[Berg:]

If you operate above the Normal Operating Range of fuel/air ratios, you produce excessive quantities of smoke rapidly. That is why I referred to the discussion by E.W. Landen at the end of the Elliott and Davis paper and why I included his diagram as well. At fuel/air ratios beyond about 0.055, the smoke "solid" line becomes almost vertical and that means, according to Landen on page 346: "short engine life."

Berg still can't understand that there were literally thousands of surplus Soviet engines available. Wear and damage were not a source of worry. This engine's dead? Oh well, hook up the next one and start killing Jews again.

And HOW short? Ten minutes? A week? A month? A year? Berg doesn't say. Why not?

But is he even right in the first place about the amount of smoke? Again, let's turn to Holtz and Elliot, page 101:

   TABLE 4           

FREE CARBON IN THE EXHAUST GASES FROM ENGINE B

                     Free carbon in dry exhaust gases

   Fuel-air ratio    Lb per lb                Lb per 1000
    lb per lb         of fuel                   cu ft
      0.01             0.060                    0.047
      0.02             0.034                    0.053
      0.03             0.019                    0.046
      0.04             0.021                    0.068
      0.05             0.029                    0.117
      0.06             0.044                    0.213
      0.07             0.066                    0.361
      0.08             0.091                    0.576

Let's look at that graph on solid components of smoke Berg talks about. At a fuel/air ratio of 0.05, the graph shows 4 grams exhausted solid material per hour. At about 0.057, the graph shows above 16 grams - more than a factor of four.

Is that true? Look at the numbers above. At 0.05, the middle column shows 0.029. At 0.06 fuel-air ratio, the middle column shows 0.044. That's only 1.5 times the 0.05 output, not four times! Even at 0.07, the output is only 2.3 times as much as the 0.05 output.

So something appears to be wrong with the graph Berg uses. Either it was done wrong, or done from different engines than in the Holtz-Elliot paper.

Scott Mullins pointed out why it was done wrong. The graph Berg cites had its units in grams per hour - that is, the total output by weight. But Berg has cackled gleefully about how it's the percentage of CO in exhaust that determines lethality, not total volume. (An oversimplification, by the way - there are other factors such as pressure.) Thus he should know very well that it is the percentage of soot in the exhaust which gives short engine life, not the gross amount - especially since his own reference makes this point.

Berg is definitely distorting Landen by quoting out of context - another technique of Holocaust denial. Let's turn to page 346 of the Elliot-Davis paper, and see the entire context of the words "short engine life."

[T]he quantities of material sticking in an engine in the form of deposits amounts to possibly 0.0001% or 0.01% of the fuel burned. The 0.0001% figure corresponds to an engine with a normal life while the 0.01% figure means short engine life due to heavy deposits.

Now, this is the percentage sticking in the engine, not the percent exhausted, and again it is a percentage of fuel burned, not total volume per hour. So Berg's graph is another red herring. Note that even if the amount of soot as a percentage of fuel burned were constant, when measured in grams per hour, doubling the fuel/air ratio will double the weight of output.

There are other solid components besides carbon, but on page 100 of the Holtz-Elliot paper it is shown that even at a high fuel/air ratio, carbon makes up 99.1% of the soot.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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