Cremation Rate at Auschwitz

[Callafangers]

After a derailed discussion, here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=165

...it has seemed best to create a new thread on the topic of the 'new rail.'

Auschwitz-Topf-Durations.jpg (158.78 KiB) Viewed 383 times

EDIT: "Coke per corpse" should be labeled as being in kilograms (kg) on the table shown, and "Flow per muffle" should also be kg/hr.

Per the image/table above, the coke consumption rate per gasifier per furnace (i.e. the rate at which coke is burned upon its grate during cremation) at Auschwitz[-Birkenau] is the critical issue, here. The double and triple muffle Topf furnaces each had two gassifiers (and each of these had a coke consumption rate of 33.3 kg/hr). The eight muffle furnace had four of these gassifiers. This is the calculation you see in the table above. The total coke consumption rate for each furnace is divided by the number of muffles (or corpses) to give you the "flow per muffle". Then, you divide the "Coke per corpse" by the "flow per muffle" to get the estimated cremation duration. All of this is discussed in the same citation shown in the table's footnote, above.

blake121666 claims that the Topf triple-muffle furnace's manual says otherwise, suggesting the manual allows for multiple, simultaneous cremations per muffle and that it endorses "dynamic fueling" (i.e. the burning of the prior corpse significantly reducing the cremation time of the subsequent one laid on top of it).

Here is the relevant text of the manual:

BETRIEBSVORSCHRIFT
des koksbeheizten Topf-Dreimuffel-
Einäscheirungsofen

Vor Beschickung der beiden Koksgeneratoren mit Koks
muss der Rauchkanalschieber am Ofen geöffnet werden.

Nunmehr kann in den beiden Generatoren Feuer angefacht und
unterhalten werden, hierbei ist zu beachten, dass die Sekundarver-
schlüsse rechts und links der Ascheentnahmetüren (Koksgeneratoren) ge-
öffnet sind.

Nachdem die Einäscherungskammern gut rotwarm (ca. 800°C)
sind können die Leichen hintereinander in die drei Kammern einge-
fahren werden.

Jetzt ist es zweckmässig das seitwärts am Ofen stehende
Oruckluftgebtäse anzustellen und ca. 20 Minuten laufen zu lassen.
Hierbei ist zu beobachten, ob zuviel oder zu wenig Frischluft in die
drei Kammern eintritt.

Die Regulierung der Frischluft erfolgt durch die Drehklappe
die sich in der Luftrohrleitung befindet. Weiterhin müssen die
rechts und links der Einführtüren angeordneten Lufteintritte halb
geöffnet werden.

Sobald die Leichenteile vom Schamotterost nach der dar-
unter liegende Ascheschrage gefallen sind, müssen diese mittels
der Kratze nach vorn zur Ascheentnahmetür gezogen werden. können diese Teile noch 20 Minuten zum Nachverbrennen lagern.
Dann wird die Asche in den Aschebehalter gezogen und zur Abkühl-
ung beiseite gestellt.

Zwischendurch werden neue Leichen in die Kammern
nach einander eingeführt.

Die beiden Koksgeneratoren müssen von Zeit zu Zeit
mit Brennstoff beschickt werden.

Jeden Abend müssen die Generatorroste von den Koks-
schlacken befreit und die Asch e herausgenommen werden.

Zu beachten ist ferner, das nach Betriebsschluss-sobald
die Generatoren leer gebrannt und Glutteile nicht mehr vorhanden
sind, alle Luftschieber und Türen, desgl. auch der Rauchkanalschie-
ber am Ofen geschlossen sein müssen um den Ofen nicht aus-
zukühlen.

Nach jeder Einäscherung steigt die Temperatur im Ofen.
Daher bitte beachten, dass die Innentemperatur nicht über 1000°C.
kommt (Weissglut).

Diese Temperatursteigerung kann durch Lufteinblasen
verhindert werden.

Unfortunately, blake121666 misinterprets the manual. It states that corpses are loaded "hintereinander" (one after another) into the chambers once they're at 800°C. This supports the single corpse per muffle process, not the idea of loading multiple at once. The manual doesn't change the technical limitations outlined by Mattogno. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate sets the heat limit, making blake's "dynamic fuel" idea still pointless (this could at most have a miniscule impact on increasing overall heat, and would be worked against by the inefficiencies in airflow/draft/cooling/maintenance/etc. in adding multiple corpses at a time).

