quentron.com

[profitis]

A)nope.a finite period can be subdivided into eternal subdivisions of time thus i was actualy watching it eternaly @sarkeizen.i.e. i did not lie.B)well i think that the normal rules of concentration cells should apply to concentration cells @sarkeizen.Lest you wana change them to suit you.C) if i tell you that a certain battery described in the non-fiction part of wikipedia is eternaly powerful then it is technicaly no longer my duty to prove anything.it is in fact you who now has to defend the wikipedia kelvin law application to the wikipedia battery in question,either by demonstration or by theory.dontcha think?after all you are their representative.

[sarkeizen]

A)nope.a finite period

I can just cut you off there and say that you just admitted you watched for a finite period of time and therefore you have admitted you did not watch the battery running eternally.  So you did, in fact lie...one more time!

can be subdivided into eternal subdivisions of time

A "subdivision" would mean a "period less than the parent period in duration".  Since you have just admitted that the parent period is finite.  A sub-division can not be infinite.

It's interesting that in your effort to troll you couldn't even take the time to look up the *correct* way to state Zeno's paradox.  Moron.

well i think that the normal rules of concentration cells should apply to concentration cells

So far you are the only person, that I can see asserting that batteries which last eternally can be built based entirely on existing decades-old knowledge.  Clearly the problem is, *do the rules work the way you describe* which is the point of this "discussion" which you have tried very hard to stall.  The answer is probably "no, profitis is an idiot".

if i tell you that a certain battery described in the non-fiction part of wikipedia is eternaly powerful then it is technicaly no longer my duty to prove anything

Without even touching on the idea that Wikipedia has contained fake information (I've removed references to non-existent articles myself) and does today (I have one fake article I maintain in Wikipedia).  Your claim is stupid because despite having the word "wikipedia" in it sentence.  It is still just making an unsupported assertion.  In this case you are asserting something *about* wikipedia or more precisely about the interpretation of something in wikipedia.

[profitis]

A) so what @sarkeizen? Im going to look at it tomorrow again.whats the problem? B)no.the rules work the way they describe.C) except that countless other references beside wikipedia mention the same battery thus its not an error anymore @sarkeizen.interpretation? How much interpretation can you get from a name like 'oxygen concentration cell'?the name is so specific that a scientist can determine how it works just by looking at it man.since you wont believe me regardless it really boils down to my challenge @sarkeizen: can you prove to us that a wikipedia O2 conc. cell is non-eternal.can you flatten it for us please.we are challenging you @sarkeizen.we,the overunity.com crowd and audience.

[sarkeizen]

A) so what @sarkeizen? Im going to look at it tomorrow again.

Are you saying "I lied again, so what?".  I think the problem with lying is self-evident.  That aside, tomorrow will also be a finite period of time.   You can't assert that your observations imply that this will last eternally. QED.  As I said before this is such a well known problem we give it a special name in science.

B)no.the rules work the way they describe.

Same problem, you can imagine that what you think is a reasonable consequence of the formula but a) You've already admitted that you haven't observed this effect and b) You have yet to give a good reason to believe it.

except that countless other references beside wikipedia mention the same battery thus its not an error anymore

Which is, of course irrelevant.  Unless they all say, clearly that the battery would run eternally.  Probably not because you have said that textbooks don't say that.  You might as well argue that "Elephant Dung Gives Eternal Life" based on no observation of someone living forever and the fact that numerous sources proclaim the existence of elephant dung.  Your desire and talent for missing the point is becoming legendary.

How much interpretation can you get from a name like 'oxygen concentration cell'

You have provided exactly one cite, a formula which I am going to read about as soon as my copy of the book gets here.  The amount of interpretation that can come from a formula is actually pretty big.  Most experimentally derived formulae have been derived under a number of assumptions.

since you wont believe me regardless

If you provide a cite and a formal logical argument from that cite to your conclusion.  I'll accept you as having made your point.  So far, in three months of asshole-ish stalling.  You have provided exactly one cite.

it really boils down to my challenge

You have challenged me to be as stupid as yourself.  Do not be surprised if I don't take you up on being stupid.  I've already explained why your challenge is stupid, it can't demonstrate your point.

Not to mention, that if you admit this is the ONLY way you can make your point.  Then you have LOST the argument.  You argued that I don't need to observe, I only need to look at the textbooks.  So that's what I'm doing.  As I said, I'm pretty sure you're wrong but I've got a textbook coming and I'm going to read it and then watch you flounder for another three months trying to argue your point.  Perhaps you haven't been keeping score but pretty much every time you've attempted to engage me in a logical argument you have lost.

[profitis]

mr sarkeizen..are you aware that we have challenged you to a physical demonstration of kelvins law in a cell mentioned in wikipedia? Are you aware that we want to cut through the crap and see some evidence?