The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Bonesjones]

Fucking ninja'd by @Lemmingwise , but I'll keep posting.


It actually is a law of physics that energy is required to convert, say, water into water vapor. We can calculate, in fact, with precision the amount of energy required to heat water to the boiling point from whatever temperate it starts at (say body temperature) and then the energy required to make its phase change to vapor. You might even use this math to determine how much energy would be required, at a minimum, to covert the roughly 60% of the human body which is water into vapor. Any amount of energy less that that would obviously fail to extract all the water, and a soggy cadaver is not a cremated one.

Do you even have a GED?

I thought we couldn't calculate that? Make up your mind, bro.


Okay, here you are claiming that the Energy contained in the Fuel is exactly equal to the amount of energy required to cremate the corpse. Fuel(Energy) = Required(Energy) which is okay, assuming a real world impossibility of perfect breakdown of the fuel and then perfect transfer to the cadaver. In real life you'd lose some energy to the imperfect combustion of your fuel, imperfect transfer to the cadaver, but whatever. This is a theoretical device, like the old 'assume a spherical cow' joke.

Just when I thought you were getting it. We already defined the Required(Energy) as above, so every single cadaver needs to have at minimum that amount of energy input, which is then spent on the cremation process. As Lemmingwise points out, if Crema 2 has hot air and heat buildup in it, then that is excess energy wasted from the prior cremation process. So with every N cadaver you've introduced waste, and you're spending more fuel, not less.

You've confused a very inefficient real world crematorium with a better built, more efficient one. If you have two units; Unit A has a lot of leaky pipes and bad insulation, while Unit B is modern and well built, then it is a foregone conclusion that Unit B will take less fuel than Unit A. No matter how well built, however, you cannot use less energy that the minimum requirement.

It will always take 2,257 joules per gram to convert water to steam, no matter how clever you build the kettle.

I think you'll have to dumb it down for him, maybe use analogies of things he's familiar with. I'd suggest food or probably loli hentai, if I had to guess.

 

[History Speaks]

Lol you are completely running away from my point and question. I am saying there is no fixed minimum for fuel, not that there is no fixed minimum for energy. You stupidly conflated energy and fuel in your post, when fuel is only one source of energy. And now you are coping with that mistake.

I said what I said and not something else, and your insistence on distorting it and pretending you believe yourselves to be more intelligent than me are giving me more satisfaction than I deserve this evening.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Another source of energy would be the emission of human fat, which is why the Nazis apparently tried to include well fed corpses in their batches alongside emaciated ones.

I like how one of the reasons the crematoriums could be run so efficiently is that because they were emaciated camp prisoners and another is that because some were quite fat so it was more efficient.

You stupidly conflated energy and fuel in your post

Fucking hell this train of fun doesn't end, lmao.

 

[JohnDoe]

I think you'll have to dumb it down for him, maybe use analogies of things he's familiar with. I'd suggest food or probably loli hentai, if I had to guess.

Maybe if I can figure out a Fortnite analogy? Or is Roblox more age appropriate?

I am saying there is no fixed minimum for fuel, not that there is no fixed minimum for energy.

Dipshit, where the fuck are you getting the energy FROM? FROM THE FUEL. So there must be a minimum amount of FUEL to PROVIDE the ENERGY.
No matter if you start from coal, petroleum, or natural gas, you have to end up extracting the MINIMUM AMOUNT OF ENERGY FROM THE FUEL.

Think about it this way, the FUEL is like currency, its a way to store and transport ENERGY. You can TRADE fuel to accomplish things that REQUIRE ENERGY, just like buying something with MONEY.
So in this analogy lets says the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM ENERGY 'COST' is one hundred dollars, it doesn't matter if you 'pay' that cost in ten 10 dollar bills (coal) or five 20 dollar bills (natural gas), or with a single 100 dollar bill (rocket fuel), you still have to 'pay' the same amount of energy. There is a minimum for your fuel, that is the amount of fuel that yields the energy required.

 

[Bonesjones]

Lol you are completely running away from my point and question. I am saying there is no fixed minimum for fuel, not that there is no fixed minimum for energy. You stupidly conflated energy and fuel in your post, when fuel is only one source of energy. And now you are coping with that mistake.

