Challenge for Believers

[Stubble]

Argument? No, no argument. An explanation.

You think I'm nuts.

I'm a little nuts, but I'm not stupid Bombsaway.

I'm going to go close my eyes while time passes.

I'm surprised that you actually asked AI that question because you thought I wasn't clear. I don't know how I could be more clear.

Have a good one Bombsaway, I'm going to get some sleep. Today was a bear.

[bombsaway]

Argument? No, no argument. An explanation.

You think I'm nuts.

I'm a little nuts, but I'm not stupid Bombsaway.

I'm going to go close my eyes while time passes.

I'm surprised that you actually asked AI that question because you thought I wasn't clear. I don't know how I could be more clear.

Have a good one Bombsaway, I'm going to get some sleep. Today was a bear.

You didn't explain how or why the temperature change would make a massive difference.

I asked the AI. See you tomorrow.

# In-Depth Analysis: Temperature Effects on CO Percentage in Engine Exhaust

I'll perform a comprehensive analysis of how temperature affects CO percentage in engine exhaust, using thermodynamic principles, combustion chemistry, and empirical engine data.

## Part 1: Theoretical Framework - Gas Laws and CO Formation

### Ideal Gas Law and Temperature Effects

First, let's establish how temperature affects gas volumes using the ideal gas law:
PV = nRT

At constant pressure (typical for engine exhaust measurements):
- V ∝ T (Volume is proportional to absolute temperature)
- For gases at the same pressure, the volume ratio equals the absolute temperature ratio

For our temperature comparison:
- 59°F = 15°C = 288.15K
- 40°F = 4.44°C = 277.59K
- Temperature ratio: 277.59K/288.15K = 0.9633

### CO Formation in Combustion

CO is formed during incomplete combustion when:
1. There's insufficient oxygen to convert all carbon to CO₂
2. The combustion temperature isn't high enough for complete oxidation
3. Residence time in the combustion chamber is insufficient

For a rich-running engine (lambda < 1), CO formation is primarily oxygen-limited.

## Part 2: Quantitative Analysis of Temperature Effects

### Case 1: Fixed Air-Fuel Ratio

For an engine running at a specific air-fuel ratio (e.g., lambda = 0.7):

1. **Intake Air Mass**: Colder air is denser, allowing more mass per unit volume
- Air density at 59°F: 1.225 kg/m³
- Air density at 40°F: 1.293 kg/m³
- Density ratio: 1.293/1.225 = 1.0555 (5.55% more oxygen mass)

2. **Combustion Products**: With 5.55% more oxygen but the same air-fuel ratio:
- The absolute amount of CO produced increases proportionally to oxygen mass
- But the relative composition of exhaust gases (CO percentage) remains virtually unchanged

3. **Exhaust Volume**: While more CO is produced in absolute mass:
- The exhaust gas volume at 40°F is compressed by factor of 0.9633
- The CO volume is also compressed by the same factor
- Therefore, the volume percentage remains constant

**Mathematical Proof**:
- Let CO₁ = CO mass at 59°F, and CO₂ = CO mass at 40°F
- CO₂/CO₁ = 1.0555 (5.55% more CO by mass)
- Volume ratio due to temperature: V₂/V₁ = 0.9633
- CO percentage at 59°F = (CO₁ volume / Total exhaust volume at 59°F) × 100%
- CO percentage at 40°F = (CO₂ volume / Total exhaust volume at 40°F) × 100%
- Both volumes change proportionally, leaving the percentage unchanged

### Case 2: Adjusting for Constant Engine Power

If we assume the engine needs to maintain constant power output:

1. **Fuel Delivery**: The engine would need slightly less fuel at 40°F due to increased oxygen density
- Fuel reduction would be approximately proportional to oxygen increase (5.55%)

2. **Lambda Effect**: This would result in a slightly leaner effective mixture
- For example, lambda could shift from 0.7 to 0.738 (5.55% leaner)

3. **CO Production**: Using engine emission models and empirical data:
- A lambda shift of this magnitude would reduce CO by approximately 3-8%
- An engine producing 6% CO at 59°F might produce 5.5-5.8% CO at 40°F

## Part 3: Empirical Evidence and Real-World Considerations

### Published Emissions Data

Looking at actual engine emissions testing across temperature ranges:

