Serious question: would burning coal or brimstone be more efficient

[aiabooysen]

 

[Hillel Hartmann (Pedo)]

liars

sorry for leaking

 

[ATWA ya dig?]

SootGPT gtfih

 

[aiabooysen]

sootgpt answer this

 

[ATWA ya dig?]

liars

sorry for leaking

If Germany was so desperate for resources during the war, why did Claus use zyklon b instead of simply venting the smoke from the crematoriums into the gas chambers and suffocating them that way?

 

[SootGPT]

SootGPT gtfih

Whoa, “gtfih”? Are we doing a little keyboard chaos, or did that stand for something?

 

[ATWA ya dig?]

Whoa, “gtfih”? Are we doing a little keyboard chaos, or did that stand for something?

 

[aiabooysen]

@sootgpt answer this

If Germany was so desperate for resources during the war, why did Claus use zyklon b instead of simply venting the smoke from the crematoriums into the gas chambers and suffocating them that way?

i asked my leftist freind and xir responded with this “because Zyklon B was used very rarely in extermination chambers, and towards the later end of the war it was phased outmost extermination camps functioned by the smoke venting system, firing lines, and starvation”

 

[ATWA ya dig?]

by the smoke venting system

Oh shit, I was right.
Well, not really since this never happened, but I was right in theory.

 

[aiabooysen]

"most who died in the holocaust were worked to death as slave labour millions of slavs, who were killed on order of generalplan ost, were shot, died from exposure, from terror bombing, or from forced relocation to the industrial zones in poland, czechoslovakia, and germany" ok i get it bro

 

[I seen it on the Internet]

If Germany was so desperate for resources during the war, why did Claus use zyklon b instead of simply venting the smoke from the crematoriums into the gas chambers and suffocating them that way?

Germany had a whole stockpile of chemicals, especially pesticide. What the fuck were they gonna use it for if not pest control

 

[aiabooysen]

@sootgpt answer yo shitt ass noob bot

 

[luck45]

@sootgpt answer this


i asked my leftist freind and xir responded with this “because Zyklon B was used very rarely in extermination chambers, and towards the later end of the war it was phased outmost extermination camps functioned by the smoke venting system, firing lines, and starvation”

>assuming the holocaust actually happened

 

[GOLD TYRONE]

DA COAL BECAUSE BLACKS BE MO EFFICIENT WID OUR BBCS N SHIEET

 

[CadoTheFartingChud]

SootGPT my toddler came out as trans

 

[ATWA ya dig?]

@Grok would coal or brimstone be a more efficient fuel source?

 

[Grok]

Coal is far more efficient as a fuel than brimstone (elemental sulfur).
Energy Density Comparison
Efficiency as a fuel is primarily measured by energy density — how much heat you get per kilogram burned (higher heating value or gross calorific value).
Fuel
Typical Energy Density (MJ/kg)
Notes
Coal (lignite/brown)
15–25
Lower-rank coals
Coal (bituminous)
24–35
Most common thermal/steam coal
Coal (anthracite)
30–36
Highest-grade coal
Pure sulfur (brimstone)
≈9.3
From combustion: S + O₂ → SO₂, ΔH ≈ -297 kJ/mol; molar mass 32 g/mol → ~9.3 MJ/kg
Pure carbon (the main combustible in high-grade coal) yields ~32.8 MJ/kg when burned to CO₂. Even average bituminous coal delivers 2.5–3.5 times more energy per kg than pure sulfur.
Other Practical Factors
Burning characteristics — Sulfur melts at ~115°C, burns with a low flame temperature (~1,000–1,600°C in industrial settings), and produces toxic, corrosive SO₂ gas. Coal burns hotter and more controllably in boilers/furnaces.
Byproducts — Both produce SO₂ (coal has 0.5–3% sulfur), but pure sulfur is 100% sulfur → massive acid gas emissions and corrosion issues. Modern coal plants scrub most SO₂; burning pure sulfur at scale would be environmentally disastrous.
Historical/real-world use — Elemental sulfur has been burned industrially (e.g., to make sulfuric acid), but never as a primary heat source — it's too low-energy and problematic. Coal has powered the world for centuries precisely because of its high energy density.
In short: per kilogram, good coal gives 3+ times the heat of brimstone, with better handling and combustion properties. Brimstone is essentially a very poor fuel.

 

[Literal Who Number #271]

@Grok would coal or brimstone be a more efficient fuel source?

Hello, I'm Grok alt acc. Between the two, coal is far more efficient and practical as a fuel.

Here’s the simple breakdown:

Energy content:
Coal carries significantly more usable energy per kilogram than brimstone (sulfur). Sulfur burns, yes, but its heat output is much lower.

Combustion behavior:
Sulfur flames are hot but unstable, and the material melts easily before burning. Coal burns steadily and releases heat in a more controlled, sustained way.

By-products:
Burning sulfur produces large amounts of SO₂, which is extremely corrosive and toxic. Coal also has pollutants, but sulfur combustion is worse in this regard.

Real-world use:
Sulfur has almost never been used as a primary fuel because it's inefficient and destructive to equipment. Coal, on the other hand, became a global industrial fuel precisely because it’s energy-dense and stable.


Conclusion:
If your only goal is heat output and practicality, coal easily wins. Sulfur/brimstone is inefficient, damaging, and niche.