I said what I said and not something else, and your insistence on distorting it and pretending you believe yourselves to be more intelligent than me are giving me more satisfaction than I deserve this evening.

Hey guys did you know you can just use one match to light an infinite amount of candles, it'll never burn out.


You must think jews actually are made of wood when it comes down to it.

 

[History Speaks]

Maybe if I can figure out a Fortnite analogy? Or is Roblox more age appropriate?



Dipshit, where the fuck are you getting the energy FROM? FROM THE FUEL. So there must be a minimum amount of FUEL to PROVIDE the ENERGY.
No matter if you start from coal, petroleum, or natural gas, you have to end up extracting the MINIMUM AMOUNT OF ENERGY FROM THE FUEL.

Now you are conflating the process that causes you to have the energy with the energy itself.

Sure, after the crema is running all day, you only have the heat energy because you added fuel to the crema. But you have still created an additional source of energy in addition to the fuel you have added. Which is why all else equal you need less fuel to burn a corpse if the crema is on all day than if you are turning it on for the first time.

I mean this is not difficult and while the other two are so stupid I can believe they do not get it, I am quite sure you do get the distinction I am drawing, John. You cannot infer an absolute minimum fuel requirement from an absolute minimum energy requirement. You can determine the energy, and you can use that to make reasonable estimates as to the fuel needed, since fuel is the most salient source of energy. But you cannot establish a bear minimum fuel requirement as a law of physics or whatever you were suggesting. You know this which is why you keep equivocating between the words fuel and energy.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Think about it this way, the FUEL is like currency, its a way to store and transport ENERGY. You can TRADE fuel to accomplish things that REQUIRE ENERGY, just like buying something with MONEY.
So in this analogy lets says the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM ENERGY 'COST' is one hundred dollars, it doesn't matter if you 'pay' that cost in ten 10 dollar bills (coal) or five 20 dollar bills (natural gas), or with a single 100 dollar bill (rocket fuel), you still have to 'pay' the same amount of energy. There is a minimum for your fuel.

I don't know if money is the best analogy. On the one hand, yes, you'll have his attention, for obvious reasons. On the other, they're used to money being able to be made out of nowhere with fractional banking, so that may end up confusing him, because the same is not true for energy/fuel.

Lemmingedit: old version
Now you are conflating the process that causes you to have the energy with the energy itself.

Sure, after the crema is running all day, you only have the heat energy because you added fuel to the crema. But you have still created an additional source of energy in addition to the fuel you have added. Which is why all else equal you need less fuel to burn a corpse if the crema is on all day than if you are turning it on for the first time.

I mean this is not difficult and while the other two are so stupid I can believe they do not get it, I am quite sure you do get the distinction I am drawing, John. You cannot infer an absolute minimum fuel requirement from an absolute minimum energy requirement. You can determine the energy, and you can use that to make reasonable estimates as to the fuel needed, but it would not be a law of physics or whatever you were suggesting.

lemmingedit: new version
Now you are conflating the process that causes you to have the energy with the energy itself.

Sure, after the crema is running all day, you only have the heat energy because you added fuel to the crema. But you have still created an additional source of energy in addition to the fuel you have added. Which is why all else equal you need less fuel to burn a corpse if the crema is on all day than if you are turning it on for the first time.

I mean this is not difficult and while the other two are so stupid I can believe they do not get it, I am quite sure you do get the distinction I am drawing, John. You cannot infer an absolute minimum fuel requirement from an absolute minimum energy requirement. You can determine the energy, and you can use that to make reasonable estimates as to the fuel needed, since fuel is the most salient source of energy. But you cannot establish a bear minimum fuel requirement as a law of physics or whatever you were suggesting. You know this which is why you keep equivocating between the words fuel and energy.

Fuuuuck there's no end to this. Stop Cockerill stop. This discussion will haunt you online and the longer you continue the worse you're making it. I'm starting to feel bad for you.

 

[History Speaks]

I don't know if money is the best analogy. On the one hand, yes, you'll have his attention, for obvious reasons. On the other, they're used to money being able to be made out of nowhere with fractional banking, so that may end up confusing him, because the same is not true for energy/fuel.