Further discussion welcomed.

[Stubble]

You 'might' be able to shove another body in the hole while the first body is still being incinerated. I mean, it is physically possible.

Personally I don't think that is going to net you anything but a cooler box. You just shoved a crap ton of water and extra meat in it.

Then there is the idea that one body burns another body. I'm sorry, but you cannot have self cremating corpses. If we could, we would. That's not how entropy works.

Looking at the numbers from the manufacturer, it floors me that these systems were made in the 40's. German engineering is impressive. Not impressive enough to run without fuel, but impressive none the less.

Of course, I'm just some dude on the internet, not a cremation expert, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Still figured I'd pitch in my .02.

Now if I could just figure out why that memo from Dr Wirths was in that HC blog Auschwitz list...

[Callafangers]

You 'might' be able to shove another body in the hole while the first body is still being incinerated. I mean, it is physically possible.

Personally I don't think that is going to net you anything but a cooler box. You just shoved a crap ton of water and extra meat in it.

You are on the right track, I think. The furnace (and whatever you are fueling it with) still has to burn off the rest of the prior body. That body is also releasing energy (heat) of its own at this point, but this is a miniscule amount by comparison to that of the furnace itself. We're talking likely 1-2% and certainly less than 5%.

Then there is the idea that one body burns another body. I'm sorry, but you cannot have self cremating corpses. If we could, we would. That's not how entropy works.

Exactly.

Looking at the numbers from the manufacturer, it floors me that these systems were made in the 40's. German engineering is impressive. Not impressive enough to run without fuel, but impressive none the less.

Of course, I'm just some dude on the internet, not a cremation expert, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Still figured I'd pitch in my .02.

Now if I could just figure out why that memo from Dr Wirths was in that HC blog Auschwitz list...

I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who knows WW2-era cremation as well as Mattogno. I'd wager there isn't a single person as qualified to speak to it.

[curioussoul]

There's never been a serious attempt from antirevisionists to deal with the cremation question in a balanced way. While it is true that the nominal cremation rate for these types of ovens (which, again, were not some sort of specialized super-ovens but simple, civilian-based ovens using single muffles for corpse introduction 'hintereinander', as you point out — in fact, the triple muffle ovens in Crematoria II and III in Birkenau were cheaper and less efficient than Topf's civilian ovens because, among other things, they lacked a recuperator. Kurt Pruefer confirmed this in his Soviet interrogations) was approximately 60 minutes per corpse, I think most revisionists would agree that the ovens were probably regularly used outside of their specifications, but even if we assume that staggered cremations took place, or even that two corpses were introduced into a single muffle on occasion, this does not jive with witness testimony. Key witnesses, such as Henryk Tauber, touted by Pressac and Van Pelt as being the most reliable and accurate of all Sonderkommando witnesses, claimed that they regularly introduced not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4-5 corpses per muffle with an average cremation rate of 4-5 minutes per corpse (yes, you read that right), which is physically impossible and frankly laughable.

And as Mattogno and Deana expertly demonstrate in HH#24, the math just doesn't add up. There's simply no way to physically and mathematically make the cremations work. The cremation rate doesn't add up, the fuel requirements don't add up, the number of corpses don't add up, the replacement of the refractory brickwork doesn't add up, the witness testimonies don't add — none of it adds up. To square all of these parameters and reconstruct a believable and viable cremation scenario that fits within the orthodox Holocaust narrative just simply is not possible.

[blake121666]

Here is my English translation of the operating instructions:

OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS
of the coke-fired three-muffle cremation oven

Before loading the two coke gasifiers with coke
the smoke channel slider on the oven must be opened.

Now fire can be fanned in the two gasifiers and be maintained,
it should be noted that the secondary locks on the right and left of the ash removal doors
(of the coke gasifiers) should be open.

After the cremation chambers are red hot (approx. 800°C)
the corpses can be inserted into the three chambers one after the other.

Now it is useful to turn on the compressed air blower located at the side of the oven
and let it run for about 20 minutes.
It is important to observe whether there is too much or too little fresh air in the
three chambers.

The fresh air is regulated by the rotary flap
located in the air duct. Furthermore, the
air inlets located to the right and left of the infeed doors
must be opened.

