Challenge for Believers

[bombsaway]

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%?

Blatant falsehood from you, it's not a number out of thin air, it comes from a scientific paper

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6820#p6820

It's actually higher than 6. I don't think you have any idea what the output would be at the lambda you said was feasible. Or you haven't given your justification.

It doesn't seem like you're reading my posts carefully because of this response and also other things like the AI accounting for uneven distribution, air leakage, engine variations.

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

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6827#p6827

And the chamber still reaches that concentration in 5 minutes. If it took twice or even three times as long, the story is still feasible IMO.

Lastly, do your remember it's not one big space, but 10 35 cubic meter rooms?

[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%?

Blatant falsehood from you, it's not a number out of thin air, it comes from a scientific paper

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6820#p6820

It's actually higher than 6. I don't think you have any idea what the output would be at the lambda you said was feasible. Or you haven't given your justification.

It doesn't seem like you're reading my posts carefully because of this response and also other things like the AI accounting for uneven distribution, air leakage, engine variations.

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

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6827#p6827

And the chamber still reaches that concentration in 5 minutes. If it took twice or even three times as long, the story is still feasible IMO.

Lastly, do your remember it's not one big space, but 10 35 cubic meter rooms?

I'm well aware, you are extremely dismissive. You don't understand the issue and you refuse to understand how much oxygen and fuel are in the combustion chamber and how long they have to oxidize. That's not the issue at hand though.

What size is the pipe, how many holes are in it, how does that effect back pressure, how do you insure even distribution, how much volume are you moving through your exhaust holes and how does that effect your static pressure.

Basically, how do you gas everybody at the same rate and not have the engine stall.

[bombsaway]

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%?

Blatant falsehood from you, it's not a number out of thin air, it comes from a scientific paper

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6820#p6820

It's actually higher than 6. I don't think you have any idea what the output would be at the lambda you said was feasible. Or you haven't given your justification.

It doesn't seem like you're reading my posts carefully because of this response and also other things like the AI accounting for uneven distribution, air leakage, engine variations.

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

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6827#p6827

And the chamber still reaches that concentration in 5 minutes. If it took twice or even three times as long, the story is still feasible IMO.

Lastly, do your remember it's not one big space, but 10 35 cubic meter rooms?

I'm well aware, you are extremely dismissive. You don't understand the issue and you refuse to understand how much oxygen and fuel are in the chamber and how long they have to oxidize. That's not the issue at hand though.

What size is the pipe, how many holes are in it, how does that effect back pressure, how do you insure even distribution, how much volume are you moving through your exhaust holes and how does that effect your static pressure.

Basically, how do you gas everybody at the same rate and not have the engine stall.

I don't have to go through all of this, you're the one who is making the assertion, it would be impossible for them to do it with this engine.

You have a lot of automotive expertise, but you've made glaring mistakes here, like assuming 1.5% CO output as an upper bound coming out of the engine, which upon review is simply laughable. You also say lambda of .8 is a lowerbound, but I've seen people run modern engines at .6 lambda

https://www.sr20-forum.com/tuning/16056 ... lcome.html

I don't know what the lower bound is but I'm skeptical about what you're telling me. If you say engines made 90 years ago would fail or produce less CO then you have to justify that. When you accuse me of pulling out of thin air, that's exactly what you're doing when you make your confident pronouncement, IMPOSSIBLE to kill people with this method. Where there is uncertainty for me, I'm not going to assume things either way. You might be right about all of this, keyword *might*.

[Stubble]

Blatant falsehood from you, it's not a number out of thin air, it comes from a scientific paper

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6820#p6820

It's actually higher than 6. I don't think you have any idea what the output would be at the lambda you said was feasible. Or you haven't given your justification.

It doesn't seem like you're reading my posts carefully because of this response and also other things like the AI accounting for uneven distribution, air leakage, engine variations.



https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6827#p6827

And the chamber still reaches that concentration in 5 minutes. If it took twice or even three times as long, the story is still feasible IMO.

Lastly, do your remember it's not one big space, but 10 35 cubic meter rooms?

