quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen youre realy beginning to look like a nincampoop.either you will go and build a common O2 concentration cell,chek it out thoroughly,or you wont.did you know that there are electrodes on the market to measure O2 concentrations at different depths of ocean water that use the hammerstein method?take two of those  electrodes and build a hammerstein pile.hammerstein said that it works in a isothermal bath so if you dont have a isothermal bath to test that part of the advert out thats your problem not mine.meantime we use hammerstein power for our calculators and get on with our lives.we dont care about isothermal baths.

[profitis]

...we dont have time for isothermal baths as you do.we either listen to hammerstein,s advert for a button cell that lasts 30years or we go buy a regular button cell that may or may not self-discharge after 2years..we care only that our calculator works at anytime,at any place,without fizzing out on us..

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen dont be a dunce,i just cited the nernst equasion man.of all the things i chose to CITE

Dude.  I've already defined what I meant by a "cite" a few times now.  Why do you insist on not reading what I write?  Why do you try so hard to avoid making what appears to be a simple point.  Look how easy it is. 

Assertion: A vector space over m of vectors v1, v2, ..., vn in V is a basis iff it is linearly independent and complete.

I could just do the proof for you right here but for the sake of brevity I can say:

Page 10, Linear Algebra Done Wrong, Sergei Treil, Department of Mathematics, Brown University

Why not just admit you don't have a textbook - even after harping on what the textbooks say.  That's pretty hilarious but it doesn't disprove your point per se.

Anyway the obvious reason to want a cite is that the person asking wants to look at something in context. What good is an equation if I don't have something that explains the terms and assumptions.  Otherwise I could just say e^(pi * i) + 1 = 0 therefore you're wrong.  Perhaps in, whatever field you are in "rigor" is unheard of.   If there's one thing I understand, significantly better than you: plugging numbers into formulae doesn't necessarily mean anything.

either you will go and build a common O2 concentration cell,chek it out thoroughly,or you wont.

Are we back to that?  Why do I have to build something to test YOUR assertion which YOU said came straight out of a textbook?

hammerstein said that it works in a isothermal bath

Dude,  if this is part of your original argument.  Where you said that we should pay attention to the textbooks.  Then how about citing the textbook.  I've even given you an example that a three-toed sloth could follow.

so if you dont have a isothermal bath to test that part of the advert out thats your problem not mine.

ROFL come on.  Is this how you approach every argument?  It's pretty funny. 

Profitis: There is a theory in just about every Physics textbook that says you can change a mouse into a magic mouse.
Normal Person: Ok, where does it say that? How was it tested and are you sure you are interpreting the text correctly?
Profitis: You have to feed a normal mouse *magic beans*
Normal Person: Wait. What? You just said it's in every textbook.  Why can't you just tell me where.
Profitis: Look either you will feed a mouse magic beans or you won't.
Normal Person: Granted.  However I don't have any magic beans.  I don't even have any regular beans.  Your argument was that this information is available in a textbook.
Profitis: Well just plug "mouse" into the floobar equation.
Normal Person: That's not what I asked for.  Clearly there are problems with just putting numbers into something you don't understand.  Babbage knew this over a hundred years ago.
Profitis: Look you should just feed the mouse some magic beans.  It's not my problem that you don't have any.
Normal Person: Seriously? Your argument was X is in a textbook.  It sure seems like switching your argument after I show some interest is your problem and not mine.
Profitis: If you do what I say you will have a magic mouse and then you can test it.
Normal Person: What?  How would I even do that.  Your statement is so insanely vague that I'm not even sure it's even a testable assertion.
Profitis: It's not my problem that you don't have a magic tester...

Normal Person: Oh come on.  Now you sound like you're trying to get out of the argument on a technicality.

we dont have time for isothermal baths as you do.

Well if you're claiming that this is extracting energy from ambient heat then you don't have much choice in validating that claim.  Do you not think validating claims is important?

we either listen to hammerstein,s advert for a button cell that lasts 30years

I thought it never stopped producing energy?  Or have you switched your thesis again?  Can you make up your mind if the device does work forever or if it does work for 30 years.

or we go buy a regular button cell that may or may not self-discharge after 2years

Actually that's a false dichotomy but anyway...

[profitis]

@sarkeizen no you are the complainant not me thus you have to work out if its a 2lot discrepency or not,sorry,thats your baby.i told you im only interested in hammersteins commercial viability.i said go to the textbook,apply its rules to build a common O2 concentration cell and check if it powers your calculator for 30years.i didnt say go to the textbook for a paragraph  interfering with 2lot.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen no you are the complainant not me

Yawn.  You really have gone from highly assertive to downright shy.  Now you appear to be attempting to hide behind some rules you imagined about arguments.

Like it or not.  You appeared to claim that some kind of cell would power something forever.  You also seemed to claim that it's getting it's power from ambient heat.    If you're not claiming both of those things then fine you're not claiming anything about 2LOT however your device - whatever it is - would have nothing to do with Quenco.  Which does claim to turn ambient heat into electricity.

a 2lot discrepency or not,sorry,thats your baby

Either you are claiming the above or you are not.   Man are you working super hard to keep your claim away from being examined.  Is it ignorance, cowardice or what?  I wonder.

i told you im only interested in hammersteins commercial viability.

Irrelevant.  You either made a claim or you didn't.  Now speak up.

i said go to the textbook

I simply asked: "Which textbook?".   Why can't you answer that?  Are you just BSing me?

apply its rules to build a common O2 concentration cell

See, despite acting all offended about questioning your knowledge.  You come off as someone who's understanding is ankle-deep.  You can't tell me what, where or how about anything.  You can only parrot the same uninformed, vague and poorly phrased thing.  Do you not understand how your being ENTIRELY USELESS at investigating your OWN claim is an indication that you don't know what you're talking about?

and check if it powers your calculator for 30years.

You made an claim that powering something from heat FOREVER can be resolved by going to a text.  You won't tell me what text or where in a particular text.  How are you not seeing your behavior as obstructionist.  So currently you seem to be saying I need to go through all books until I find one that can validate your claim, which isn't very clear or somehow construct something based on nothing other than a vague claim and then wait 30 years?

Seriously.  Are you an idiot?  I mean.  How does any of that strike you as reasonable?  I'd love to hear it.

i didnt say go to the textbook for a paragraph  interfering with 2lot

You seemed to claim that a TEXTBOOK would support your claim that you can power something FOREVER from ambient HEAT.   In the HUMAN world it's entirely reasonable to ask "Oh, which textbook is that?"

How many quotes, plays or musical numbers do you need to see that...

i) You made claims.
ii) I want to validate the CLAIMS YOU MADE.
iii) You are refusing to provide the evidence you said was readily available.
iv) You have invented an almost entirely IRRELEVANT set of hoops to jump through.

Do you really see your behavior as conducive to discussing your claims?  Seriously?

In the future if you don't want to discuss your claims.   How about: Don't post them on a discussion board.

Moron.