After the corpse parts have fallen through the fireclay grate into the ash tray below, they must be
scraped forward toward the ash removal door. Here
these parts can be kept for another 20 minutes for post-combustion incineration.
The ashes are then drawn into the ash holder and set aside to cool.

In between, new corpses can be introduced into the chambers one after the other.

The two coke gasifiers have to be charged with coke from time to time to supply fuel.

Every evening the gasifier grates have to be cleared of the coke slag and the ash removed.

It should also be noted that after closing time - as soon as
the gasifiers have burned out and the embers are no longer available
all air slides and doors, as well as the smoke channel slide on the oven,
must be closed so that the oven does not cool down.

After each cremation, the temperature in the oven rises.
Therefore make sure that the internal temperature does not exceed 1000°C.
(white heat).

This temperature increase can be prevented by blowing air in.

You are conflating the initial loading of corpses with the further loading of corpses.

After the corpse parts have fallen through the fireclay grate into the ash tray below, they must be
scraped forward toward the ash removal door. Here
these parts can be kept for another 20 minutes for post-combustion incineration.
The ashes are then drawn into the ash holder and set aside to cool.

In between, new corpses can be introduced into the chambers one after the other.

Acting as if you cannot add another corpse into the muffle because of the fuel delivery rate is incoherent.

The combustibles of the corpse add heat when combusted. That is all I meant by "dynamic fuel". In fact I deleted that part of my reply while you were replying to that reply because it isn't the best way to say such thing. I merely meant more along the lines that incineration is a dynamic thing. The corpse parts dehydrate, ignite, and burn in a dynamic way. It is not some sort of continuous steady-state burning going on there. It is more of a dynamic process.

You are treating the matter in some sort of linear way of, in this instant, this much fuel identically equals this much instant incineration. That is just false. Quit doing that. There is a process of incineration going on.

At least Stubble isn't doing that in his reply here. I suppose I will address his objection later. It's not a simple matter what we are talking about here, you know? You act as if it is.

The best way to handle this non-simple matter is considering throughput. The detailed incineration situation is of course a black-box of details we simply cannot know other than statistically from empirical results.

[blake121666]

There's never been a serious attempt from antirevisionists to deal with the cremation question in a balanced way. While it is true that the nominal cremation rate for these types of ovens (which, again, were not some sort of specialized super-ovens but simple, civilian-based ovens using single muffles for corpse introduction 'hintereinander', as you point out — in fact, the triple muffle ovens in Crematoria II and III in Birkenau were cheaper and less efficient than Topf's civilian ovens because, among other things, they lacked a recuperator. Kurt Pruefer confirmed this in his Soviet interrogations) was approximately 60 minutes per corpse, I think most revisionists would agree that the ovens were probably regularly used outside of their specifications, but even if we assume that staggered cremations took place, or even that two corpses were introduced into a single muffle on occasion, this does not jive with witness testimony. Key witnesses, such as Henryk Tauber, touted by Pressac and Van Pelt as being the most reliable and accurate of all Sonderkommando witnesses, claimed that they regularly introduced not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4-5 corpses per muffle with an average cremation rate of 4-5 minutes per corpse (yes, you read that right), which is physically impossible and frankly laughable.

And as Mattogno and Deana expertly demonstrate in HH#24, the math just doesn't add up. There's simply no way to physically and mathematically make the cremations work. The cremation rate doesn't add up, the fuel requirements don't add up, the number of corpses don't add up, the replacement of the refractory brickwork doesn't add up, the witness testimonies don't add — none of it adds up. To square all of these parameters and reconstruct a believable and viable cremation scenario that fits within the orthodox Holocaust narrative just simply is not possible.

Most things you said here are technically untrue on a detailed analysis. But it isn't worth anyone's time to bicker in such way.

[blake121666]

I just now reread Hans article here:

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... -part.html

My case is laid out pretty well in that article. There are also significantly more German estimates and such than he has there.

[Callafangers]

You are conflating the initial loading of corpses with the further loading of corpses.

After the corpse parts have fallen through the fireclay grate into the ash tray below, they must be
scraped forward toward the ash removal door. Here
these parts can be kept for another 20 minutes for post-combustion incineration.
The ashes are then drawn into the ash holder and set aside to cool.

In between, new corpses can be introduced into the chambers one after the other.

Acting as if you cannot add another corpse into the muffle because of the fuel delivery rate is incoherent.