Fuuuuck there's no end to this. Stop Cockerill stop. This discussion will haunt you online and the longer you continue the worse you're making it. I'm starting to feel bad for you.

Lol.

Look, you guys are conflating energy with one source of energy (obviously the most salient, but one source), namely fuel. This overlooks heat built up from prior cremations. The fact that it takes fuel to create the heat does not change the fact that we have another source of energy.

The only way you will be able to make me look stupid is by lying about what I said, i.e. claiming I said we cannot calculate a fixed energy requirement, when I was clearly and expressly talking about fuel. If you do not lie and say "Matt said even if you need x energy to burn a corpse we cannot infer from that a fuel requirement, because of other potential sources of energy", then nothing will happen because that is correct.

 

[Bonesjones]

It's a bold strategy to post endless words of nonsense to make everyone just cringe at what you say, so they have no answer to your ridiculous nonsense. I call it the Noam Chomsky effect.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Sorry I just had to barge in here to post something fucking hilarious.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88-01314R000100360016-9.pdf

What I find funny about this, is that if the Holohoax debate was a criminal case, this would be an overt Brady Disclosure violation to the extent that there would likely be charges filed against the prosecutors.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The only way you will be able to make me look stupid is by lying about what I said

Don't worry, all anyone would need are your own words. I'll save them in case you want to go back and edit them.

Spoiler: In memoriam. Never forget.

I am saying that your "minimum physically possible amount of fuel needed to burn a human of x weight" calculation is wrong, laughable and ridiculous, because it does not take into account the factors I have spent far too much time talking about, whether cremas run continuously, whether multiple bodies are burned at once, etc. It also does not take into account technical innovations, like Topf's method for drying out corpses.

The idea that there is a fixed "minimum fuel" needed to burn a corpse - as if this were a law of physics - is nonsense, technical innovation can and has reduced the amount of needed fuel. You are either a very confused person or a charlatan.

One thing that shows you are really confused is that you keep conflating necessary energy and necessary fuel required to burn a body. You could calculate a minimum amount of energy needed to burn a cadaver (is that what you mean?), you cannot calculate a minimum amount of fuel because of the other factors I mentioned (for example, emissions of fat from burning "well-fed" corpses, not just fuel, powered the cremas, as could previous deposits of fuel and preheating of the ovens). They are not the same thing.

It is obnoxious to say this again, but both of you guys really manifest the Dunning-Kruger effect, you are not knowledgeable enough to know what you do not know.

I will repeat my point once more. You can calculate x minimum amount of energy as being necessary to burn an individual cadaver of y weight. You cannot equate that with a precise measure of fuel, because for a given cremation, there will be other sources of energy apart from a new deposit of fuel (the most obvious is built up heat from prior cremations).

The big fallacy both of you are committing - I see this now - is you are assuming that because we can calculate energy requirements with precision for each cremation, that we can therefore know how much fuel we will need for each one. But that is not true and you do not have the powers of subtlety to see why. (If it were true that we could convert the energy requirements to a precise requirement for fuel that is true for each cremation, then there would be no such thing as efficiency in cremation lmao.)

By the way Chugger of course there are records of fuel deliveries. Even Irving admitted at trial that thousands of tons of coke must have been imported to Auschwitz, based on the documents he had seen.

This is my last attempt. Here is a simplified hypo for you to try to illustrate the distinction you are missing.

Cremating corpse A requires E amount of energy. We agree we can determine E with precision.

Crema 1, which has recently been turned on, cremates A using fuel C, which equals E

Crema 2, which has been running all day, cremates A with fuel C>, which is less than E. It can do this because of heat that has built up from prior cremations today. C> plus heat energy equals E.

Therefore, it is possible to cremate corpse A with either C amount of fuel or less than C fuel, even though the same amount of energy (E) will be needed to cremate it.

Sigh. I am not talking about "perfect efficiency." I am talking about other sources of energy than the extra fuel needed to burn an individual cadaver, most especially the heat built up from prior cremations. My whole point is that, when you are burning an individual cadaver, there other sources of energy than new deposits of fuel.