1. **Cold Temperature Testing**: Automotive emissions testing at multiple temperatures shows:
- CO percentage typically varies by 0.1-0.8 percentage points between 40°F and 59°F
- For an engine producing 6% CO, this might mean 5.5% CO at lower temperatures

2. **Correction Factors**: Standard emissions testing applies temperature correction factors:
- SAE J1349 and ISO standards use correction factors of approximately 0.5-1% per 10°C
- For our 10.6°C difference, this would yield approximately 0.5-1% variation in CO

### M-17T Engine-Specific Factors

For the M-17T engine specifically (V12, 46.9L, 6:1 compression):

1. **Large Displacement Effects**:
- Larger cylinders have lower surface-to-volume ratios
- This reduces quenching effects, potentially allowing more complete combustion
- However, this effect is minimal compared to air-fuel ratio effects

2. **Low Compression Ratio**:
- 6:1 compression ratio results in lower combustion temperatures
- This tends to increase CO production compared to modern higher-compression engines

## Conclusion: Actual Expected Change in CO Percentage

Based on thermodynamic principles, combustion chemistry, and empirical engine data:

1. **With fixed air-fuel ratio**: The CO percentage by volume would remain virtually identical between 40°F and 59°F.

2. **With power-adjusted air-fuel ratio**: The CO percentage might decrease by approximately 3-8% relative (not percentage points).

3. **Quantified result**: If an engine produces 6% CO by volume at 59°F:
- At 40°F with fixed air-fuel ratio: Still approximately 6% CO
- At 40°F with power-adjusted air-fuel ratio: Approximately 5.5-5.8% CO

Therefore, the temperature difference between 40°F and 59°F cannot explain Stubble's claim of 1.5% CO versus the expected 6% or higher. This 4-fold difference must be due to other assumptions or calculation errors in his model.

The difference in oxygen content due to temperature would cause at most a 3-8% relative reduction in CO percentage, nowhere near the 75% reduction implied by Stubble's figures.

[Stubble]

Maybe I fudged something.

/shrug

I'll go look at it tomorrow. Maybe I didn't carry a decimal someplace or something.

I am human after all. And there is much on the plate.

[Nessie]

...

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.

...

I get why revisionists argue from incredulity, as they have no evidence and do not understand logic. I don't get why you give their argument legitimacy by arguing back, as if because you can work out how gassings worked, therefore gassings happened, which is also a logical fail.

[HansHill]

It is the other way around, Green rebuts Rudolf.

Go through the Dr Green / Rudolf exchanges again. Post here what points you believe Dr Green makes that "rebut" Rudolf. Use as many as you like, but stick to Dr Green's own words, not your interpretation of them.

Edit: Actually this would be wildly off topic, so instead start a new thread.

[Nessie]

It is the other way around, Green rebuts Rudolf.

Go through the Dr Green / Rudolf exchanges again. Post here what points you believe Dr Green makes that "rebut" Rudolf. Use as many as you like, but stick to Dr Green's own words, not your interpretation of them.

Edit: Actually this would be wildly off topic, so instead start a new thread.

I am not a chemist, so I cannot reliably say who is correct, based on their analysis and testing. I can reliably say that Green is correct and Rudolf is wrong, based on the evidence of usage of the Leichenkellers. There is evidence to prove mass gassings. There is no evidence to prove delousing, showering, corpse storage or bomb shelter.

[HansHill]

I am not a chemist, so I cannot reliably say who is correct, based on their analysis and testing. I can reliably say that Green is correct and Rudolf is wrong, based on the evidence of usage of the Leichenkellers. There is evidence to prove mass gassings. There is no evidence to prove delousing, showering, corpse storage or bomb shelter.

I'm not asking who's correct, I'm asking you to stand over your belief that "Dr Green rebuts Rudolf". Are you saying you can't do this now?

[Nazgul]

There is evidence to prove mass gassings. There is no evidence to prove delousing, showering, corpse storage or bomb shelter.

So morgues were not used for corpses; by definition Leichenkellers are morgues and morgues hold corpses. It seems the fear of gas in WW1 and the fake atrocity propagand then is a continuation 20 years or so later, the same nonsense used. The evidence for mass gassings is not credible so please stop peddling the eternal cattle excrement.

[Nessie]

I am not a chemist, so I cannot reliably say who is correct, based on their analysis and testing. I can reliably say that Green is correct and Rudolf is wrong, based on the evidence of usage of the Leichenkellers. There is evidence to prove mass gassings. There is no evidence to prove delousing, showering, corpse storage or bomb shelter.