The combustibles of the corpse add heat when combusted. That is all I meant by "dynamic fuel". In fact I deleted that part of my reply while you were replying to that reply because it isn't the best way to say such thing. I merely meant more along the lines that incineration is a dynamic thing. The corpse parts dehydrate, ignite, and burn in a dynamic way. It is not some sort of continuous steady-state burning going on there. It is more of a dynamic process.

You are treating the matter in some sort of linear way of, in this instant, this much fuel identically equals this much instant incineration. That is just false. Quit doing that. There is a process of incineration going on.

At least Stubble isn't doing that in his reply here. I suppose I will address his objection later. It's not a simple matter what we are talking about here, you know? You act as if it is.

The best way to handle this non-simple matter is considering throughput. The detailed incineration situation is of course a black-box of details we simply cannot know other than statistically from empirical results.

You're still wrong. The manual clearly states "hintereinander," meaning one after another, which aligns with the technical constraints, and "in between" means during the intervals when the furnace is transitioning from fully cremating one corpse (which is moved into the ash holder to cool) to preparing for the next one, not that multiple corpses are being loaded at the same time. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate limits the heat, making your idea of multiple simultaneous cremations unfeasible. The dynamic nature of the corpse burning doesn't negate the furnace's limitations. Quit ignoring the facts—the throughput is constrained by the coke delivery rate. This is demonstrated conclusively in official documentation (at 35 kg/hr) as well as in practical experiments by Kessler (33.3 kg/hr; Document 47, TCFOA).

The matter absolutely is simple once you understand the coke consumption rate, which you seem to gloss over, repeatedly. This is the key constraint of the entire operation, and one you have still not dealt with directly. Hand-waving doesn't count.

[Callafangers]

And as Mattogno and Deana expertly demonstrate in HH#24, the math just doesn't add up. There's simply no way to physically and mathematically make the cremations work. The cremation rate doesn't add up, the fuel requirements don't add up, the number of corpses don't add up, the replacement of the refractory brickwork doesn't add up, the witness testimonies don't add — none of it adds up. To square all of these parameters and reconstruct a believable and viable cremation scenario that fits within the orthodox Holocaust narrative just simply is not possible.

The problem with this work (HH #24 / TCFOA) is that it is extremely complex. In my opinion, it is easily the most technical-jargony work of the entire series, by a long shot. This completely turned me off to it when it was initially released, as I am sure it did for most casual readers. But as I have taken the time to understand parts of it, it is an incredible study not remotely matched by anything which the orthodoxy has put forth with regard to Auschwitz or any concentration camp. My effort in the table shown in the OP of this thread was to highlight/condense the key argument made by Mattogno on one critical area of this study, which I feel he left understated in the dense discussion of the respective chapter/sections. It is clear that his description of cremation capacity centers around this but he does not have a clear summary which highlights this important characteristic as much as it deserves (that is, coke consumption or "grate flow"). On that note, I cannot fully blame blake121666 for having missed this detail in his own analyses. It is crucial to understanding how and why the 1 hour per cremation/corpse makes sense, regardless of when additional corpses are added-into the muffle. The rate of cremation remains roughly the same, regardless.

[curioussoul]

And as Mattogno and Deana expertly demonstrate in HH#24, the math just doesn't add up. There's simply no way to physically and mathematically make the cremations work. The cremation rate doesn't add up, the fuel requirements don't add up, the number of corpses don't add up, the replacement of the refractory brickwork doesn't add up, the witness testimonies don't add — none of it adds up. To square all of these parameters and reconstruct a believable and viable cremation scenario that fits within the orthodox Holocaust narrative just simply is not possible.

The problem with this work (HH #24 / TCFOA) is that it is extremely complex. In my opinion, it is easily the most technical-jargony work of the entire series, by a long shot. This completely turned me off to it when it was initially released, as I am sure it did for most casual readers. But as I have taken the time to understand parts of it, it is an incredible study not remotely matched by anything which the orthodoxy has put forth with regard to Auschwitz or any concentration camp. My effort in the table shown in the OP of this thread was to highlight/condense the key argument made by Mattogno on one critical area of this study, which I feel he left understated in the dense discussion of the respective chapter/sections. It is clear that his description of cremation capacity centers around this but he does not have a clear summary which highlights this important characteristic as much as it deserves (that is, coke consumption or "grate flow"). On that note, I cannot fully blame blake121666 for having missed this detail in his own analyses. It is crucial to understanding how and why the 1 hour per cremation/corpse makes sense, regardless of when additional corpses are added-into the muffle. The rate of cremation remains roughly the same, regardless.

