The CODOH Revisionist Forum

We should handle the German estimates the same way the diesel gassing claims were handled. Some knew better than others. Kurt Pruefer's 9/8/42 letter:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... witz/topf/

is from a Topf engineer who would know better. He claims a 35 min/muffle/corpse throughput time for the existing double-muffle ovens at Auschwitz main camp and estimates a 27 min/muffle/corpse throughput time for the new triple-muffle ovens to be installed at Birkenau. As Hans speculated, he might have misstated the double-4 throughput as 800 each when it was more likely 400 each.

I think Pruefer was aware of the oven stuffing procedure being done at Auschwitz main camp at this time of 9/8/42. At this time the double-muffle estimates would have been known empirically and the triple-muffle estimates would have been based on a version of their prior triple-muffle oven design tweaked to better utilize the same procedure as was being done at the existing ovens.

Let's now consider the oven stuffing physics.

Assume the double-muffle ovens at Auschwitz main camp were built for one-at-a-time cremations but were stuffed with more than one corpse to achieve that 35 minute average. Further assume that if they were not stuffed with multiple corpses that the time for full incineration of one corpse would be about 60 minutes.

Here are the operating instructions for the Topf double-muffle ovens:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0136.shtml

They are essentially the same as for the Topf triple-muffle ovens.

In the single corpse case, the dynamic is thus:

1. Corpse is inserted into the muffle and rapid evaporative cooling through the corpse's surface area occurs in the muffle.
2. The temperature drops from 800C to (800 - deltaT1)C.
3. Main combustion occurs at time t_MC (time to Main Combustion).
4. Temperature increases from (800 - deltaT1) to (800 - deltaT1 + deltaT2) - which is greater than 800.
5. The rest of the corpse fully incinerates in something of a steady-state situation w.r.t. muffle temperature after 60 minutes.

Now let's consider the case of staggered cremations.

1 through 4 is identical. At step 5 you add another corpse which begins its step 1. The temperature at the time of this addition starts out greater than 800. It is the (800 - deltaT1 + deltaT2). deltaT1 is the temperature drop from the evaporative cooling and deltaT2 is the temperature increase from the main combustion. The second corpse shares its initial cremation with the ending of the first corpse's cremation. The operating instructions above claim that the remaining parts of the first corpse fully incinerate in the ash chamber while the second corpse is above in about 20 minutes. Since a single corpse would fully incinerate in about 60 minutes, t_MC is above 40 minutes since the remaining parts after t_MC incinerate more slowly than they otherwise would have.

If the average t_MC is about 40 minutes, then the average incineration of many corpses in this way will approach this 40 minutes. So this procedure would yield an average cremation rate for those ovens of a bit above 40 minutes. Let's just call it 45 minutes.

Now let's consider the case of multiple corpse at a time incineration.

2 corpses are initially inserted into the muffle - one atop the other. The direct-flame is directed more toward the one corpse than the other and so that one is evaporating faster of the 2 - but the corpse atop it is absorbing the first corpse's evaporation while evaporating itself. The 1st corpse will therefore go through main combustion first - at a time larger than the above t_MC - and the second corpse will go through its main combustion a bit later.

It is unclear what these times will be. But per Pruefer's 35 minute average - likely empirically derived - the 40 minute average above is too high. So we can assume that this 2-corpse system goes through both of its 2 main combustions in under 80 minutes. Probably something like 70 minutes. Hence a 35 minute average.

If the new ovens were tweaked to apply direct-flame incineration to both corpses than one could achieve even better averages than this. Pruefer estimated 27 minutes.

I am currently inclined to think that the 15-minute average estimates are simply mistakes. The average would be more like 27-35 minutes.

Mattogno's conclusions are flawed.

During the pandemic, I saw Chinese people complaining that their modern crematoriums, which almost talk to you, were not able to cope, and that was because they were not carrying hundreds at a time but only dozens per week, and that a bottleneck had been created in cremations.

Technology has been regressing since 1945, it seems.

blake121666 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 3:19 pm You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that the incineration times of the corpses overlap - not that there is significantly more heat involved in the process. I have told you that all along and a gazillion times. Do you understand that?

The entwined system needs to be handled and there is no simple relation of per corpse external heat requirement. The corpses interact with each other. The per corpse external heat relation is statistical - not physical.

What you do not seem to follow is that the incineration times cannot substantially overlap. This makes zero sense, whatsoever. The key metric is energy over time, with total energy being the main concern.

