, because the more I think about it, the less I think your side will listen and the more I think credentialism would become the focus.

/shrug

I would respect you more if you could answer questions directly like, what's a reasonable maximum CO output for this engine into the tube? Still 1.5% by volume? Or is that tube into room? It seems like a lot of dancing around. You're entitled to having fun of course, but it's pretty evasive.

Another question, do you have these figures? How did you come to them? If you're working them out only now, that's a huge methodological flaw because you confidently asserted these things in the past. You shouldn't have to do any work really.

[Stubble]

Are you familiar with fuel maps and why they exist?

At 10.5:1 at 40°f at sea level assuming I'm right about the thermal 'balance point' of the motor at this afr (I had to guess with the cooling system) this should be the co content.

There is enough oxygen to burn, the combustion time is sufficient etc.

Now, there are lots of variables. You asked me for the co content at that afr. I had specified the ambient and the elevation. You want the 8.7:1 now. I still have table building to do.

This takes time.

Your model won't even do it.

It will sure as hell defend your position though, that's for sure. It is also mildly retarded and makes some incredibly stupid statements from time to time. Of course, it's a baby, so, I should be too hard on it.

Now, with my background in HVAC-R I can tell you how much air weighs to the grain, and as a mechanic, I know quite a bit about the operation of internal combustion engines. Ultimately though, at some point, you are going to start getting into credentialism, I'm almost certain.

I'm not going to lay down my engineering degree on this alter yet, and it isn't actually specifically to Stoichiometry, so, you could ostensibly throw your hands over your head and scream 'I am the great cornholio' or whatever. That wouldn't really negate the facts though man.

Perhaps this will be like the horse, because the more I think about it, the less I think your side will listen and the more I think credentialism would become the focus.

/shrug

I would respect you more if you could answer questions directly like, what's a reasonable maximum CO output for this engine into the tube? Still 1.5% by volume? Or is that tube into room? It seems like a lot of dancing around. You're entitled to having fun of course, but it's pretty evasive.

Another question, do you have these figures? How did you come to them? If you're working them out only now, that's a huge methodological flaw because you confidently asserted these things in the past. You shouldn't have to do any work really.

I've been building on this for a month for fucks sake.

Dude, is the engine lethal for a bathroom sized space at idle and a livingroom sized space at redline at 1.5% co or not? You think I just grabbed that out of my fucking hat?

Look, the thing would be fucking lethal for a small room. Making it lethal for 10 small rooms is problematic.

I've also been pretty clear that I've got data, and that I need to collate it and put together a paper.

Reflecting on what happened with Fred, and our conversation here, I'm not thinking it would be worth the time or the effort to put it all together.

You are acting like I've done nothing because I'm not done...

Big gas chamber make a big problems there chief. Now, after I already mentioned the problems with backpressure and total effective length, you want to talk about the exhaust?

I had assumed an 8' straight pipe with laminar flow for expediency.

Again, I wanted to see if it could kill people in a room and how long it would take.

I've still got work to do to show why it would work for exterminating a warehouse full of people.

Needless to say, the scenario is fucking problematic.

At startup, cold, rich, it would produce more co. I didn't run the numbers for 102°f at 2,200ft cold or anything man.

It's a fucking variable.

(I shouldn't have fielded this until I was fucking done, maybe this is for the best though, because, just like Fred, literally manufacturing execution equipment, not having the credentials, that is something I have here, so, ultimately, regardless of the amount of work I put it, it doesn't matter. It's like an exercise in mental masturbation.)

[bombsaway]

Simple question if you can, yes or no, has nothing to do with showing work. Did you determine this, "what's a reasonable CO output for this engine into the tube in terms of volume? If they were trying to drive as much CO as possible"

[Stubble]

Simple question if you can, has nothing to do with showing work. Did you determine this, what's a reasonable CO output for this engine into the tube in terms of volume? If they were trying to drive as much CO as possible

What? Did I measure the co output in cubic feet? No, I measured it in percentage. I measured the air throughput in cubic feet per minute though, so, kinda I guess?

So far as 'the tube' I'm assuming you mean the exhaust pipe past the header?

No, I didn't do a kinematic model of the gasses interacting in the tube. Honestly I was under the impression I had done something just modeling the fucking chamber, but, that doesn't really matter, does it.

Simple question, you shouldn't need to run to ai to answer it, do you actually and honestly fucking think I'm talking out of the side of my fucking mouth here?

What, I just 'guessed' and it just happens to actually be like I said with my numbers, or what?

[bombsaway]

Simple question, you shouldn't need to run to ai to answer it, do you actually and honestly fucking think I'm talking out of the side of my fucking mouth here?