Yes, I fully agree. HH#24 is one of only a handful of books in the series that I didn't read cover to cover in a few sittings. More than anything, I consider it a reference work. But I think Mattogno's goal with that particular book was to not just explain why the cremation furnaces of Auschwitz is a massive problem for the orthodoxy, but to actually build a scientific, mathematical and physical foundation for why none of it adds up. Mattogno goes so far as to review, calculate and discuss the biochemical and energy contents of the proteins of a human body and the physical energy requirements for actually incinerating a corpse on the molecular level. Obviously, specialized literature going back more than 100 years already dealt with similar things, but Mattogno takes the trouble to re-do and apply these calculations in the context of Auschwitz.

And just as a side note, HH#24 is one of few revisionist works that's been mentioned by at least one mainstream scholar as being a "valuable contribution" to the study of the Holocaust.

[blake121666]

You are conflating the initial loading of corpses with the further loading of corpses.

After the corpse parts have fallen through the fireclay grate into the ash tray below, they must be
scraped forward toward the ash removal door. Here
these parts can be kept for another 20 minutes for post-combustion incineration.
The ashes are then drawn into the ash holder and set aside to cool.

In between, new corpses can be introduced into the chambers one after the other.

Acting as if you cannot add another corpse into the muffle because of the fuel delivery rate is incoherent.

The combustibles of the corpse add heat when combusted. That is all I meant by "dynamic fuel". In fact I deleted that part of my reply while you were replying to that reply because it isn't the best way to say such thing. I merely meant more along the lines that incineration is a dynamic thing. The corpse parts dehydrate, ignite, and burn in a dynamic way. It is not some sort of continuous steady-state burning going on there. It is more of a dynamic process.

You are treating the matter in some sort of linear way of, in this instant, this much fuel identically equals this much instant incineration. That is just false. Quit doing that. There is a process of incineration going on.

At least Stubble isn't doing that in his reply here. I suppose I will address his objection later. It's not a simple matter what we are talking about here, you know? You act as if it is.

The best way to handle this non-simple matter is considering throughput. The detailed incineration situation is of course a black-box of details we simply cannot know other than statistically from empirical results.

You're still wrong. The manual clearly states "hintereinander," meaning one after another, which aligns with the technical constraints, and "in between" means during the intervals when the furnace is transitioning from fully cremating one corpse (which is moved into the ash holder to cool) to preparing for the next one, not that multiple corpses are being loaded at the same time. The 33.3 kg/hr coke rate limits the heat, making your idea of multiple simultaneous cremations unfeasible. The dynamic nature of the corpse burning doesn't negate the furnace's limitations. Quit ignoring the facts—the throughput is constrained by the coke delivery rate. This is demonstrated conclusively in official documentation (at 35 kg/hr) as well as in practical experiments by Kessler (33.3 kg/hr; Document 47, TCFOA).

The matter absolutely is simple once you understand the coke consumption rate, which you seem to gloss over, repeatedly. This is the key constraint of the entire operation, and one you have still not dealt with directly. Hand-waving doesn't count.

I have heretofore been explaining to you a single-corpse process: adding ONE corpse into an oven after the prior one has gone through its main combustion. I have stated that such was, in fact, the process used at Gusen. So I don't know why you replied as you did here. I have explained to you multiple times the heat situation in the oven. Let's for now assume that the external fuel enters the chamber at a constant rate. In the beginning process of a fresh corpse's cremation is rapid evaporative cooling going on in the oven - even though external fuel is augmenting the situation of course; the oven is rapidly cooling in this stage. Then the main fat stores finally ignite and combust the corpse into pieces creating a violent increase of heat (rising above the initial 800C and approaching 1000C). Then you add a new corpse into this situation.

So the heat in the muffle goes such as, for instance: 800 -> 680 -> 850 -> 700 -> ... etc. If and when the temperature gauge approaches 1000, air is to be added into the muffle to cool it off - as per the operating instructions.

Do you understand this? It simply does not much matter what you are saying about the external fuel. The main combustion phase violently introduces heat into the muffle. The fuel being burned for that main combustion is the combustibles of the corpse itself.