I'm well aware, you are extremely dismissive. You don't understand the issue and you refuse to understand how much oxygen and fuel are in the chamber and how long they have to oxidize. That's not the issue at hand though.

What size is the pipe, how many holes are in it, how does that effect back pressure, how do you insure even distribution, how much volume are you moving through your exhaust holes and how does that effect your static pressure.

Basically, how do you gas everybody at the same rate and not have the engine stall.

I don't have to go through all of this, you're the one who is making the assertion, it would be impossible for them to do it with this engine.

You have a lot of automotive expertise, but you've made glaring mistakes here, like assuming 1.5% CO output as an upper bound coming out of the engine, which upon review is simply laughable. You also say lambda of .8 is a lowerbound, but I've seen people run modern engines at .6 lambda

https://www.sr20-forum.com/tuning/16056 ... lcome.html

I don't know what the lower bound is but I'm skeptical about what you're telling me. If you say engines made 90 years ago would fail or produce less CO then you have to justify that. When you accuse me of pulling out of thin air, that's exactly what you're doing when you make your confident pronouncement, IMPOSSIBLE to kill people with this method. Where there is uncertainty for me, I'm not going to assume things either way. You might be right about all of this, keyword *might*.

Denso, Bosch, Delphi etc, they have done incredible things with injection and timing, the amount of control these systems have to recognize and correct for knock, to use a map etc, it's amazing.

We are talking about a carbureted v12 designed in the 20's and built in the 40's.

You have to appreciate that what is possible now wasn't possible then and isn't possible on startup or with a cold engine.

You can't take the carburetor out and re jet while the engine is running. This is a limitation of carburetors.

Then there is this engine. Look, it's a big slow bear and it will pop gas because it has time.

[HansHill]

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 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.

The eyewitnesses are all liars until somebody from your side can account for and explain how an iron-rich environment can be exposed to thousands of hours of HcN exposure, and not form Prussian Blue. Go back and read the Dr Green / Rudolf exchanges to see all of Dr Green's arguments rebutted by Rudolf.

[Nessie]

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 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.

The eyewitnesses are all liars until somebody from your side can account for and explain how an iron-rich environment can be exposed to thousands of hours of HcN exposure, and not form Prussian Blue. Go back and read the Dr Green / Rudolf exchanges to see all of Dr Green's arguments rebutted by Rudolf.

It is the other way around, Green rebuts Rudolf. That is the case, because Green is backed by the evidence of what happened at the Kremas, and Rudolf is not. That evidence of use, proves Green is correct. Green and Markiewicz are able to explain the science behind the gassing process. You just cannot bring yourself to accept that both the evidence and the science is opposite to what you want it to be.

Rudolf cannot even evidence what the Kremas were used for, hence there are revisionists who disagree with him and claim the Leichenkellers were used as delousing chambers. Indeed, when it comes to investigating the use of the Kremas 1943-4, revisionists, likely due to their ignorance and inexperience, fall apart into competing, contradictory hypothesis that also fail chronologically. The Leichenkellers were mass showers, delousing, corpse storing bomb shelters

Revisionists are as bad at science as they are at history and logic.

[bombsaway]

I'm well aware, you are extremely dismissive. You don't understand the issue and you refuse to understand how much oxygen and fuel are in the chamber and how long they have to oxidize. That's not the issue at hand though.

What size is the pipe, how many holes are in it, how does that effect back pressure, how do you insure even distribution, how much volume are you moving through your exhaust holes and how does that effect your static pressure.

Basically, how do you gas everybody at the same rate and not have the engine stall.

I don't have to go through all of this, you're the one who is making the assertion, it would be impossible for them to do it with this engine.