Well I'm not sure to be honest, you have been evasive when I've questioned you.

Yes, I meant percentage of the volume. The percentage you determined was 1.5%?

[Stubble]

Simple question, you shouldn't need to run to ai to answer it, do you actually and honestly fucking think I'm talking out of the side of my fucking mouth here?

Well I'm not sure to be honest, you have been evasive when I've questioned you.

Yes, I meant percentage of the volume. The percentage you determined was 1.5%?

1.5% at 40°f at sea level 1atm at 570rpm. Oddly, also at 1525, which is an anomaly. These things happen sometimes. I didn't 'buck' my numbers about it.

Dude, I haven't been evasive and if you have that impression, that's your prerogative, but it ain't right.

1 thing is, there's a lot of information to try to convey. What, I'm supposed to intuit which variables you want and assume you will look at them? You want 7% in the exhaust and 7,000ppm in the room damn it, no matter what. You aren't interested in o2 in the chamber, burn time or fuel. You could ask Avogadro about it, he will tell ya.



Another thing is, I wanted the ai to show you, partly because I'm admittedly biased. Grock was getting there. I knew you wouldn't take my word for it and I didn't want to corrupt your dataset. When it had the wrong performance data, I linked you to correction, I eventually just gave you the cfm since your model couldn't do it, then, ultimately I gave you the percentage for 10.5:1 that I calculated. You screamed about it and have been screaming about it ever since. If you don't like my numbers, don't use them, but, at least have your model use numbers for that engine. It is definitely possible for you to actually calculate things like, the cfm, I mean, was I wrong. It's also definitely possible to model the combustion cycle, you have the pertinent data. If you don't like my number, you do it. Please take some time to do it right though, and don't assume that I haven't because a daihatsu truck produces more carbon monoxide than this Maybach. That's not my fault.

Let me get this straight, I just said 'a bathroom and a livingroom' then, the cfm worked out to fit and so did my co %? Just, rolled out of bed and nailed that one.

I need to buy a fucking lottery ticket I guess.

[Nessie]

This is why I do not entertain revisionists in their, "I cannot work it out, therefore it cannot have happened" argument. It makes them think that argument is logically valid and they are making an evidential contribution

[bombsaway]

You want 7% in the exhaust and 7,000ppm in the room damn it, no matter what. You aren't interested in o2 in the chamber, burn time or fuel. You could ask Avogadro about it, he will tell ya.

I don't want anything. These are generous assumptions actually. 7000 causes death in 15 minutes and concentrations continue to rise after reaching 7k. People would be exposed to higher, maybe double that , 10 15 min later

Death due to co exposure happens even after removed from co. The witness testimony states some people being carried to the graves were still alive, though unconscious.

It's your assumption that it could only happen with 10k, 20k, 50k ppm? I think these are your biases.

As for the co output %, my best estimate based on empirical data would be that it would be over 10% . I went w 6 because I am again being generous.

So yes these are assumptions but they are favorable to your side if anything. And the numbers still check out, which makes me think the impossibility case isn't very strong.

But I'll wait for your book and in particular your exegesis about co output of 1.5, which just seems crazy to me right now

[Stubble]

You don't like my numbers, ok, no biggie. Let's assume they used a less efficient engine or that my model is bad.

You are at half an hour to death (for half the people in the room[le50]). You've got 15 minutes to concentration, then you've got 15 minutes for le50 (assuming the table for 7,000ppm is correct). That fits with a testimony, so, that's reasonable, right.

Now, I didn't have to worry with gas distribution because I assumed a 6" pipe jammed in the wall and packed with mud. Gas goes in, dead people go out.

You've got 10 rooms that are independent from one another. How do you get even gas distribution? What size is your pipe, what size is your hole in the pipe? How much back pressure do you have? What is your flow rate out of the penetrations in the exhaust?

This doesn't need to be worked out of course, this is a demonstration of the problems here with your warehouse of death. (I haven't been able to build a model that works because of the limited available cfm)

This list of problems can get very long very fast, you know?

1 small room? No problem, people get blasted in face with engine exhaust, they expire.

10 rooms? Many considerations must be made.

Of note, remember, the first thing we did was assume a leaky room, because if it is hermetically sealed, this won't work anyway.

[bombsaway]

I don't know, you're an HVAC guy. In the 40s how hard was it to heat buildings through pipes leading into separate rooms, using valves to control pressure?