Please read this again:

Mattogno demonstrates that:

• There is a 35,600 kcal UHV (incl. all combustibles) for lean corpses (TCFOA, Part 1, Unit 2, Section 10.2). This is the extent to which a prior corpse could be used as fuel for the subsequent one.
• There is a 206,100 kcal energy requirement for cremating a lean 40kg corpse (p. 369). This is how much total energy the subsequent corpse requires to be cremated.

Thus, even with perfect heat efficiency of the combustion of your prior corpse in heating the subsequent one, you still can only account for a mere [35,600 / 206,100 =] 17.3% reduction in heat energy needed to cremate the latter corpse. Of course, to suggest even 80% heat efficiency in this regard is absurd, given sub-optimal arrangement, problems with timing, and the many other factors and types of losses Mattogno discusses in detail (in other words, only a fraction of the 35,600 UHV kcal released from the prior corpse could be utilized in the cremation of the subsequent one). At best, you might suggest some 40% efficiency (thus, ~8% reduction in heat energy needed to cremate the latter corpse) assuming a highly-diligent and consistent process of multiple/simultaneous corpse cremation as you have laid out.

A lean corpse requires some 206,100 kcal of total energy to be fully cremated. This means, theoretically, it could be blasted with 20,610 kcal per minute over the course of ten minutes, or with 2,061 kcal per minute for 100 minutes, achieving the same result. The total must add up to 206,100 kcal, and only once this total is reached, has the corpse been cremated.

The upper heating value (UHV) of the combustible materials of a lean corpse (fats, proteins, etc.) amounts to 35,600 kcal. This is the upper maximum of how much energy a combusting corpse can impart upon another corpse added to the same muffle while this prior corpse is combusting. This means that if the heat efficiency insofar as the combusting corpse imparting heat onto the next (fresh) corpse is absolutely perfect, then the maximum impact upon cremation energy needed for the fresh corpse is just 17.3% (about ten minutes' worth of cremation in the Topf double-muffle furnace). But there is no way the heat efficiency of this combustion would be, in practice, even 70%, and is likely far less, perhaps 40% or less. What this means is that we have to take just some ~40% of the 35,600 kcal figure as potentially contributing to the subsequent corpse's cremation.

35,600 x 0.4 = 14,240 kcal

Dividing that figure by the total amount needed to cremate a lean corpse:

14,240 / 206,100 = 6.9%

This means we are looking at roughly a maximum, practical reduction in the total time (and energy) required to cremate the next corpse of just ~7%!

Given we have already shown (in the OP of this thread) that cremating any individual corpse requires one hour to cremate, here is the approximate reduction in time required, if we follow your one-after-another, overlapping approach:

60 x 0.93 = 55.8 minutes

Thus, it would lead to a total reduction of only about 4 minutes.

The amount of energy required to cremate the subsequent corpse does not change just because you add it in early. The combined energy of the furnace and any combusting corpse already within are still the key constraint, which is not impacted by the time in which you add the next corpse, except by potentially allowing the combustion of the prior one to directly impart its energy from combustion onto the next corpse, which results in a ~4 minute reduction in the overall time required for the next one. The effect is minimal, at best.

The Topf engineer Pruefer estimated 250 corpses per day for the 3 double-muffle ovens at Auschwitz main camp. And he would have been aware of what the ACTUAL empirically-determined throughput was at the time.

It truly does not matter how you handwave against empirically-derived results. The facts are the facts. 250 corpses per day in 6 muffles that each would take about an hour to fully incinerate only one corpse.

And there are a slew of other engineer estimates of all of the cremation ovens arriving at similar results.

It is simply quicker to overload the muffles than to not do that it appears.

That the operating instructions have one adding air to cool the muffle shows an inefficiency right there. Cooling down an environment whose heat you are utilizing is an inefficiency.

With the more or less steady inflow of fuel, the process is inefficient in that the combustion of the corpse overcompensates for the external energy that was added to dehydrate the corpse resulting in a raised temperature after that process.

Rather than cool the muffle, add another corpse!

Even though it isn't at all the same thing, you are acting as if dried wood underneath green wood would not help in burning that green wood! Kookoo!

Our cremation case isn't that simple to envision because it is more of a phased creation of "dried wood". Dehydrating phase followed by combustion phase and then more of a steady state.

The corpse is fuel - get a grip on that fact.

Human bodies are heat sinks, never combustible, the temperature will always drop in a furnace if more fuel is not introduced, even worse in an open-air pyre.

80% of an adult human is water, this includes proteins and fat, very combustible, the calorific value of these molecules would have a marginal effect on cremation.

