Subject:     Re: CREMATORY RATES AT BIRKENAU LUDICROUS SAYS EXPERT
Sent:        2/7/96 2:37 PM
Received:    2/7/96 2:40 PM
From:        Jamie McCarthy, jamie@voyager.net
To:          ihrgreg@kaiwan.com
CC:          CODOH, codohmail@aol.com

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.revisionism)

On February 5th, at 10:30 AM Pacific time, Greg Raven
(ihrgreg@kaiwan.com) wrote:

> Speaking as a non-expert, no. In some systems, such as automobile
> engines, cold air is desireable because the combustion chamber is
> periodically sealed. In this situation, the denser the air, the
> better.
> 
> However, it seems intuitively true that in a free-flowing system
> such as a furnace, cold incoming air would either 1) reduce the
> temperature of the furnace, or 2) require more fuel to maintain
> furnace temperature.

Mr. Raven, since you posted this, you have been corrected on this
matter.  As I pointed out in my article which I emailed to you, about
two hours later, the Auschwitz furnaces were _not_ free-flowing.  If
you would like to confirm this, I suggest you consult _Anatomy of the
Auschwitz Death Camp_, Gutman et al., 1994, pp. 185, 185-6, 189, and
possibly elsewhere.  You will find:


   p. 185:
   
   [For Dachau] Mueller proposed to construct a single-muffle furnace
   without an economizer and with a compressed-air device.
   
   
   pp. 185-6:
   
   Mueller claimed that there was a direct relation between increased
   use and increased economy.  If the cold furnace required 175
   kilograms (kg) of coke to start up a new incineration, it needed
   only 100 kg if it had been used the day before;  a second and third
   incineration on the same day would not require any extra fuel,
   thanks to the compressed air;  that those that followed would call
   for only small amounts of extra energy. ^4
   
   4. Archive of the Memorial Place Dachau, files 943 and 2111.
   (p. 241n)
   
   
   p. 189:
   
   Twenty days later, the furnace was installed at Auschwitz
   (figure 6).
   
   Equipped with an electric forced-draft fan capable of removing 4,000
   cubic meters (cu m) of smoke an hour and fitted with an electric
   blower to inject blasts of cold air into the crucibles, the furnace
   was 50 percent more powerful than the Dachau model of 1939. ^14
   
   14. Central State Special Archives of Russia, Moscow, 502-1-214,
   weekly reports of July 5, 12, 20, 26, and August 17, 1940;  Moscow,
   502-1-327, letters Topf May 31 and June 11, 1940, and letter
   Bauleitung September 16, 1940;  Federal Archives Koblenz, NS 4
   Ma/54, letter Topf January 6, 1941. (p. 241n)


I also point out that the fuel used in the furnaces was the carbon-based
lifeform -- the human body -- which was being incinerated inside. 
Mueller's discussion of extra fuel not being required, on pp. 185-6,
makes this clear.  Thus, your secondary question has been answered too:

   Note that we must be discussing a furnace that can provide
   additional fuel to take advantage of conditions under which there is
   more oxygen.

We are indeed discussing such a furnace:  the fuel is the body which is
being incinerated, and, so long as it has not been reduced to ashes,
there is always a surplus of that fuel.


Most importantly, Mr. Raven, it is good to see that you still believe
alt.revisionism to be a fine place to exchange information about the
Holocaust.  You've asked a question about a technical detail of the
Final Solution, and the nature of this forum made it easy for me to
answer you.

You've indicated in the past, however, that you delete all emailed
copies of Usenet postings without reading them, and it also appears that
you are ignoring me personally.  I really don't understand why you'd do
that, and more to the point, why you would post your questions to Usenet
if you don't want to read the answers and possibly learn something.  I
hope that your view on this will change in the future.

Posted;  emailed to Greg Raven, and Cc'd to CODOH, the Committee for
Open Debate On the Holocaust.

CODOH, you see, believes that the chief problem with alt.revisionism is
"in order for communication to take place there must be some token show
of respect on the part of all participants."  I am indeed making a token
show of respect, and, if CODOH's theory is correct, Mr. Raven will
reward this by communicating with me, instead of ignoring me as he has
done for the past twelve months or so.

   ...alt.revisionism is not about reasoning with anybody. It's an
   electronic cat-fight. It's as intellectually deep an affair as
   screaming lines of apes throwing rocks at each other across a ditch.
   
   CODOH
   http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/random/duh.html
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.



--
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor