The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 10:01 amThe engineers, being engineers, worked on ways to increase capacity, so that the ovens could cope.

What such modifications were made subsequent to these March 1943 tests which would have allowed the ovens to "cope" with a load greater than the one testified to by Pruefer to have been too much?

blake121666 wrote:If you read Mattogno/Deana The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz, you can get a very good handle on the cremation oven situation not just at Auschwitz but more generally.

OK but Mattogno seems to say the throughput is 1 hour (pp. 311-314) though?

Also there's this article:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... -birkenau/

Here Mattogno says in his conclusion in section 6.6 that the method of pushing the corpse to the back in the post-combustion chamber after 30-35 minutes works with a certain kind of oven that Auschwitz didn't have.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 10:59 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 10:01 amThe engineers, being engineers, worked on ways to increase capacity, so that the ovens could cope.

What such modifications were made subsequent to these March 1943 tests which would have allowed the ovens to "cope" with a load greater than the one testified to by Pruefer to have been too much?

Topf & Sons first suggested more ovens to cope with the cremations;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"Letter from Kurt Prüfer of 8 September 1942 on "the number of muffles [37 with a capacity of 1850 corpses per day] is not yet sufficient; we should deliver more ovens as quick as possible"

They then improved the design;

"Patent draft from Fritz Sanders of 26 October 1942 on “continuously operating corpse cremation oven for mass use”"

They introduced larger ovens;

"Letter from Karl Bischoff to Rudolf Höß of 12 February 1943 on the “sixth crematorium…an open incineration chamber with the dimension 48.75 x 3.76 m”

Sander stated about the ovens;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

"My idea in constructing the crematorium for the mass incineration of corpses consisted in the bodies getting into the oven uninterruptedly. The number of corpses that can be burned in one hour is much higher in the crematorium I developed than that which was burned in a [conventional] crematorium oven."

That tallies with the document about continuous corpse cremation. Sander goes on to describe how the new oven type worked;

"The working principle of the new type for mass incineration of corpses, which I developed, amounted to introducing the corpses for incineration in the oven in a mechanized way, contrary to the old procedure, the corpses being taken there by the load of their own weight, though sliding on a fire-proof surface with an inclination of forty degrees; the corpses would fall on the grid and burn under the effect of the fire. In this the corpses themselves would be used as additional fuel."

By constantly sliding corpses into the top part of the oven, with no coffin to burn and the corpse then falling through the grid to continue to burn below, as more corpses are being slid in above, the capacity is increased. The Sonderkommando Tauber described the same process as the engineer Sander, but they put even more corpses in at the same time as the engineers had anticipated.

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:36 am

blake121666 wrote:If you read Mattogno/Deana The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz, you can get a very good handle on the cremation oven situation not just at Auschwitz but more generally.

OK but Mattogno seems to say the throughput is 1 hour (pp. 311-314) though?

Also there's this article:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... -birkenau/

Here Mattogno says in his conclusion in section 6.6 that the method of pushing the corpse to the back in the post-combustion chamber after 30-35 minutes works with a certain kind of oven that Auschwitz didn't have.

I haven't looked at your linked doc yet but will respond to the 1 hour thing.

Mattogno thinks the cremation rate is one hour - not the throughput. It is actually longer than that in this procedure.

Here is what I mean by average throughput and average cremation rate. Say that you have 11 corpses which need to be cremated. You throw in the first corpse and it goes through its main combustion in 20 minutes. You then throw a second in and you have that second one starting its cremation together with the first one finishing up its cremation. After, say, 25 minutes that second corpse has its main combustion. Then you throw a third corpse in there. ...etc.

If you average 30 minutes with the insertion of corpses, then it took you 300 minutes altogether to insert 11 corpses into the muffle. And the situation at the end is that it'd take, say, 80 minutes until that last bit is fully incinerated. So you incinerated 11 corpses in 380 minutes. Your average cremation rate was therefore (380 minutes / 11) = 35 minutes - which is approximately the insertion rate. But if you consider each of the corpses which were cremated, their cremations are staggered at overlapping rates. The end of the first corpse cremation occurs sometime during the second's cremation. ...etc.

If you did not stagger the cremations with this procedure, you would have to insert a second corpse only after the first one had fully cremated. It would take about one hour for that to happen. Your average cremation rate would be one hour and the 11 corpses would take 11 hours to cremate.

In the staggered cremations, the average cremation rate (the average of the times it took each particular corpse to fully cremate) would be larger than 1 hour - probably something like 1 hour 15 minutes in this case.

In this case, the average throughput is 30 minutes, the average cremation rate would be something like 1 hour fifteen minutes, and the average cremation rate for the 11 corpses (seen as a whole) would be 35 minutes.

The larger the total number of corpses, the closer the average number of corpses cremated approaches the average insertion rate (throughput).

If the procedure were to insert multiple corpses at a time, then the insertion times would be much longer. But the average throughput (insertion time / number inserted) could probably be lower.

People mistakenly use heuristic language which confuses people into believing the corpse insertion rate identically equals the cremation rate. It doesn't because corpses are inserted before the prior are fully incinerated. But over the full procedure, the average throughput would equal the average cremation rate for the ensemble seen as a whole.

