quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen ..so you,re basicly saying

I'm saying that the only point I've been discussing from exceptionally early on was about your ability to support your statement: "ALL TEXTBOOKS necessitate the existence of and ability to create a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally"

The only way that point can be made, since no textbook will outright say "hey here's how you build an eternal battery" is a formal logical argument starting at the cite and ending with your statement: "ALL TEXTBOOKS necessitate the existence of and ability to create a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally"

Anything else can not make your point.  I assume you are avoiding this because you know you can't.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen so you want CITES and EXPLANATION from all  textbooks forcing nernst equation onto diffusion cells onto spontaneously reversable thermodynamics correct?

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen so you want CITES and EXPLANATION from all  textbooks

You know if you read my prior posts, instead of just being an asshole these things would be easier .

At least one cite from an ordinary textbook, for every external assumption.  The point of a cite is, as I said at least twenty times so that I don't have to depend on you for the interpretation of the text.  This is standard procedure in everything from research papers and high-school projects.  As stated before your argument must end with your prior statement as your conclusion: Therefore textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which can run an ipod like device constantly and eternally.

Incidentally since it's a *formal* argument - you can't use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.  So the fact that something doesn't mention something doesn't demonstrate it's independence.

[MarkE]

Stepping in here for a moment, my understanding of the Nernst equation is that entropy is implicit within it.  This leads me to two problems:  The first is that any process described by the equation is not 100% reversible.  The second is that my understanding is that 100% reversibility would translate only to the possibility of 100% energy cycle efficiency.  It would not allow for an infinite energy delivery that any finite load running perpetually would demand.  The reagents used in the cell react releasing energy and convert into waste product.  In a secondary cell the reactions can be reversed by adding energy back to the cell from an external source.  Absent an external recharging source, the best that we could do would be to construct a really big battery that would last a really long time on some defined finite load.  That wouldn't exactly be a perpetual cell.

What am I missing?

[profitis]

@sarkeizen so you want me to CITE and EXPLAIN in order to FORCE spontaneously reversable thermodynamics in a concentration cell that dont change over time correct?