I have told you this over and over. And yet you keep coming back with: but the external fuel supply rate is limited! WTF cares? You are insensible to what you are being told here. The corpse is the main fuel component of a cremation.

Please do not reply again with: but you don't understand that the external fuel supply rate is limited! I DO UNDERSTAND. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I DO, AND HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD? The only thing that momentarily confused me was your mention of a "vertical grate". But whatever about that. You don't appear to be saying that anymore.

[blake121666]

And as Mattogno and Deana expertly demonstrate in HH#24, the math just doesn't add up. There's simply no way to physically and mathematically make the cremations work. The cremation rate doesn't add up, the fuel requirements don't add up, the number of corpses don't add up, the replacement of the refractory brickwork doesn't add up, the witness testimonies don't add — none of it adds up. To square all of these parameters and reconstruct a believable and viable cremation scenario that fits within the orthodox Holocaust narrative just simply is not possible.

The problem with this work (HH #24 / TCFOA) is that it is extremely complex. In my opinion, it is easily the most technical-jargony work of the entire series, by a long shot. This completely turned me off to it when it was initially released, as I am sure it did for most casual readers. But as I have taken the time to understand parts of it, it is an incredible study not remotely matched by anything which the orthodoxy has put forth with regard to Auschwitz or any concentration camp. My effort in the table shown in the OP of this thread was to highlight/condense the key argument made by Mattogno on one critical area of this study, which I feel he left understated in the dense discussion of the respective chapter/sections. It is clear that his description of cremation capacity centers around this but he does not have a clear summary which highlights this important characteristic as much as it deserves (that is, coke consumption or "grate flow"). On that note, I cannot fully blame blake121666 for having missed this detail in his own analyses. It is crucial to understanding how and why the 1 hour per cremation/corpse makes sense, regardless of when additional corpses are added-into the muffle. The rate of cremation remains roughly the same, regardless.

I didn't miss any detail. Referring to me as "blake" or "Blake" would suit me better. The 121666 part isn't particularly necessary. I'm referred to as "Blake" by everyone in person and have been all my life. It's my last name, btw.

[blake121666]

And as Mattogno and Deana expertly demonstrate in HH#24, the math just doesn't add up. There's simply no way to physically and mathematically make the cremations work. The cremation rate doesn't add up, the fuel requirements don't add up, the number of corpses don't add up, the replacement of the refractory brickwork doesn't add up, the witness testimonies don't add — none of it adds up. To square all of these parameters and reconstruct a believable and viable cremation scenario that fits within the orthodox Holocaust narrative just simply is not possible.

The problem with this work (HH #24 / TCFOA) is that it is extremely complex. In my opinion, it is easily the most technical-jargony work of the entire series, by a long shot. This completely turned me off to it when it was initially released, as I am sure it did for most casual readers. But as I have taken the time to understand parts of it, it is an incredible study not remotely matched by anything which the orthodoxy has put forth with regard to Auschwitz or any concentration camp. My effort in the table shown in the OP of this thread was to highlight/condense the key argument made by Mattogno on one critical area of this study, which I feel he left understated in the dense discussion of the respective chapter/sections. It is clear that his description of cremation capacity centers around this but he does not have a clear summary which highlights this important characteristic as much as it deserves (that is, coke consumption or "grate flow"). On that note, I cannot fully blame blake121666 for having missed this detail in his own analyses. It is crucial to understanding how and why the 1 hour per cremation/corpse makes sense, regardless of when additional corpses are added-into the muffle. The rate of cremation remains roughly the same, regardless.

Yes, I fully agree. HH#24 is one of only a handful of books in the series that I didn't read cover to cover in a few sittings. More than anything, I consider it a reference work. But I think Mattogno's goal with that particular book was to not just explain why the cremation furnaces of Auschwitz is a massive problem for the orthodoxy, but to actually build a scientific, mathematical and physical foundation for why none of it adds up. Mattogno goes so far as to review, calculate and discuss the biochemical and energy contents of the proteins of a human body and the physical energy requirements for actually incinerating a corpse on the molecular level. Obviously, specialized literature going back more than 100 years already dealt with similar things, but Mattogno takes the trouble to re-do and apply these calculations in the context of Auschwitz.

And just as a side note, HH#24 is one of few revisionist works that's been mentioned by at least one mainstream scholar as being a "valuable contribution" to the study of the Holocaust.