The procedure could more be looked at as freeing space in the oven for overlapping cremations - not fully incinerating corpses at the insertion rate.

Viewed as single corpses, this procedure has a larger "average cremation rate". But viewed as an ensemble, the "average cremation rate" equals the average throughput (time of insertions / number inserted). It is a mistake to look at this average cremation rate as saying that corpses are burning faster - they are, in fact, burning slower.

EDIT: And w.r.t. interpretations of Tauber: keep in mind that it is the throughput that matters - not how many corpses you can fit into the muffle at one time.

Edit #2: I stupidly claimed 40 minutes at the end when on considering what I wrote, it would be something like 80 minutes. I wasn't taking into account the entire incineration of the last corpse.

The engineers also referred to the fact that each oven had 3 muffles. The oven finishes its operation in about an hour, you divide that hour by 3, about 20 minutes per body.

Doesn't add hours to the day, doesn't shorten the cycle time from around an hour. But if you are calculating throughput you can use this number.

I outlined this earlier someplace, it may even be in this thread.

You raise a valid point though Blake, they weren't keeping the cremains separate and so, after the initial cremation phase was over, they most certainly could have inserted another corpse for cremation.

I believe I've read some statements to that effect.

I only just now read Nessie's post. He is referring to a theoretical oven which was never made. It has nothing in any way whatsoever to do with the ovens which were made as far as anyone knows. Birkenau's ovens could very well have been tweaked in some way or other but they most certainly were not the oven Nessie is referring to.

I have played around with the idea that Birkenau's ovens could have had more gas channels to direct-flame incinerate larger regions within the oven. If the region occupied by corpses is larger due to those muffles being stuffed with multiple corpses, it seems reasonable to array the direct-flames over a larger region than is done for a single corpse.

But if something such as this were done for Birkenau, I would think it would have been done for ALL subsequent ovens everywhere. If one can half the time for Birkenau, half it everywhere, right?

I still haven't gotten around to finishing the linked Mattogno article. I'll give my opinion on what I think of it after finishing reading it. I've always been quite impressed with the level of research Mattogno has put into this issue. My response will NOT be the weirdo ad hominem you see against "deniers".

EDIT: I've read up to section 5.2 and am just going to skip around to find more pertinent info. I've read this thing before and I've read his very large book. If I don't address something someone feels is important, just bring it up. I'm only interested in the question of cremation capacity: what would have been the throughput of the cremations in practice.

Well I finally arrived at section 6. Mattogno is confusing the throughput with the incineration capacity as I have already gone over for you. The throughput is based on the procedure that is used to attain such throughput more than it is on how fast a corpse will fully incinerate. I don't know what else to say about that? Mattogno simply misunderstands what those times are referring to and is taking a heuristic too literally.

It confuses people because throughput is ALWAYS heuristically referred to as if it is the incineration rate by people who misunderstand this heuristic. It should be seen as an average over many corpses per the procedure used though. People misunderstand what that "average" is!

And I'm done with it. Mattogno is confused in the way I just told you. It is as simple as that.

EDIT: I went back to see his conclusion. He writes:

In the Topf double-muffle oven of Gusen, the theoretical minimal duration of 40 min. ...

He is ridiculously confused there. The MAXIMUM corpse insertion was 40 minutes - not any "minimum duration". He's just confused with what he is referring to. He needs to seriously readjust his thinking in terms of THROUGHPUT - not the way he is thinking there.

EDIT 2: And reading through those conclusions, do I need to respond more than I have already? Mattogno is strangely confused about what he is referring to. Surely anyone can just see that for himself without my explaining it further? He is overly concerned with incineration rate and misunderstands the data he refers to - which is based on throughputs and not incineration rates. Heat energy is required to evaporate fluids from corpses but the combustibles in the corpses themselves supply a significant amount of that heat energy. He needs to consider the entire process as a whole - not just the piecemeal figuring he is doing there. The degree to which we care about those pieces is that we don't, really. We care more about the end result averages. And that is what he is looking at - and conflating that with his piecemeal mis-analysis.

Regardless of what I said above, the Mattogno/Deana book has a heck of alot of good references and general info in it and should be read. It's a bit of a hassle to wade through the thing though! I had forgotten just how much of a bear it is! If he goes back over it with the correct interpretations of the data he treats in it, he could remove all the impertinent stuff and have quite a good explication of the German WW2 cremation situation. Most of what's there should be in appendices though, really.

blake121666 wrote:The MAXIMUM corpse insertion was 40 minutes - not any "minimum duration". He's just confused with what he is referring to. He needs to seriously readjust his thinking in terms of THROUGHPUT - not the way he is thinking there.

Why do you think speaking of a minimum duration doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me. Because of the way it was structured, the Auschwitz oven lasted longer before the corpse went into the combustion chamber. If you think there is no minimum, do you think it could have gone in after 1 minute, thereby having a 1 minute cremation? This makes me distrust your whole analysis.

