[UseNet header trimmed]
Subject: Re: CREMATORY RATES AT BIRKENAU LUDICROUS SAYS EXPERT
From: Jamie McCarthy
To: ihrgreg@kaiwan.com
CC: CODOH, codohmail@aol.com
[Responding to Greg Raven]
[Raven] "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] Müller proposed to construct a single-muffle furnace without an economizer and with a compressed-air device.
pp. 185-6:
Müller 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. Müller's discussion of extra fuel not being required, on pp. 185-6, makes this clear. Thus, your secondary question has been answered too:
[Raven] "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.
[ Index ]