Read Hans' critique of it that I linked earlier. One needs to take the contemporary German estimates seriously. They are not frauds. They are more correct estimates than Mattogno's. Any sensible person would think so.

[Callafangers]

I have heretofore been explaining to you a single-corpse process: adding ONE corpse into an oven after the prior one has gone through its main combustion. I have stated that such was, in fact, the process used at Gusen. So I don't know why you replied as you did here. I have explained to you multiple times the heat situation in the oven. Let's for now assume that the external fuel enters the chamber at a constant rate. In the beginning process of a fresh corpse's cremation is rapid evaporative cooling going on in the oven - even though external fuel is augmenting the situation of course; the oven is rapidly cooling in this stage. Then the main fat stores finally ignite and combust the corpse into pieces creating a violent increase of heat (rising above the initial 800C and approaching 1000C). Then you add a new corpse into this situation.

I do not know how much clearer this can get. The amount of energy made available from a lean, burning corpse in its final stages of cremation does not remotely compare to the amount of energy the coke and furnace itself maintain. The manual itself you reference indicates the next corpse is only added after the prior one is scraped into an ash chamber to cool. The process at Gusen is irrelevant, so it is strange you keep bringing it up.

So the heat in the muffle goes such as, for instance: 800 -> 680 -> 850 -> 700 -> ... etc. If and when the temperature gauge approaches 1000, air is to be added into the muffle to cool it off - as per the operating instructions.

Do you understand this? It simply does not much matter what you are saying about the external fuel. The main combustion phase violently introduces heat into the muffle. The fuel being burned for that main combustion is the combustibles of the corpse itself.

The bolded portion is precisely where your delusion seems to lie. The overall heat value which is added to the muffle as the prior corpse combusts (capable of influencing the cremation of the subsequent corpse) is ultimately trivial compared to that of the coke being maintained at 33.3 kg/hr. Your obsession with a false assumption that the corpses themselves become largely self-sustaining in terms of burning the one following each one prior is mind-boggling, and it is no surprise you (and Hans) fail to present calculations supporting your position.

Hans cites examples from multiple camps which had very different crematory ovens and are of minimal value for comparison. He also includes theoretical claims or estimates which, practice has shown, are not possible. For one of his key documents (8 September 1942, from Topf engineer Kurt Prüfer), he admits the following:

Note that there is probably a typo/mistake in one of the last two figures since there is no technical reason (or any other evidence) why each muffle of the 8-muffle oven should out-perform that of a three-muffle oven by a factor of almost two.

A typo? WTF? Yes, no shit, an 8 muffle oven should not dispose of a corpse in 12 minutes. Clearly, such claims were purely theoretical and never tested (let alone on lean - rather than normal, fatty - corpses).

If anything, what you (and Hans) have shown is that certain experts lacked the practical experience or specific knowledge as to the hard limitation the coke consumption rate entails across the various muffle configurations. The fact that some of these experts do claim an hour per cremation, and that this is exactly what the limitations imposed by the 33.3 kg/hr coke consumption rate necessitates (especially for lean corpses which were necessarily the norm for our purposes), invalidates your position.

What you keep claiming is that somehow, someway the heat released from a corpse in its final phases of cremation is capable of reducing the coke needed to cremate a subsequent corpse by not just 2%, 5%, etc. -- but by a factor of two, three, or more. This is utterly bonkers.

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.

The bottom-line: such a proposal for multiple corpse cremation as a means to dramatically increase the efficiency of cremations is supported neither by the practical data and known constraints, nor by theoretical considerations and calculations, as shown.

I have told you this over and over. And yet you keep coming back with: but the external fuel supply rate is limited! WTF cares? You are insensible to what you are being told here. The corpse is the main fuel component of a cremation.

Please do not reply again with: but you don't understand that the external fuel supply rate is limited! I DO UNDERSTAND. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I DO, AND HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD? The only thing that momentarily confused me was your mention of a "vertical grate". But whatever about that. You don't appear to be saying that anymore.

Again, the "vertical grate" refers to the hard bottleneck/constraint of the whole system. This is what limits coke consumption at 33.3 kg/hr. You are peddling your misunderstanding of Mattogno's comprehensive work as evidence against this work when, the fact is, you simply have not understood it. All of your objections are already addressed therein.

[blake121666]

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.