You have a lot of automotive expertise, but you've made glaring mistakes here, like assuming 1.5% CO output as an upper bound coming out of the engine, which upon review is simply laughable. You also say lambda of .8 is a lowerbound, but I've seen people run modern engines at .6 lambda

https://www.sr20-forum.com/tuning/16056 ... lcome.html

I don't know what the lower bound is but I'm skeptical about what you're telling me. If you say engines made 90 years ago would fail or produce less CO then you have to justify that. When you accuse me of pulling out of thin air, that's exactly what you're doing when you make your confident pronouncement, IMPOSSIBLE to kill people with this method. Where there is uncertainty for me, I'm not going to assume things either way. You might be right about all of this, keyword *might*.

Denso, Bosch, Delphi etc, they have done incredible things with injection and timing, the amount of control these systems have to recognize and correct for knock, to use a map etc, it's amazing.

We are talking about a carbureted v12 designed in the 20's and built in the 40's.

You have to appreciate that what is possible now wasn't possible then and isn't possible on startup or with a cold engine.

You can't take the carburetor out and re jet while the engine is running. This is a limitation of carburetors.

Then there is this engine. Look, it's a big slow bear and it will pop gas because it has time.

You're making assertions out of thin air, and appealing to your own expertise on the subject. Yet you made an obvious error w regards to the CO output as 1.5% , so there's no reason for me to trust, aside from the other questionable things I've seen from you (like all hard revisionists I think you're operating with an extremely high level of bias and motivated reasoning about this subject)

Here's what the AI pointed out about older designs compared to new ones, like the SR20 which was from around 2000

However, carbureted engines, particularly older designs like the M-17T, actually have some advantages when running extremely rich mixtures:

Simpler fuel delivery systems with fewer electronic safeguards to prevent excessive richness

Lower compression ratios (6:1 for the M-17T vs. 8-10:1 for modern engines) that can tolerate richer mixtures with less risk of detonation

Larger displacement per cylinder (3.91L per cylinder in the M-17T) providing more thermal mass and stability during combustion

Military design priorities that emphasized reliability in extreme conditions over fuel efficiency or emissions

Multi-Cylinder Advantage. With 12 cylinders, even if some cylinders misfire occasionally due to excessive richness, the engine can continue running. The probability of all cylinders simultaneously misfiring is extremely low. If we assume each cylinder has a 10% chance of misfire at very rich mixtures, the probability of complete engine failure is 0.10^12, which is effectively zero.

[Stubble]

I don't have to go through all of this, you're the one who is making the assertion, it would be impossible for them to do it with this engine.

You have a lot of automotive expertise, but you've made glaring mistakes here, like assuming 1.5% CO output as an upper bound coming out of the engine, which upon review is simply laughable. You also say lambda of .8 is a lowerbound, but I've seen people run modern engines at .6 lambda

https://www.sr20-forum.com/tuning/16056 ... lcome.html

I don't know what the lower bound is but I'm skeptical about what you're telling me. If you say engines made 90 years ago would fail or produce less CO then you have to justify that. When you accuse me of pulling out of thin air, that's exactly what you're doing when you make your confident pronouncement, IMPOSSIBLE to kill people with this method. Where there is uncertainty for me, I'm not going to assume things either way. You might be right about all of this, keyword *might*.

Denso, Bosch, Delphi etc, they have done incredible things with injection and timing, the amount of control these systems have to recognize and correct for knock, to use a map etc, it's amazing.

We are talking about a carbureted v12 designed in the 20's and built in the 40's.

You have to appreciate that what is possible now wasn't possible then and isn't possible on startup or with a cold engine.

You can't take the carburetor out and re jet while the engine is running. This is a limitation of carburetors.

Then there is this engine. Look, it's a big slow bear and it will pop gas because it has time.

You're making assertions out of thin air, and appealing to your own expertise on the subject. Yet you made an obvious error w regards to the CO output as 1.5% , so there's no reason for me to trust, aside from the other questionable things I've seen from you (like all hard revisionists I think you're operating with an extremely high level of bias and motivated reasoning about this subject)

Here's what the AI pointed out about older designs compared to new ones, like the SR20 which was from around 2000

However, carbureted engines, particularly older designs like the M-17T, actually have some advantages when running extremely rich mixtures:

Simpler fuel delivery systems with fewer electronic safeguards to prevent excessive richness

Lower compression ratios (6:1 for the M-17T vs. 8-10:1 for modern engines) that can tolerate richer mixtures with less risk of detonation

Larger displacement per cylinder (3.91L per cylinder in the M-17T) providing more thermal mass and stability during combustion

Military design priorities that emphasized reliability in extreme conditions over fuel efficiency or emissions

Multi-Cylinder Advantage. With 12 cylinders, even if some cylinders misfire occasionally due to excessive richness, the engine can continue running. The probability of all cylinders simultaneously misfiring is extremely low. If we assume each cylinder has a 10% chance of misfire at very rich mixtures, the probability of complete engine failure is 0.10^12, which is effectively zero.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that Bombsaway, I'm also well aware of my bias.

Look, how much oxygen is in the cylinder, how much reactant is in the cylinder and how long do they have to cook. Compare that to the flame front.

How I could articulate to you my model in under 300 words, I don't know. Even this is oversimplified, but regardless, I've put pen to paper.

You don't understand and you don't want to understand, which is fine, but continuing masticating it is pointless.

Explain your exhaust system, or at least consider it on your own. The problem start in the combustion chamber, they don't end there.

[bombsaway]

Denso, Bosch, Delphi etc, they have done incredible things with injection and timing, the amount of control these systems have to recognize and correct for knock, to use a map etc, it's amazing.

We are talking about a carbureted v12 designed in the 20's and built in the 40's.

You have to appreciate that what is possible now wasn't possible then and isn't possible on startup or with a cold engine.

You can't take the carburetor out and re jet while the engine is running. This is a limitation of carburetors.

Then there is this engine. Look, it's a big slow bear and it will pop gas because it has time.

You're making assertions out of thin air, and appealing to your own expertise on the subject. Yet you made an obvious error w regards to the CO output as 1.5% , so there's no reason for me to trust, aside from the other questionable things I've seen from you (like all hard revisionists I think you're operating with an extremely high level of bias and motivated reasoning about this subject)

Here's what the AI pointed out about older designs compared to new ones, like the SR20 which was from around 2000

However, carbureted engines, particularly older designs like the M-17T, actually have some advantages when running extremely rich mixtures:

Simpler fuel delivery systems with fewer electronic safeguards to prevent excessive richness

Lower compression ratios (6:1 for the M-17T vs. 8-10:1 for modern engines) that can tolerate richer mixtures with less risk of detonation

Larger displacement per cylinder (3.91L per cylinder in the M-17T) providing more thermal mass and stability during combustion

Military design priorities that emphasized reliability in extreme conditions over fuel efficiency or emissions

Multi-Cylinder Advantage. With 12 cylinders, even if some cylinders misfire occasionally due to excessive richness, the engine can continue running. The probability of all cylinders simultaneously misfiring is extremely low. If we assume each cylinder has a 10% chance of misfire at very rich mixtures, the probability of complete engine failure is 0.10^12, which is effectively zero.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that Bombsaway, I'm also well aware of my bias.

Look, how much oxygen is in the cylinder, how much reactant is in the cylinder and how long do they have to cook. Compare that to the flame front.

How I could articulate to you my model in under 300 words, I don't know. Even this is oversimplified, but regardless, I've put pen to paper.

You don't understand and you don't want to understand, which is fine, but continuing masticating it is pointless.

Explain your exhaust system, or at least consider it on your own. The problem start in the combustion chamber, they don't end there.

Then you should show your work. The AI critique is this

Based on the information in the forum conversation, my assessment of Stubble's argument is that they're making complex technical claims about the M-17T engine without providing sufficient evidence to support their position.

Stubble appears to be arguing that the M-17T engine (a Soviet V12 tank engine from the 1930s-40s) couldn't function effectively in the scenario being discussed due to combustion dynamics and exhaust system limitations. However, I notice that:

1. Stubble initially claimed an upper CO output limit of 1.5%, which bombsaway challenged with references to scientific papers showing higher values.

