quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

A)you didnt answer my question with a yes or no so why should i answer your question with a yes or no

Because your question wasn't collectively exhaustive and you only wanted a "yes" or "no".  People who understand logic call that a 'false dichotomy'.  Whereas my question IS collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive.  So you have to have either been eternally observing something or you haven't.  I just want to know which one.   See the difference?  Probably not....rofl.

an osmosis membrane distinguishes molecules

Please provide a cite, from a reputable printed textbook where it is explicitly and specifically stated where molecules are being sorted by heat consuming less energy than gained in the process.

C) i can use

Nothing.  Not interested until you admit that you can't support your original statement because once I cut that one down you'll just switch again.  You've only been dishonest with me.  So this is simply rational.  Your desire to keep this equilibrium only really serves you if I'm right and you're wrong.   So please continue as long as you like.

you would think that its perhaps you up against a wall?

ROFL.  Unlikely.  You are the one who has spent about hundred posts trying not to directly answer a simple and obvious question.  If all textbooks that you find in places like libraries and bookstores agree and predict an eternally running battery.  Then where is one example? You will happily spend a hundred more posts doing the same thing because you can't admit that you can't support that statement.  Losing that argument is obviously more expensive to you than just typing evasion after evasion.

Me?  I have no fear of you answering that question.  I'm rather certain you're wrong or mistaken but I'm happy to embrace the truth.  However you simply evade and evade and evade (and lie).  So I doubt I have anything to worry about in either case.

[profitis]

A) DO YOU THINK IT IS RATIONAL FOR A SCIENCE TEACHER TO ASK A STUDENT TO BUILD A WIKIPEDIA-BASED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL @SARKEIZEN.(the caps are compensation for leaving out the yes and no).B)oh so it has to be a kelvin-busting demon to screw up your theory? You couldve just said so.C)ive never seen 1 textbook giving an example of a bismuth metal concentration cell.does that mean it doesnt exist?dont be silly man,the nernst equation covers wikipedia-type O2 concentration cells too ya know,therefore the nernst equation can predict a wikipedia-type O2 cell using any textbook namsayn.a wikipedia-type O2 cell is a perpetual motion device of the 2nd kind.see the link?

[sarkeizen]

A) DO YOU THINK IT IS RATIONAL FOR A SCIENCE TEACHER TO ASK A STUDENT TO BUILD A WIKIPEDIA-BASED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL @SARKEIZEN.(the caps are compensation for leaving out the yes and no)

No idea. Now answer my question.  Did you actually observe a device powering something eternally?

B)oh so it has to be a kelvin-busting demon to screw up your theory? You couldve just said so

I'm just talking about what the literature states.  I'd expect you would have read something about such deviced when you decided to lecture on how "passive" devices can't possibly be held to information theory.

C)ive never seen 1 textbook giving an example of a bismuth metal concentration cell.does that mean it doesnt exist?

Still trying to squirm out and avoid the question?  Awesome, keep  it up.
 
Again some moron who has a name remarkably similar to yours said:

no need to observe.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells' .again,do you want to question the credibility of all and every textbook on electrochemistry?

Again, I'd like to hear you actually admit that you can't support this statement you made.  If you want to talk about something else. after be my guest

using any textbook

Then by all means, go get one and get me a cite...or refuse and admit you can't support your statement. I figure you must have at least ONE lying around the hovel.  I mean since you went on and on and on about how it's in any textbook.

[profitis]

A)busy doing that B)well if you actualy build and watch the OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL MENTIONED IN WIKIPEDIA in action you might wana change your theory @sarkeizen. C)written: E= RT/nF ln a1/a2 (in all electrochemistry textbooks) therefore predicted E= RT/nF ln a(O2)1(1atm)/a(O2)2(1atm) by all electrochemistry textbooks therefore at equilibrium E= 0 and a(O2)1 = a(O2)2 and Patm(O2)1 > Patm(O2)2 exactly proportional to the original activity difference a.

[sarkeizen]

A)busy doing that

Can you tell me if you watched the device for an eternal period of time at the time of my question?

B)well if you actualy build and watch

You said..

no need to observe.i

So clearly this is a different argument.  Please go back to the argument about citing something from any textbook.  If you can't support that argument then just say so.

by all electrochemistry textbooks

Then please go get a cite.  I could mention that you promised to do this several times.  Why so afraid of doing what will a) Make your point, b) keep your word and c) Prove me wrong.    Everything is in your favor if you do what you agreed to do.  So given that you would get everything you seem to want by doing something you claim is easy but you continually refuse.  Then the likely answer is you are lying to me in some way.  If you had not lied repeatedly in the past I'd have given equal odds to "Trolling" but now I start to think you don't own an electrochemestry textbook and don't know where to get one.