The hermetically sealed thing is blatantly contradicted since an exhaust pipe leading into the system no? And the rooms were also ventilated according to witnesses. I chalk this up to figurative language. Likely the doors were sealed to prevent gasses from getting into the hallways

[Stubble]

I don't know, you're an HVAC guy. In the 40s how hard was it to heat buildings through pipes leading into separate rooms, using valves to control pressure?

The hermetically sealed thing is blatantly contradicted since an exhaust pipe leading into the system no? And the rooms were also ventilated according to witnesses. I chalk this up to figurative language. Likely the doors were sealed to prevent gasses from getting into the hallways

Most people used a wood or coal burner and heated a room. Fireplaces for comfort, that kind of shit. HVAC-R was a rather fledgling thing.

That's an aside though, the guy that built the thing, he was a bus driver and cremation guy. What, he just, too a guess and nailed it, right out of the box?

Ultimately the cfm available isn't sufficient for the spaces.

Go ahead, divide the cfm available by 10, then look at your rooms and your concentration.

Or don't.

[bombsaway]

I don't know, you're an HVAC guy. In the 40s how hard was it to heat buildings through pipes leading into separate rooms, using valves to control pressure?

The hermetically sealed thing is blatantly contradicted since an exhaust pipe leading into the system no? And the rooms were also ventilated according to witnesses. I chalk this up to figurative language. Likely the doors were sealed to prevent gasses from getting into the hallways

Most people used a wood or coal burner and heated a room. Fireplaces for comfort, that kind of shit. HVAC-R was a rather fledgling thing.

That's an aside though, the guy that built the thing, he was a bus driver and cremation guy. What, he just, too a guess and nailed it, right out of the box?

Ultimately the cfm available isn't sufficient for the spaces.

Go ahead, divide the cfm available by 10, then look at your rooms and your concentration.

Or don't.

Is your claim that the technology for distributing heat through pipes to multiple rooms was not a well-established engineering practice in the early 1940s in Germany?

The concentration shouldn't change. Airflow will be less into each room. Assuming no leakage and flow issues that would be 100 - 150 CFM for a room of around 1200 cubic feet. Based on the empirical data I would expect 10% of that to be CO, possibly more. So this is your baseline, now you can start reducing.

1 CFM of co entering the room should start killing within 10 minutes.

This is not really my case to make, it's your assertion that it is impossible. Nothing about the numbers shouts impossible to me so far.

The guy in charge of construction, Thomalla, was a civil engineer and head of SS Central Building Administration at Lublin. You're seeing what you want to see, grasping for details to confirm the story you want to believe in. Even Hackenholt, who I think you are talking about, had a background in construction and engineering, was a skilled mechanic.

[Stubble]

But I'll wait for your book and in particular your exegesis about co output of 1.5, which just seems crazy to me right now

I think I've found part of the issue here where you think I'm crazy because I'm saying 1.5%.

Ask your model to count the moles of oxygen in a cubic foot of air at 59°f and then to count the moles of oxygen in a cubic foot of air at 40°f and to give you the difference expressed as a percent.

I went to take a piss earlier and while I was reliving myself, it occurred to me that you were going on and on about how 'it's a ratio' and how 'there isn't enough oxygen'.

This led me to mapping out the co content as a percent at standard, and well, I think you can guess the rest.

For the record, I've got a little crazy in my, but it ain't so much to make me stupid.

[bombsaway]

But I'll wait for your book and in particular your exegesis about co output of 1.5, which just seems crazy to me right now

I think I've found part of the issue here where you think I'm crazy because I'm saying 1.5%.

Ask your model to count the moles of oxygen in a cubic foot of air at 59°f and then to count the moles of oxygen in a cubic foot of air at 40°f and to give you the difference expressed as a percent.

I went to take a piss earlier and while I was reliving myself, it occurred to me that you were going on and on about how 'it's a ratio' and how 'there isn't enough oxygen'.

This led me to mapping out the co content as a percent at standard, and well, I think you can guess the rest.

For the record, I've got a little crazy in my, but it ain't so much to make me stupid.

I wasn't sure about this post so I asked the AI what your argument was

In his final post, Stubble is trying to explain why he calculated a CO output of 1.5% while bombsaway expects it to be much higher (6-10%).
Stubble's argument appears to be:

1. When he calculated CO output, he was using air at 40°F, which has more oxygen per cubic foot than air at 59°F (standard temperature).

2 .He's suggesting bombsaway is thinking in terms of ratios ("it's a ratio" and "there isn't enough oxygen"), while he's focusing on the absolute amount of oxygen available in colder air.

3. He's implying that his 1.5% figure might appear low to bombsaway because bombsaway is using standard temperature calculations (59°F), while Stubble's calculations are at 40°F.

Is this correct?