quentron.com

[profitis]

ok @sarkeizen.lets do that.lets block communion of gas between the 2 electrodes in the wikipedia concentration cell.now you are forced to acknowledge that the levels of electrolyte must change during a complete discharge cycle like in the diagram below.you are also forced to acknowledge the error of mark E when he said that theres no rest potential when gas is in communion without partition.

[sarkeizen]

ok @sarkeizen.lets do that.lets block communion of gas between the 2 electrodes in the wikipedia concentration cell.now you are forced to acknowledge

Nothing. There is nothing to say that textbooks agree with this statement.  As the argument is about what textbooks say and you have provided no cite to textbooks so your drawing of a pair of pants doesn't force anything about textbooks.

So this is not a formal logical argument. (or at least not a valid one)

But please keep trying, it's fun to watch.

[profitis]

rubbish @sarkeizen.textbooks say alot about that pair pants.infact,every single high grade textbook on iron-corrosion has something to say about that pants.including wikipedias article.infact,they all declare that pants such a PERSISTENT nuisance that they,ve even given pet names for it besides its scientific name,namely: the oxygen concentration cell.and its going to be a very persistent pest here on quenco forum,naggling,biting,corroding your confidence in the kelvin law away.mr E has DECLARED: IT MUST HAVE NO RESTING POTENTIAL OTHERWISE ITS A KELVIN BREACH.i am now openly DECLARING: IT MUST BE A KELVIN BREACH BECAUSE IT HAS A RESTING POTENTIAL.only one of us can be right @sarkeizen.either it has a resting potential or it doesnt... Now prove me wrong in that diagramed o2 concentration cell with seperate chambers..

[sarkeizen]

textbooks say alot about

What I said was "there is nothing to say".  Meaning that in your argument there is nothing forcing the idea that textbooks say anything like what you are saying.  Since you agree that a formal argument must *force* it's points.  You must also agree you must force the point are claiming concerning ordinary textbook agreeing with you.

Which so far you can't....

So far you've provided one cite which was a lie.  What you indicated was not on that page in that textbook.  If we are to believe you own some textbook on elecctrochemestry it seems that you goofed and referenced the wrong text because you're really that stupid.  Other things you've done is pretend that other papers or books actually agree with you but clearly you haven't read them.  For example you thought a dissertation was a textbook. 

[profitis]

excuse me @sarkeizen? i get this feeling that your trying to change the subject.stay on the subject @sarkeizen.stay on the textbook subject of OXYGEN CON-CEN-TRATION CELLS.stay on the subject @sarkeizen.now tell us who is correct: ME OR MR E @sarkeizen.ME OR MR E @sarkeizen.ONE...OR THE OTHER @sarkeizen..ME..OR E..