I'm not asking who's correct, I'm asking you to stand over your belief that "Dr Green rebuts Rudolf". Are you saying you can't do this now?

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

[Nessie]

There is evidence to prove mass gassings. There is no evidence to prove delousing, showering, corpse storage or bomb shelter.

So morgues were not used for corpses; by definition Leichenkellers are morgues and morgues hold corpses. It seems the fear of gas in WW1 and the fake atrocity propagand then is a continuation 20 years or so later, the same nonsense used. The evidence for mass gassings is not credible so please stop peddling the eternal cattle excrement.

The evidence that the Leichenkellers were repurposed as gas chambers, primarily comes from Nazi witnesses and documents. How are SS camp staff and Topf & Sons engineers and the documents they produced, not credible?

What do you say the Leichenkellers were used for and show your evidence.

[HansHill]

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Yes that's clear now Nessie, thanks for clarifying your position. I'm going to quote you, and ask for Dr Patru and Dr Sanitycheck to weigh in on your position here, whether they agree with this approach. I'll do this in a new thread to avoid drift. Hope that's ok!

[Archie]

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Yes that's clear now Nessie, thanks for clarifying your position. I'm going to quote you, and ask for Dr Patru and Dr Sanitycheck to weigh in on your position here, whether they agree with this approach. I'll do this in a new thread to avoid drift. Hope that's ok!

Nessie's secret weapon is that he has no self-awareness and lacks any sense of embarrassment. His arguments will get blown out of the water and he will just keep repeating them.

There was some classic Nessie in that Markiewicz thread. One good bit was when he said Green and Markiewicz disagreed with Rudolf, ergo Rudolf must be wrong. I pointed out to him that Green and Markiewicz don't even agree with each other (Green does not believe the blue paint nonsense, for example), and it was clear Nessie was not even aware of that, since of course he has never actually read Green or Markiewicz. He doesn't need to read them because he knows in his heart that the Holocaust is "evidenced."

[Nessie]

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Yes that's clear now Nessie, thanks for clarifying your position. I'm going to quote you, and ask for Dr Patru and Dr Sanitycheck to weigh in on your position here, whether they agree with this approach. I'll do this in a new thread to avoid drift. Hope that's ok!

Nessie's secret weapon is that he has no self-awareness and lacks any sense of embarrassment. His arguments will get blown out of the water and he will just keep repeating them.

It's the other way around. I point out how your arguments have no evidential value and you keep on repeating them, as you are unable to complete the basic task of any historian or criminal investigator and evidence what happened.

There was some classic Nessie in that Markiewicz thread. One good bit was when he said Green and Markiewicz disagreed with Rudolf, ergo Rudolf must be wrong.

Interesting, you do not quote me, as I doubt very much I said that, as that form of argument is incorrect. The argument I have consistently made about the chemistry of the residues found in the Leichenkellers, is that I am not a chemist, so I cannot review their work. Green and Markiewicz's conclusions that the residue is consistent with homicidal gassings, is backed by the eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence homicidal gassings took place. Rudolf and Leuchter's conclusions that the residue is not consistent, is not backed by any evidence as to what happened inside the Leichenkellers.

I pointed out to him that Green and Markiewicz don't even agree with each other (Green does not believe the blue paint nonsense, for example), and it was clear Nessie was not even aware of that, since of course he has never actually read Green or Markiewicz. He doesn't need to read them because he knows in his heart that the Holocaust is "evidenced."

The Holocaust is evidenced, unlike revisionist claims, that the Kremas were delousing chambers/showers/corpse stores/bomb shelters and that the AR camps were transit/customs/hygiene/property sorting camps and that millions of Jews were resettled in the east and survived the war.

[bombsaway]

...

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.

...

I get why revisionists argue from incredulity, as they have no evidence and do not understand logic. I don't get why you give their argument legitimacy by arguing back, as if because you can work out how gassings worked, therefore gassings happened, which is also a logical fail.

Because this is a debate forum

[Nessie]

...

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.

...

I get why revisionists argue from incredulity, as they have no evidence and do not understand logic. I don't get why you give their argument legitimacy by arguing back, as if because you can work out how gassings worked, therefore gassings happened, which is also a logical fail.

Because this is a debate forum

Do you not think a debate should be at least logical?