I used to think citing Dunning Kruger was douchey, Clearly invoking it is necessary to maintain our hopes of sanity on this thread.

Yes it came from fuel. But my whole point is that, because of the heat (which came from the fuel), successive cremations will require less fuel. So we cannot have a fixed value for the fuel required to cremate an individual corpse, since the fuel required right after the crema is turned on is greater than the amount required after it has been running all day.

Another source of energy would be the emission of human fat, which is why the Nazis apparently tried to include well fed corpses in their batches alongside emaciated ones.

Can I just ask you a direct question - do you concede that it will take less fuel to burn some cadavers than others, even controlling for the weight of the cadaver? Question is also for JohnDoe.

Lol you are completely running away from my point and question. I am saying there is no fixed minimum for fuel, not that there is no fixed minimum for energy. You stupidly conflated energy and fuel in your post, when fuel is only one source of energy. And now you are coping with that mistake.

I said what I said and not something else, and your insistence on distorting it and pretending you believe yourselves to be more intelligent than me are giving me more satisfaction than I deserve this evening.

Now you are conflating the process that causes you to have the energy with the energy itself.

Sure, after the crema is running all day, you only have the heat energy because you added fuel to the crema. But you have still created an additional source of energy in addition to the fuel you have added. Which is why all else equal you need less fuel to burn a corpse if the crema is on all day than if you are turning it on for the first time.

I mean this is not difficult and while the other two are so stupid I can believe they do not get it, I am quite sure you do get the distinction I am drawing, John. You cannot infer an absolute minimum fuel requirement from an absolute minimum energy requirement. You can determine the energy, and you can use that to make reasonable estimates as to the fuel needed, but it would not be a law of physics or whatever you were suggesting.

Lol.

Look, you guys are conflating energy with one source of energy (obviously the most salient, but one source), namely fuel. This overlooks heat built up from prior cremations. The fact that it takes fuel to create the heat does not change the fact that we have another source of energy.

The only way you will be able to make me look stupid is by lying about what I said, i.e. claiming I said we cannot calculate a fixed energy requirement, when I was clearly and expressly talking about fuel. If you do not lie and say "Matt said even if you need x energy to burn a corpse we cannot infer from that a fuel requirement, because of other potential sources of energy", then nothing will happen because that is correct.

Save away. In a few months we will see whether this has proven an "embarassment" for me. As long as you quote me directly I have exactly zero fear of that happening.

lol it is impressive how dedicated you are to avoiding the fact that you were conflating fuel with energy.

You are not even getting the semantics right. Fuel is colloquially referred to as a source of energy all the time, and the idea that I am denying the First Law of Thermodynamics by using colloquial language is a desperate stretch.. https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/EnergyConceptionsMisconceptions.pdf

"Fuel is a source of energy, but the fuel itself is not energy" https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/EnergyConceptionsMisconceptions.pdf

The serious semantical and substantive mistake is the one you made, i.e. equating the fuel used in cremation to all the energy used in cremation. It is childish to deny this, and I suspect you understand it by now.

Honestly I have better things to do than deal with a certifiable moron (Lemming) and a guy who has clearly recognized his mistake (hence his vague language and attempts to change the subject) but will not admit it, namely John.

If you think that the things I wrote will humiliate me, go for it and share it. I certainly wrote them. All I ask is that you share the direct quotes you provided.

But the minimum fuel requirement is not equivalent to the minimum energy requirement, because there are other sources of energy than fuel, and there are techniques that allow you to get more of those sources of energy (e.g. running the cremas all day to build up heat). The minimum fuel requirement is not a "law of physics" and depends instead on contingent circumstances, i.e. technology and method.

That is all I am saying bro. I challenge you to look at those sentences and tell me what you disagree with. Be specific and do not play with language.

And of course I will be back here all the time LOL. Not least to prove you guys wrong (not really you John, because I have to be honest and admit I do not believe you are actually dumb enough to believe the quoted passages are humiliating for me) about my impending lolcow status.

But the minimum fuel requirement is not equivalent to the minimum energy requirement, because there are other sources of energy than fuel, and there are techniques that allow you to get more of those sources of energy (e.g. running the cremas all day to build up heat). The minimum fuel requirement is not a "law of physics" and depends instead on contingent circumstances, i.e. technology and method.