Ask any AI this and you will see that this will be the answer. Unless you suggest Holocaust narratives to it, then it will distort science in favor of the paradigm.

blake121666, I've given the value extent to which a lean corpse can act as fuel (35,600 kcal, minus any inefficiency). I've given you the value which is required to be met to cremate a lean corpse (206,100 kcal). Nothing you have said negates this in any way, whatsoever. It doesn't matter if Pruefer or the Pope say otherwise. They were misinformed or misunderstood at least one of the constraints which are documented and calculated seamlessly by Mattogno based on known, original documentation and figures given.

You cannot increase the 35,600 figure (minus inefficiency) based on any of what you have said, nor can you decrease the 206,100 figure. None of what you have said has changed this.

I don't know what else to say. If you refuse to confront these figures directly and explain how your interpretation modifies these in any way, we are at an impasse, with you remaining obstinate and refusing to concede.

I should only add my best guess that Pruefer's estimates (and that of anyone suggesting less than one hour per corpse) is accounting for normal corpses, which would yield times much closer to ~30 minutes, if done as multiple/overlapping in the way being proposed by blake121666. However nobody would claim that corpses at Birkenau were anything other than "lean" (or even "extremely lean", in many cases), regardless of any 'extermination'. At most, some might have fallen within a "lean-to-average" range, but these would be the minority.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 11:55 pm I should only add my best guess that Pruefer's estimates (and that of anyone suggesting less than one hour per corpse) is accounting for normal corpses, which would yield times much closer to ~30 minutes, if done as multiple/overlapping in the way being proposed by blake121666. However nobody would claim that corpses at Birkenau were anything other than "lean" (or even "extremely lean", in many cases), regardless of any 'extermination'. At most, some might have fallen within a "lean-to-average" range, but these would be the minority.

Polish Jews, sure. I'm pretty sure Hungarian Jews were of regular body size and fat though.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 10:47 pm Human bodies are heat sinks, never combustible, the temperature will always drop in a furnace if more fuel is not introduced, even worse in an open-air pyre.

80% of an adult human is water, this includes proteins and fat, very combustible, the calorific value of these molecules would have a marginal effect on cremation.

Ask any AI this and you will see that this will be the answer. Unless you suggest Holocaust narratives to it, then it will distort science in favor of the paradigm.

LOL!!!

So cremation of "human bodies" is impossible, eh?

Great input TlsMS93!

Those Holocaust liars are claiming that you can cremate human bodies! What liars!

I've been perusing Zimmerman's "Body Disposal at Auschwitz and he mentions:

Kurt Prüfer, the Topf engineer who built the 46 Birkenau ovens, stated in a letter on November 15, 1942 that the ovens he installed in the Buchenwald concentration camp had a one third greater output than had previously been thought

His estimate for the Auschwitz triple-muffle ovens versus the double-muffle ovens is 1/3 greater per muffle.

800/15 = k * 250 /6 => k = 1.28 or approximately 1 and a third.

Zimmerman writes:

Unfortunately, he does not say what number the one third is greater than.

He does in the Auschwitz letter. 800/15 is 1/3 greater than 250/6.

blake121666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:19 am

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 10:47 pm Human bodies are heat sinks, never combustible, the temperature will always drop in a furnace if more fuel is not introduced, even worse in an open-air pyre.

80% of an adult human is water, this includes proteins and fat, very combustible, the calorific value of these molecules would have a marginal effect on cremation.

Ask any AI this and you will see that this will be the answer. Unless you suggest Holocaust narratives to it, then it will distort science in favor of the paradigm.

LOL!!!

So cremation of "human bodies" is impossible, eh?

Great input TlsMS93!

Those Holocaust liars are claiming that you can cremate human bodies! What liars!

It is so desperate to sustain nonsense that further comment is unnecessary.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:42 am

blake121666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:19 am

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 10:47 pm Human bodies are heat sinks, never combustible, the temperature will always drop in a furnace if more fuel is not introduced, even worse in an open-air pyre.

80% of an adult human is water, this includes proteins and fat, very combustible, the calorific value of these molecules would have a marginal effect on cremation.

Ask any AI this and you will see that this will be the answer. Unless you suggest Holocaust narratives to it, then it will distort science in favor of the paradigm.

LOL!!!

So cremation of "human bodies" is impossible, eh?

Great input TlsMS93!

Those Holocaust liars are claiming that you can cremate human bodies! What liars!

It is so desperate to sustain nonsense that further comment is unnecessary.

Do you think the German operating procedures describing corpse combustion are lies made up by others? Is that what you are saying? How about all of the other literature out there on this matter - predating the war by decades? Is that all made up after the fact of the hoax being perpetrated for the Holohoax?

If technical matters are just "nonsense" to you, forget about saying anything about Mattogno's writings and just believe whatever you want.