quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

you refuse to apply your rules to a common air-cell

Which rules are those?  The primary set of rules we've been discussing are those in textbooks.  That was your claim, that any textbook would validate that you can create a battery which would run an ipod like device forever.  I don't have a textbook  So I asked you for a cite.  At that point all, real conversation stopped and you spent post after post avoiding this really simple question.

At this point, I think it's quite possible that textbooks don't actually validate your point or at least you don't know if they do or not.   I lean to the former because evidence suggests that you actually don't understand the formulae you are posting.  You are also, of course going for some kind of trolling record.

As for me, aside from laughing at you.  I'm due to hit "hero member" in less than a month.  Given your problem with citing and my tenacity for calling you on it.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen i cited a wikipaedia formula that shows it works,so why do you want a cite from a textbook?sounds like your just being an ass.if you think i dont understand the formula thats your problem not mine.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen i cited a

Wrong. Go back and read what a cite is.

why do you want a cite from a textbook?

Well for one because that was the claim you made and that I have contention with...do I really need to quote it again?  You made a clear-as-day claim that your conclusion was supported by not just *a* textbook but virtually all textbooks.  In fact you specifically requested that we focus on what the textbooks say. 

Are you withdrawing this claim? or does it still stand?  If the former then perhaps we can talk about something else if the later I will continue to pursue the claim you made.

sounds like your just being an ass.

ROFL.  Actually that's you.

It was your claim, is it somehow bad manners for you to be held to your own claim?  If so, then I guess I'm not Emily Post.
On the other hand you've spent a week or so just avoiding fulfilling a task that should be easy for you to do.  If it's hard, then I would have expected an explanation.  It seems deliberate so I figure you're a troll.  Which kind of makes you the ass, don't you think?

if you think i dont understand the formula

What evidence do we have that you understand anything?  A few formulae which doesn't really resemble what comes out of a textbook, containing symbols that are not standard math symbols and when asked what they are supposed to represent (both explicitly and implicitly you were asked this) you don't seem capable of answer.

What other choice does a rational person have except to consider you ignorant?

[profitis]

@sarkeizen citation: concentration cell,a galvanic cell in which the chemical energy  converted in2 electrical energy is arising from the concentration difference of a species at the 2 electrodes of a cell.this process will continue until the concentration difference is equaled in the cell. electrochem.cwru.edu. A marvelous citation from a internet electrochem dictionary.so now lets hear your grievences with this crystal clear citation predicting a air-conc. cell that continues until equilibrium.i,l organise that textbook citation just now i promise,having a kofi quick..     

[sarkeizen]

now lets hear your grievences with this crystal clear citation

Go back and read what I wrote about citations.  Why do you try so hard to avoid what any high-school student can do?  I mean unless you're a troll? 

l organise that textbook citation just now

Yawn.  Troll, troll, troll troll.

This sounds like an employee trying to weasel out of work.   Since when does citing a textbook - that you would think you OWN - requires organization.  Oh yeah, it's a HUGE undertaking, requiring thousands of person-hours to look something up in an INDEX.  It's like building the Brooklyn Bridge finding that thing that is in EVERY textbook.

You are hilariously stupid.

Aside: Isn't it kind of tedious typing deliberately poorly?