That is all I am saying bro. I challenge you to look at those sentences and tell me what you disagree with, OR alternatively if you do not disagree with anything, tell me what there is contradictory with the earlier stuff Lemming quoted. Be specific and do not play with language.

And of course I will be back here all the time LOL. Not least to prove you guys wrong (not really you John, because I have to be honest and admit I do not believe you are actually dumb enough to believe the quoted passages are humiliating for me) about my impending lolcow status.

I did not say "running the cremas all day" is a separate source of energy. I said it creates a separate source of energy, namely heat.

John, note that this is the best your wing man can do LMAO.

The full quotation was "there are techniques that allow you to get more of those sources of energy (e.g. running the cremas all day to build up heat)." Clearly I was referring to "running the cremas all day" as a technique to get more sources of energy, not a source of energy.

If I were you I would ask yourself why I trigger you so much, to the point where you are (unsucessfully, lol) parsing grammar to try to make me look dumb.

Stan, you may be interested in a 1985 analysis by engineers Klaus and Christel Kunz. They describe how Topf's cremation technique - which dries out corpses through evaporation, utilizes the emission of fat from heavy corpses, is built to run continuously throughout the day, and so on - is highly fuel efficient. The engineers argue that Topf-style cremas could have cremated far more bodies than were even cremated at Auschwitz, using an (assumed) loading capacity of 50 corpses, which they say is quite possible if the crematoria have the right dimensions.

I described this in more detail in a previous post but can try to dig up this paper if you are interested, hopefully there is an English version.

Hey,

1 - I disagree that cremation technology that improves fuel efficiency violates the laws of physics. I also disagree that fuel is synonymous with energy - it is not energy, but a source of energy, and not the only source of energy used in cremation. I think your conflation of fuel and energy is your foundational mistake, which is causing a lot of fruitless exchanges between us.

2 - as I said earlier (relevant part bolded)-

The millions of Polish Jews whom the Nazis stuffed into the ghettos were certainly deliberately starved, but Jews deported from, for example, the Netherlands and Norway had not been ghettoized or deliberately starved by the Nazis prior to their deportation. This was probably because the Dutch and other Western Europeans were mostly not anti-semitic and would have been appalled by this.

So many of the Jewish deportees to Auschwitz - from Western Europe - would have been overweight or normal weight. If you are overweight a few to several days in a cattle car to Auschwitz - however brutal - is not going to reduce you to skin and bones.'

It was not all planned ahead of time. They engaged in all kinds of experimentation and innovation to maximize fuel efficiency with cremation. There is a whole documentary record supporting this, e.g. documents showing Germans complaining about the inadequate cremation capacities at Auschwitz, Topf's documents describing his new innovations in fuel efficiency, documents describing these innovations in technical detail, etc . . .

I mean, I doubt they cared about nationality. What they did care about - and we have evidence to support this - is including well-fed cadavers alongside emaciated ones. The point about Dutch and Norwegian Jews not being starved (until the end of the war, where the Dutch people in general were starving) was simply to show you that there were non-emaciated Jewish corpses available to the nazis. I was not claiming that the SS men cared about the nationality of the cadavers.

All deniers have are intuition pumps - e.g. "this sounds silly," "the Germans would never behave like this," ad infinitum. We have a firm documentary record establishing our story of Nazi mass murder. Human intuition is weak and I prefer evidence, especially in such abudance.

If we are going off pure intuition, mine says that it makes no sense for millions of Jews to disappear without a trace from the German camp system during the war, with no evidence of their resettlement outside the camps.

I never claimed to be an expert in cremation. The extent of my knowledge is that I have read a couple books about cremation as preparation for my engagement with this subject. I am no chemist either, although I was a chemistry major at uni before switching. I switched because I was clumsy in lab, but I was excellent in the theoretical chemistry. I know enough about chemistry to know that fuel is not energy, it is a source of energy.

