quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen thats why im shy to stake claims about the 2nd law. that is something for people to decide for themselves in their calculators,ipods,labs,brains,whatever on their own time and leisure as its generaly impossible to convince people who dont have something to gain by purchasing and/or physicly playing with such devices so what i rather do here on the thread is simply show the connection of established formulas to the system and then ask you to help me find a flaw .the textbooks predict the cell and its voltage theres no question about it,thus textbooks also predict its functioning and so we simply follow through and by following through exactly by rules we get the shock of our lives.or do we? If a system with 2 maximum entropy states(not 1) calls to go up a temperature gradient for 1 state and down the gradient for the other why not? If we throw some salt into water it heats up.if we throw some  KNO3 into water it cools down ie.entropy doesnt care how you get there just as long as you get there.i,l organise that book just now,just having a kofi quik..

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen thats why im shy to stake claims about the 2nd law. that is something for people to decide for themselves

Deeply and truly idiotic of you to say so.  A violation of the 2nd law is not subjective.  It's also ingenuous since you have many times made statements where are necessarily equivalent to breaking the 2nd law.

what i rather do here on the thread is simply show the connection of established formulas to the system and then ask you to help me find a flaw

Actually what you do is blather mindlessly to make yourself feel more convinced.  You constantly refuse to answer my question. (implied request #19).

"Help you find a flaw" rings pretty empty when you explain poorly, define no terms usefully, refuse to think critically and have notation that would earn you a failing grade in anything outside of high-school.  So much so it's worthless reading just about anything you write. All of which could be helped by citing a text (Request #20) not to mention validating your initial assertion that every text supports your conclusion.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen but thats what im asking you,what part of a  O2 concentration cell doesnt fit with your world view, your belief system,your visual/psychological robotics?you expect an O2 concentration cell to reach a permanent equilibrium like many people ok but the rules of the textbooks dont imply it as the rules of the textbooks tell us what happens after the switch is tripped aswell as before its tripped.all im asking you to do is APPLY those rules @sarkeizen,not MY rules YOUR RULES ie apply YOUR own rules to two identical platinum electrodes at different depths in a glass of acid.your making me angry so im going to delay quoting from the textbook now.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen but thats what im asking you,what part of a  O2 concentration cell doesnt fit

Actually what you're doing is (in addition to trolling) attempting to argue by ignorance.  You have had ample time to produce a cite.  I think it's reasonably likely that the textbooks don't really say anything very close to what you are concluding.  While you might be able to find formulae that vaguely resemble what you are typing (and it's not even clear that you even understand what you are typing considering you couldn't even tell me what one symbol meant).   You won't find a claim equivalent to your claim that you can build a battery that will run something like an iPod forever.

your making me angry so im going to delay quoting from the textbook now.

Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll...ROFL

[profitis]

@sarkeizen hillarious yes !  you refuse to apply your rules to a common air-cell lol! Omg