2. Stubble is focused on theoretical limitations without addressing the documented historical performance of this specific engine, which according to the first document was a military engine designed for reliability in harsh conditions.

3. The technical arguments about flame fronts, oxygen/fuel ratios, and exhaust system design are presented as self-evident without specific calculations or references to support these claims.

4. Stubble dismisses bombsaway's points by suggesting they "don't understand and don't want to understand" rather than addressing the specific technical counterpoints raised about the engine's capability to run at richer fuel mixtures.

While Stubble may have automotive expertise, their dismissive tone and unwillingness to engage with specific counterpoints weakens their argument. A stronger response would include specific calculations, historical documentation about this engine's performance limits, or technical specifications about its exhaust system rather than simply asserting their position is correct without supporting evidence.

[Stubble]

You're making assertions out of thin air, and appealing to your own expertise on the subject. Yet you made an obvious error w regards to the CO output as 1.5% , so there's no reason for me to trust, aside from the other questionable things I've seen from you (like all hard revisionists I think you're operating with an extremely high level of bias and motivated reasoning about this subject)

Here's what the AI pointed out about older designs compared to new ones, like the SR20 which was from around 2000

Yes, I'm aware of all of that Bombsaway, I'm also well aware of my bias.

Look, how much oxygen is in the cylinder, how much reactant is in the cylinder and how long do they have to cook. Compare that to the flame front.

How I could articulate to you my model in under 300 words, I don't know. Even this is oversimplified, but regardless, I've put pen to paper.

You don't understand and you don't want to understand, which is fine, but continuing masticating it is pointless.

Explain your exhaust system, or at least consider it on your own. The problem start in the combustion chamber, they don't end there.

Then you should show your work. The AI critique is this

Based on the information in the forum conversation, my assessment of Stubble's argument is that they're making complex technical claims about the M-17T engine without providing sufficient evidence to support their position.

Stubble appears to be arguing that the M-17T engine (a Soviet V12 tank engine from the 1930s-40s) couldn't function effectively in the scenario being discussed due to combustion dynamics and exhaust system limitations. However, I notice that:

1. Stubble initially claimed an upper CO output limit of 1.5%, which bombsaway challenged with references to scientific papers showing higher values.

2. Stubble is focused on theoretical limitations without addressing the documented historical performance of this specific engine, which according to the first document was a military engine designed for reliability in harsh conditions.

3. The technical arguments about flame fronts, oxygen/fuel ratios, and exhaust system design are presented as self-evident without specific calculations or references to support these claims.

4. Stubble dismisses bombsaway's points by suggesting they "don't understand and don't want to understand" rather than addressing the specific technical counterpoints raised about the engine's capability to run at richer fuel mixtures.

While Stubble may have automotive expertise, their dismissive tone and unwillingness to engage with specific counterpoints weakens their argument. A stronger response would include specific calculations, historical documentation about this engine's performance limits, or technical specifications about its exhaust system rather than simply asserting their position is correct without supporting evidence.

Can you read Russian?

If so, read the service manual, I linked it earlier.

Good lord.

Your AI somehow thinks I can explain all of this in a couple of words.

I can't.

Now, consider your exhaust design. Consider how you are going to uniformly fill the space without stalling.

[bombsaway]

Yes, I'm aware of all of that Bombsaway, I'm also well aware of my bias.

Look, how much oxygen is in the cylinder, how much reactant is in the cylinder and how long do they have to cook. Compare that to the flame front.

How I could articulate to you my model in under 300 words, I don't know. Even this is oversimplified, but regardless, I've put pen to paper.

You don't understand and you don't want to understand, which is fine, but continuing masticating it is pointless.

Explain your exhaust system, or at least consider it on your own. The problem start in the combustion chamber, they don't end there.

Then you should show your work. The AI critique is this

Based on the information in the forum conversation, my assessment of Stubble's argument is that they're making complex technical claims about the M-17T engine without providing sufficient evidence to support their position.

Stubble appears to be arguing that the M-17T engine (a Soviet V12 tank engine from the 1930s-40s) couldn't function effectively in the scenario being discussed due to combustion dynamics and exhaust system limitations. However, I notice that:

1. Stubble initially claimed an upper CO output limit of 1.5%, which bombsaway challenged with references to scientific papers showing higher values.

2. Stubble is focused on theoretical limitations without addressing the documented historical performance of this specific engine, which according to the first document was a military engine designed for reliability in harsh conditions.

3. The technical arguments about flame fronts, oxygen/fuel ratios, and exhaust system design are presented as self-evident without specific calculations or references to support these claims.

4. Stubble dismisses bombsaway's points by suggesting they "don't understand and don't want to understand" rather than addressing the specific technical counterpoints raised about the engine's capability to run at richer fuel mixtures.

While Stubble may have automotive expertise, their dismissive tone and unwillingness to engage with specific counterpoints weakens their argument. A stronger response would include specific calculations, historical documentation about this engine's performance limits, or technical specifications about its exhaust system rather than simply asserting their position is correct without supporting evidence.

Can you read Russian?

If so, read the service manual, I linked it earlier.

Good lord.

Your AI somehow thinks I can explain all of this in a couple of words.

I can't.

Now, consider your exhaust design. Consider how you are going to uniformly fill the space without stalling.

Why should I show work when you don't have to? This is an insane double standard, it's your assertion anyway.

Until you show your work your argument is invalid, this is how science works, otherwise it's just an appeal to your expertise and my (admitted) ignorance. Despite this I've been able to point out at least one major error in your analysis.

[Stubble]

Unlike you, I'm willing to write a study.

I need to carve some time out to do that.

I can't just show you a piece or two in isolation, obviously.

A computer controlled boosted engine is not an na carbureted engine.

Of notes at this point, you aren't trying to use the ai to understand what is going on, you are literally just trying to slap me with it...

The ai isn't trying to understand either, it is just making simplistic arguments assuming I am ignorant and dismissive.

The ai should have time to explain things to you, but it won't if you don't ask it to.

/shrug

[bombsaway]

Unlike you, I'm willing to write a study.

I need to carve some time out to do that.

If you came to this conclusion, you needed to perform an internal study at least. You haven't shared this. You did it all in your head? Maybe you're going on your gut and intuition, which isn't scientifically valid.

[Stubble]

Unlike you, I'm willing to write a study.

I need to carve some time out to do that.

If you came to this conclusion, you needed to perform an internal study at least. You haven't shared this. You did it all in your head? Maybe you're going on your gut and intuition, which isn't scientifically valid.

That would be a bit cavalier, I'm not that cavalier.

I've given you my results, and I've outlined why. Rather than look for how I came to this conclusion or actually honestly reaching a conclusion, you have decided to go with 6%. This is in your evaluation a conservative estimate.

That's fine, but, you didn't actually do any analysis to get there, you just made an assumption.

You are comparing apples to bananas and settling on them both being tangerines.

/shrug

[bombsaway]

Unlike you, I'm willing to write a study.

I need to carve some time out to do that.

If you came to this conclusion, you needed to perform an internal study at least. You haven't shared this. You did it all in your head? Maybe you're going on your gut and intuition, which isn't scientifically valid.

That would be a bit cavalier, I'm not that cavalier.

I've given you my results, and I've outlined why. Rather than look for how I came to this conclusion or actually honestly reaching a conclusion, you have decided to go with 6%. This is in your evaluation a conservative estimate.

That's fine, but, you didn't actually do any analysis to get there, you just made an assumption.

You are comparing apples to bananas and settling on them both being tangerines.

/shrug

That 6 percent is actually conservative.

This is what you said : 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.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6773#p6773

An 8.7:1 corresponds to a .59 lambda

Then look at this chart from the study I cited. I'm not "deciding" to go with 6%. I'm being extremely gracious to you actually, based on the numbers that figure could be much higher.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/CO- ... 1_27197003

If we extrapolate up the curve, probably 11% output could be expected.

This is the difference between you and me, I actually checked this stuff when pressed about the AI's numbers. And I never would have concluded something firmly without checking first.