Your foundational error - and the reason that you think innovations that increase fuel efficiency violate the laws of physics - is conflating fuel and energy. I am sorry but that is the way of it.

btw As insulting as you have been, I do not take that too seriously because this is the Internet and Kiwifarms.

re - Lemming, take it up with the German engineers I cited. But in implying it is "impossible" for the inclusion of heavy bodies to be fuel efficient at some level, but not fuel efficient at a higher level, you are again appealing to intuition, this time in a way that misunderstands math.

Variable A (the inclusion of heavy bodies) is perfectly capable of having a positive effect on cremation efficiency (compared to burning the bodies individually) in B quantity, but a negative effect on efficiency in B+C quantity. That is basic statistics - a variable can have two effects in the opposite directions, and one direction can overpower the other at certain quantities of the variable.

By the way - and in anticipation of a straw man - I am not claiming that the existence of heavy bodies makes it quicker to burn corpses than it would be if there were no such corpses at all. I am merely claiming that - with the existence of heavy bodies at Auschwitz, i.e. Western European deportees, as a given, and with the task of having to burn all these bodies as a given - it is more efficient to burn them alongside emaciated bodies, than to burn all these bodies individually, because the emission of fat from the heavy bodies moves the process along.

We have witnesses of their existence, buildings where they live, pictures, etc. There is zero evidence of any community of millions or even thousands of Jews moved out of the camp system and into some permanent settlement.

guys, you can make fun of my point. I do not know why you would since it is true and a product of pretty basic science (the difference between fuel and energy). But go ahead and make fun of it.

I do however insist that you do it through direct quotes, not your misrepresentations.

Regarding this "challenge" to create some kind of equation, My whole point is that we CANNOT, sitting here today, make an equation about the "minimum possible fuel" need to cremate cadavers at Auschwitz with any kind of accuracy-not even as a Fermi estimate. We simply do not have enough information at hand to numerically measure exactly how fuel efficient the Nazi methods were.

We CAN make qualitative statements. We CAN say that the Topf methods (the dehydration of the corpses, the emission of fat from the heavier corpses, running the cremas all day to build up heat, etc) saved a hell of a lot of fuel. But it would be pseudoscientific, without knowing more about how the cremas worked in practice, to present equations of exactly (in a numerical sense) how much fuel the cremas saved, and how much fuel would have been necessary.

The response to my point in this regard has been to conflate fuel with energy-John Doe said, hey we can calculate how much energy we need to cremate corpses of x weight, you are dumb for denying this. I responded by saying that fuel is not energy, but a source of energy, and that the cremas had other sources of energy, most salient of these is the built up heat from prior cremations, but you also have the emission of fat from heavier corpses.

Another response to this has been to say, where did the heat come from? This is a complete red herring - Of course the heat came from the cremating process which required fuel (who denied this?). But the fact that X fuel (through the whole cremation process) is used to create Y heat does not mean that creating Y does not save fuel. Of course it does--and Topf's technique of running the cremas continuously through the day produces more heat than an on-and-off commercial cremation working with the same amount of fuel would.

Regarding what I said about my knowledge of chem, again this is a misrepresentation. I said I did excellent at low-level underclassman theoretical chemistry classes, but did mediocre in the labs where I was quite clumsy. Hence I dropped my chemistry major before I could even get to upper level courses. By referencing these banal facts of my academic career, I was not presenting myself as some kind of chemist or professor of chemistry making pioneering discoveries.

My expertise is history. The only thing I have said is I know enough about chemistry to debunk the nonsense I have read on this thread insofar as it relates to chemistry. With respect to chemistry, I am very knowledgeable by rando standards, but completely useless compared to an actual chemist or engineer or someone with a degree in chemistry.

You do know that a number of torturous Nazi medical experiments were also performed on non-Jewish inmates, and in camps other than Auschwitz. Do you think these witnesses--and more importantly, the doucmentary evidence for Nazi medical experiments, including the "scientific" data they collected from their freezing experiments, among others--are also lying?

Are you seriously claiming that the Germans scrupulously consulted Slavic, Jewish and Romani inmates-people they considered subhuman-for consent to being injected with malaria and frozen to death? Why would they do such a thing? (They may have "consented" in the sense that someone consents to giving a wallet guy who points a gun to his dead his wallet, but that is a complete sham.)