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:05 pm

blake121666 wrote:The MAXIMUM corpse insertion was 40 minutes - not any "minimum duration". He's just confused with what he is referring to. He needs to seriously readjust his thinking in terms of THROUGHPUT - not the way he is thinking there.

Why do you think speaking of a minimum duration doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me. Because of the way it was structured, the Auschwitz oven lasted longer before the corpse went into the combustion chamber. If you think there is no minimum, do you think it could have gone in after 1 minute, thereby having a 1 minute cremation? This makes me distrust your whole analysis.

He is referring to the Gusen tally sheet there. The corpse insertion intervals (throughput) were no greater than 40 minutes in that tally sheet. I can't understand what you are referring to? Why did you mention Auschwitz? The time intervals of single-corpse insertions at Gusen was less than 40 minutes. Do you understand that? There is no "minimum duration" in such concept there. He is confused. We are looking at throughput data there - not any incineration rate.

You might be bringing up yet another issue that Mattogno has misunderstood. The main reason for firebrick failure is from thermodynamic fatigue from cool-downs. Firebrick would last forever if kept at break-in temperature - bar any other things happening to break it. People seem to think of those failures backwards. You DO NOT want the oven to go cold, in general. Such is what creates the failures in those ovens. People quite stupidly think the ovens SHOULD be cooled down as some sort of maintenance. Quite the opposite. Very high temperature machinery is best kept within temperatures that it is meant to "break in" at. Steel blast furnaces are NEVER EVER cooled down. Doing so would unfixably break them.

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:13 pm You might be bringing up yet another issue that Mattogno has misunderstood. The main reason for firebrick failure is from thermodynamic fatigue from cool-downs. Firebrick would last forever if kept at break-in temperature - bar any other things happening to break it. People seem to think of those failures backwards. You DO NOT want the oven to go cold, in general. Such is what creates the failures in those ovens. People quite stupidly think the ovens SHOULD be cooled down as some sort of maintenance. Quite the opposite. Very high temperature machinery is best kept within temperatures that it "breaks in" at. Steel blast furnaces are NEVER EVER cooled down. Doing so would break them.

???

The high-temperature environment causes microstructural changes to the binders within the materials, leading to a loss of surface or internal strength. If the refractory material carries a compressive load, such as bricks, or castable linings, this can lead to local, or widespread failure.

If the refractory is subject to flame impingement, which is common in many radiant wall applications, the useful life will be shorter.

https://integratedglobal.com/5-common-c ... -fix-them/

OK sure whatever.

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:40 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:13 pm You might be bringing up yet another issue that Mattogno has misunderstood. The main reason for firebrick failure is from thermodynamic fatigue from cool-downs. Firebrick would last forever if kept at break-in temperature - bar any other things happening to break it. People seem to think of those failures backwards. You DO NOT want the oven to go cold, in general. Such is what creates the failures in those ovens. People quite stupidly think the ovens SHOULD be cooled down as some sort of maintenance. Quite the opposite. Very high temperature machinery is best kept within temperatures that it "breaks in" at. Steel blast furnaces are NEVER EVER cooled down. Doing so would break them.

???

The high-temperature environment causes microstructural changes to the binders within the materials, leading to a loss of surface or internal strength. If the refractory material carries a compressive load, such as bricks, or castable linings, this can lead to local, or widespread failure.

If the refractory is subject to flame impingement, which is common in many radiant wall applications, the useful life will be shorter.

https://integratedglobal.com/5-common-c ... -fix-them/

OK sure whatever.

Bullet number 4 in your link was what I referred to: Thermal expansion/ spalling

Other things can of course damage it though. I did not claim otherwise. My point was that very wide temperature fluctuations are bad - not good. Bullet number 4 in your link says just that.

No one should think that cooling down the oven is good for the oven. The opposite is the case. Such was my point. The materials "break-in".

I edited that post you replied to, btw, while you were replying to it. Maybe I wasn't as clear in it before. I don't recall the exact change I made.

My main point to all is: think in terms of throughput and don't confuse yourself with incineration rates. The data you are looking at is throughput data.

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:47 pm Bullet number 4 in your link was what I referred to: Thermal expansion/ spalling

Other things can of course damage it though. I did not claim otherwise. My point was that very wide temperature fluctuations are bad - not good. Bullet number 4 in your link says just that.

No one should think that cooling down the oven is good for the oven. The opposite is the case. Such was my point. The materials "break-in".

If there is refractory is exposed to intense heat 24/7 vs refractory that is exposed to changing temperatures a few times a day, it seems to me that mathematically the former is way worse.

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:11 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:47 pm Bullet number 4 in your link was what I referred to: Thermal expansion/ spalling

Other things can of course damage it though. I did not claim otherwise. My point was that very wide temperature fluctuations are bad - not good. Bullet number 4 in your link says just that.

No one should think that cooling down the oven is good for the oven. The opposite is the case. Such was my point. The materials "break-in".

If there is refractory is exposed to intense heat 24/7 vs refractory that is exposed to changing temperatures a few times a day, it seems to me that mathematically the former is way worse.

A material is typically built to work within its temperature range. Hence the term "break-in temperature". Going above or below that range can be bad.