Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!interpath!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-12.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this Date: 18 Jun 1996 12:59:00 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 215 Message-ID: <email@example.com> References:
<firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net In article <email@example.com>, Matt Giwer wrote: >firstname.lastname@example.org (Miloslav Bilik) wrote: > >>email@example.com (Matt Giwer) wrote: > >>>firstname.lastname@example.org (Miloslav Bilik) wrote: > >>>>email@example.com (Matt Giwer) wrote: > >>>>>rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote: > >>>>>>>>Deception alert! If we have 1 gram of hamburger and 18% of it is >>>>>>>>fat, then it releases .18 * (9000) = 1620 calories. Mr. Giwer has >>>>>>>>no justification to multiply this number by .1. > >>>>>>> Therefore after the 90% of water is gone you can only use 18% of >>>>>>>the remaining 10% as fat. Thus the justification. > >>>>And with 75% of water, what would you say ? Some justification to 90% >>>>instead of 75% (65% is more often admitted) ? Do you even have a clue, >>>>somewhat that the fat is concerned with the water's rate ? > >>>>> The floor is yours, Dr. Green. > >>> It was an AGREED upon place to start from when WE started this >>>some months ago. Would you like to start over with different >>>agree upon assumptions? If you, you first. > >>I don't agree. You understimated the amount of water, what is 65-70% >>for extracellular and at most 80%. > >>The fat is estimated with several ways, and the 18% from Mr Green is >>among the lowest, and didn't suppose that some water was mixed with >>it. With isotopics methods you can have near twice this number. > > Which in any event would result in 18% of 20%. He objected to >that multiplication as you know if you were reading the thread. He, on >the other hand and in light of where we started, wanted both 10% (here >20%) non-water AND 18% fat. Deceptive figuring. The calorie value of fat is computed on the weight with the water in it. I will type this very slowly for Mr. Giwer's benefit. If you take one gram of the white stuff from the side of your raw steak, that includes the water and all. When you burn it, you get whatever the calorie value of a gram of fat is regardless of what the percentage of water in that gram is. You are not entitled to take the energy value of a gram of fat with the water in, then pretend that this is really the energy value per gram for waterless fat. To compute caloric value, you may not reduce the amount of fat by 82%. Or if you do, you must multiply its energy output per unit of mass by 1/.18 = 5.56. Mr. Giwer is changing the definition of "fat" in the middle of the game in order to pull a fast one. Down in my refrigerator I have a package of Polish sausage. One link is 85g. Fat grams are listed as 22. Thus it is 25.9% fat. Pretending no water is introduced during the sausage making process, if this is Mr. Giwer's "waterless" fat, that makes the sausage at most 74.1% water not counting the protein, etc. Pretty dehydrated cow. Clearly this fat counts the water in it. Fat calories are listed as 190, but dietary calories are really kilocalories so we have 190,000 calories in 22g of waterlogged fat = 8636 cal/g. Call it 90% water, multiply by .1 to get 2.2g of dehydrated fat, but unless you claim the ability to burn water and get energy out of it, according to the observant Jews at Hebrew National that 2.2g of dehydrated fat still clocks in at 190,000 calories. I can not change that and neither can Mr. Superscientist. Unless he thinks those non-atheist Jews are lying to the goyim at the FDA. Or just go the easy route and take the 240 [kilo]calories for the 85g link. Now call it 90% water. We have 76.5g of water to cook off. We have 240,000 calories to do it with. I will even be nice to Mr. Giwer and let him start with a frozen sausage at 0C. Can 240,000 calories heat 76.5g of water enough to permit ignition of the non-water? No doubt Mr. Giwer will object that ordinary people aren't that fatty. Fine by me. Let's make them 10% fat. Let's see, 8.5g fat at 8636 cal per ~= 73,400 cal from the fat alone. The lean portion of the sausage clocks in at 63g and 50,000 cal = 794 cal/g of 100% lean meat. Again, those are waterlogged grams. 76.5g of lean in the 10% fat sausage ~= 60,700 more calories. Again, we have 76.5g of water and now must steam it off in only 134,100 cal. This could be a toughie. (I am hiding something. Let's see if our superscientist can figure it out.) >>> Want to go through the exercise? Even if you win the first, you >>>will lose the second. Green must have finally realized that and >>>stopped the exchange. Or he is just laying in wait to continue >>>the diversionary issue of bodies burning while trying to keep >>>attention from the problem of not enough coke for the bodies >>>claimed. Handwaving. Go burn my Polish sausage and see what your calculator tells you. >>It is not a game, win, lose. It was human beeings. Thus, I'm unsure >>that I will like to run into "exercices" as it was butchery meat. I >>can't stand up any unethical claim and your one is very close to the >>border line. > >It is an exercise in the credibility of the explanation for there not >being enough coke