Attached is a "malaria card" of a Polish priest who was detained in Dachau and subject to freezing experiments as well. Was he lying about having been forced to undergo these experiments? Numerous such cards were found when the Americans-not muh Nazis, Americans-liberated the camp.


Okay, this is our disagreement. I say you cannot calculate the needed fuel even if you can calculate the needed energy, because fuel is not the same as energy, and because fuel requirements depend on other (unquantifiable) variables in addition to energy requirements. In this case, the relevant variables relate to the Topf method. We do not know numerically how fuel efficient the unusual and innovative Topf cremation methods (dehydrating corpses through the method described earlier, running the cremas continuously all day to build up heat as an alternative source of energy, utilizing emissions of fat from heavier corpses) were.

 

[History Speaks]

Save away. In a few months we will see whether this has proven an "embarassment" for me. As long as you quote me directly I have exactly zero fear of that happening.

 

[JohnDoe]

You know this which is why you keep equivocating between the words fuel and energy.

Fuel is what we call a storage medium for energy.

 

[FlamingPie]

Save away. In a few months we will see whether this has proven an "embarassment" for me. As long as you quote me directly I have exactly zero fear of that happening.

Why does that sound like the words of someone who's about to fly too close to the sun?

 

[History Speaks]

Fuel is what we call a storage medium for energy.

lol it is impressive how dedicated you are to avoiding the fact that you were conflating fuel with energy.

You are not even getting the semantics right. Fuel is colloquially referred to as a source of energy all the time, and the idea that I am denying the First Law of Thermodynamics by using colloquial language is a desperate stretch.. https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/EnergyConceptionsMisconceptions.pdf

"Fuel is a source of energy, but the fuel itself is not energy" https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/EnergyConceptionsMisconceptions.pdf

The serious semantical and substantive mistake is the one you made, i.e. equating the fuel used in cremation to all the energy used in cremation. It is childish to deny this, and I suspect you understand it by now.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Why does that sound like the words of someone who's about to fly too close to the sun?

>In a few months
These words spoken on this side of the internet tend to either have glowie implications or cow implications with very little in between.

 

[Lemmingwise]

lol it is impressive how dedicated you are to avoiding the fact that you were conflating fuel with energy.

You are not even getting the semantics right, fuel is colloquially referred to as a source of energy all the time. https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/EnergyConceptionsMisconceptions.pdf

"Fuel is a source of energy, but the fuel itself is not energy" https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/EnergyConceptionsMisconceptions.pdf

If I am being honest, I think that you have recognized your mistake by now, so the link is more for the other guy.

Holy fuck, this guy understands nothing about the things he writes about.

Here is the document, just in case it's some trap to sniff out IP's and someone forgot to turn on their VPN.

I didn't know someone could be this bad at reading and still produce intelligible sentences. It really is a miracle of egyptian science.

 

[History Speaks]

Honestly I have better things to do than deal with a certifiable moron (Lemming) and a guy who has clearly recognized his mistake (hence his vague language and attempts to change the subject) but will not admit it, namely John.

If you think that the things I wrote will humiliate me, go for it and share it. I certainly wrote them. All I ask is that you share the direct quotes you provided.

 

[Lemmingwise]

If you think that the things I wrote will humiliate me, go for it and share it. I certainly wrote them. All I ask is that you share the direct quotes you provided.

How could they humiliate you? Fat retards have no sense of shame.

You are not even getting the semantics right.

All he said was "Fuel is what we call a storage medium for energy."

What is wrong about the semantics in that sentence?

Lmao, I think you're starting to understand that you made a mistake, even if you're not sure what, and are now starting to run away from the discussion. You'll be back

 

[JohnDoe]

a guy who has clearly recognized his mistake (hence his vague language and attempts to change the subject) but will not admit it, namely John.

Report to your shift at the drive in, you're projecting too hard to be posting right now.

"Fuel is a source of energy, but the fuel itself is not energy"

Yes, maybe you're understanding some high school level science - so where does all the energy for the cremation come from? The fuel. There is a limit to the maximum amount of energy you can extract from any given fuel, and you need the energy extracted from the fuel to meet the minimum energy required for the given task (in this case, cremation). So there is a minimum amount of fuel (depending on the fuel) required to cremate a cadaver.