quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

Perhaps this article will make things a bit clearer for you

Can you make a formal logical argument from this article which reaches the conclusion that "Textbooks say we can create a device that will run an ipod-like device forever?"

[profitis]

yes yes yes @sarkeizen.those guys showed that altercation of the electrode potential in a single gaseous electrode in contact with solid electrolyte(YSZ) induced a work function change and hence a gas-adsorptive capacity change.thus they conclude that the electrostatic (non-faradaic) electrode potential of a given metalic surface,eg. gold or platinum will directly affect the tightness to which it binds to the respective gas.thus platinum and gold will hold onto eg.oxygen gas to different degrees due to different electrostatic potentials,different work functions.its because of this that oxygen gas has two different potentials in the karpen setup and its because of this that the karpen setup will pump oxygen gas from one electrode to the other,ie.so that the oxygen potential evens out.the oxygen potential does even out temporarily on discharge because gas simply diffuses back to an even distribution when we switch the cell off.platinum and gold,s work function difference and potential difference(electrostatic,non-faradaic) remain constant and unaltered in the cell,only gas moves and ions(electrolyte) move,and of course electrons move via external circuit.nothing can permanently change here.it means wikipedias formula e=wf+contact potential with electrolyte is proven correct by karpen,s crapster and vice versa ie.we can integrate it with textbooks smoothly

[sarkeizen]

yes yes yes

Doubful

Those guys showed

Hyper Fail!!  Right out of the gate.  You might as well have said: "My uncle Sydney made a perpetual motion laser".  You have to cite the portion of the paper - which you won't because you probably haven't read anything other than the abstract - and write a series of statements which force the conclusion.  No cites, no series of statements == You are a failure.
rac
Come back when you can do something other than fail.

[profitis]

hey you can suss it out in 3-D if you want to check it out man.shove it in your lab,change the pressure,tweak the voltage,check the time,check the temperature..it,l all fit exactly to a T per what-im-saying.but we know you wont @sarkeizen,disgusting man.you force me to spill my secrets out here then you shout,'not enough'.your a disgrace to the energy movements.

[sarkeizen]

hey you can suss it out in 3-D if you want to check it out man.shove it in your lab,change the pressure,tweak the voltage,check the time,check the temperature..it,l all fit exactly to a T per what-im-saying.

Again, when you lose the argument you fall back to "But you need to build it".  Even though this is in direct contradiction to what your original argument was.  Sheesh.

but we know you wont @sarkeizen,disgusting man.

If you say, "textbooks prove" and I say "I doubt textbooks prove".  Only an exceptionally stupid person would argue that building something proves their point about textbooks.

you force me to spill my secrets out here then you shout,'not enough'

It's not "not enough" it's that you have given nothing.  Anyone can say "Oh this journal article proves X"' only someone who knows what they're talking about can take the article and step you through a logical argument where you have no choice but to agree.   Hence I think that you are either trolling, or know that books don't support your position or simply don't know what you're talking about.  Let me know which one it is.

.your a disgrace to the energy movements.

You mean the free energy movements?  The movements almost entirely peopled with the gullible, math-poor and stupid?  I'm not sure their opinion is really all that meaningful.