used to cremate the number of people claimed. If you >would like to start with 20% non-water and 18% of that 20% as fat, it is >fine with me. The fat must account for the heat to deal with its own water, and its entire energy output may indeed come from only 18% of its mass or even from only 10% of its mass. Nevertheless, if its weight is measured with the water in, as demonstrated above, the .18g of waterless fat still has 100% of the caloric value of 1g of waterlogged fat, not 18% as Mr. Giwer would have it. I thank the observant Jews at Hebrew National for their scholarly nutrition label. It appears Mr. Giwer is trying desperately to count the same water twice in order to reduce the energy the corpse gives off while burning. Sorry for pointing that scam out. As he claims to be a competent scientist it is hard to explain this as anything but deliberate dishonesty and deception. No doubt he will respond to this with an ad hominem attack on me, but it will not make this very valid point go away. And Mr. Giwer knows it. This is now an exercise in Mr. Giwer's credibility as a scientist. He is now invited to behave like one and refute this point with documented sources, detailed computations, and reasoned explanation. But my psychic prediction is that we will see more unscientific name-calling and handwaving. >Because even if it is marginally correct that the there is more heat >released than needed then all of that heat has to remain within the oven >and none of it can go up the flue or be lost by any other means >including opening the door to put in another body. These are valid considerations. But until you quantify these sources of loss, you are handwaving and you know it. I interpret your introduction of these issues before your computation of the burn as an admission that you already know the body contains enough fuel to pay back what has to be invested in it to bring it to ignition, and you are now looking for someplace to run to where you can handwave and namecall and try to shift the burden of proof onto other people. I know you do not like patents as sources, but the Topf patent does have a total gross energy value (i.e., the total energy without subtracting anything needed for dealing with the water) for an average 70kg corpse. That is 160,000,000 calories (those are small calories, not dietary calories). I leave you to work out how many calories per gram that is. Until you can come up with something better, as you yourself once said, my something beats the hell out of your nothing. Would you like to work with that, or do you prefer the sausage label? >Rather the game is being played by the holohuggers to explain the lack >of enough coke to cremate the number of people claimed. > >Some time in your life you may be brave enough to face it. There was >not enough coke to cremate all of these people. You claim that. Fine. You may even be right. But as you know, YOU BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF. You have evaded it at every turn, making unequivocal claims as above yet insisting you do not have to show anything. Here things are computable at least as a first-order approximation - or you have the option to run the experiment a second time (I understand the British have some cows they want to get rid of). So far _you_ have avoided the work and handwaved it all. Please start by addressing the point that you cannot measure caloric value with the water in yet pretend that the waterless version yields the same energy per gram as the version with the water in. Or if you now agree that you were counting the same water twice, please proceed to burn my Polish sausage and tell me whether it can manage to heat its own water enough to permit ignition - that is, will it pay back what the coke must put into the body in order to ignite it? Since your memory is not reliable, I will remind you that this is 240,000 calories to heat 76.5g of water starting at 0C. Can you heat it enough to permit ignition of the solid part? Or use a leaner sausage if you prefer and call it 134,100 calories. Now stop stalling and get out your calculator. >That means very simply >that there were not that many people cremated. That means that the >recorded deaths from stated, non-gassing causes and the amount of coke >shipped there match. Again, I've got something that beats the hell out of your nothing. Two somethings in fact. Want to start computing with that, or would you like to find your own published, verifiable source for caloric value of a gram of fat or of corpse, which clearly specifies whether it is a net or gross value? (If it is a net value and positive, that means that the body gives off more energy than it absorbs in the ignition process.) If the body contains enough energy to pay back the initial investment in its ignition, the computations would then shift to the loss up the flue, out the door, and to other parts of the "outside world" - including the structure of the crematorium itself - vs. the gain from cremation. We would then have to figure out how much _additional_ coke per hour is needed to make up _those_ losses. Are you brave enough to face what it might reveal, Mr. Superscientist? Posted/emailed to Ingrid Rimland, who might want to run this past her skeptical engineering student. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor