quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen,no problemo,just stack a few slices of metal and electrolyte into a pile under hydrogen to up the voltage and leak a steady flow of smaller current at the same rate as the battery,s recharge rate and you get continuous power to your ipod

Still, only assertions and no textbook cite or formal argument.  Let me know when you get around to doing this.

how the cell mentioned in wikipedia under the name 'oxygen concentration cell'

Again, no idea what this is.  Please define, not using the term "wikipedia" or references to wikipedia.  Strange that you can't define this term or really any other term.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen..no.i want to use the term 'wikipedia' because nobody beside you is complaining about it.i want to use the term wikipedia because wikipedia is trusted by the majority.i also want to use the term wikipedia because it,s a cool sounding word,wiki-wiki-pedia-wiki.we the scientific community demand you and mark E describe the role of kelvin statement in oxygen concentration cells and catalyst oxygen spillover thermodynamic cycle.NOW.before i get angry again..

[MarkE]

Sark... can't spell the rest of your username correctly by memory sorry..

I have a very serious question for you relating to this link:  http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/01/31/1745245/engineers-invent-acoustic-equivalent-of-one-way-glass

So the link details the acoustic equivalent of one way glass that has been built in a lab now.  Now my question is do inventions like this that are creating fundamental Assymetries that were thought to be impossible not create a glimmer of hope that a device in the same class of quentron type devices could in fact be possible? I mean I know the device itself doesn't itself necessarily violate 2LOT but to me it seems like every day brings us closer to viable 2LOT violating devices.

What is your feeling on this?

There is a big difference between a headline description and the body of an article.  The use of fans to push air back does not alter acoustic symmetry.  It continuously adds energy in one direction courtesy of the fans so that any energy traveling in the reverse direction is more difficult to detect.  It is also hard to hear what someone is saying when they are riding away from you on a bicycle even if their head is turned towards you.

Professor Sheehan from San Diego offers many reasons why the Second Law of Energy is unsatisfying.  He notes that even though other first principles have been modified over time the Second Law hasn't.  So, there are reasons that we can suspect that perhaps the Second Law is not absolute despite our experience so far that it is.  In the case of Mr. Hardcastle, his experiments can't tell us if his ideas can beat the Second Law.  If he wants to pursue his ideas he needs to design an experiment that can discern a violation.

[MarkE]

@mark E, naturaly.i got a vid sample here on the forum www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/526/ this power coming from a few mm2 active nickel-black surface plated on a nickel grid anode and silver cathode in sodium hydroxide under hydrogen. Theres quite a few documents on the related karpen,s battery floating on the net and a good one is here by camil alexandrescu for new energy journal www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/69870019 where its oxygen concentration gradient is described.the source of energy for this class of cells is heat from a single thermal reservoir,anywhere,anytime.

Your first link shows someone connecting a uA meter to a cell a few times.  What is that supposed to establish other than there is some stored energy in the cell used?  Secondly, you describe the cell as using hydrogen.  Hydrogen is just an energy store. 

If you want to test your claim that a Karpen cell violates the Second Law, then show such a cell cooling the environment.   Show that inserting a Karpen cell in a Dewar flask filled with mineral oil cools that flask while the output from the cell heats a resistor inserted into another Dewar flask filled with mineral oil where the oil in each flask starts at the same temperature.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen..no.i want to use the term 'wikipedia' because nobody beside you is complaining about it.

The fact is, I have absolutely no useful idea what the device you are talking about is and now you are saying, that you refuse to define the terms you are using. That seems identical to deliberately stalling the argument - yet again.

we the stupid community demand you

Exactly how is it reasonable to demand I refute something that you refuse to define, cite properly or argue?