quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

at those power levels

The one's you imagined?...again formal logical argument stemming from a textbook cite which results in necessitating eternal operation or you've lost.

[profitis]

imagined? Try it yourself :-). potent power.i doubt you will listen to logical arguments.you didnt even listen to wikipedias logic: cycle 1(on):electrochemical entropy overwhelming pressure,temperature entropy.cycle 2)(off)pressure,temperature entropy are all thats left.where does kelvin statement fit in here?2 totaly seperate entropy requirements.one system.

[sarkeizen]

imagined? Try it yourself :-)

I can't observe something lasting eternally. So there no experiment to try.

i doubt you will listen to logical arguments.

Awww it's so cute when you try to make yourself more stupid.  So the only out you have now is to doubt my requirement without even trying.  Awesome!  I guess that's what you have to do when you're desperate not to lose the argument.

But lets examine the actual evidence...what was the last thing I asked for?...A textbook cite.  You spent months and months desperately trying to avoid doing that thing.  The second you did, I stopped making that the focus of my posts.  So you have no reason to doubt whatsoever.

If you have offered something you *think* is a formal argument.  Then the problem is likely that you are simply incorrect.   It's not like you've shown much ability to determine the difference between logic and it's opposite.   i.e. You can't see how no number of purely empirical observations can demonstrate something operating eternally.

In all this I wonder: "Why all the rush?" is your cite fake?  I guess I'll know when the textbook comes in.

[profitis]

youre screwed.the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thus we,l explain it in gas concentration cell language for you: cycle 1)electrochemical entropy requirement overwhelms temperature/pressure entropy requirement.cycle 2)temperature/pressure entropy requirement takes over.again i ask you,where does kelvin statement fit here in this gas concentration cell cycle..@sarkeizen

[sarkeizen]

youre screwed.

Are you hitting on me?

the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thus

You don't provide a cite or a formal logical argument.  It's the same problem. You said "textbooks necessitate the existence and ability to build a cell that lasts eternally".  Now that either means that they clearly and unambiguously state "Oh hey here's how you build a cell that lasts forever" OR you cite a portion of a textbook and then provide a formal logical argument.

Anything else means the textbooks DON'T necessitate it.  In which case you lose.
Your not providing the only information which will make your point means that you can not substantiate your point.  In which case I win.

Take your time, keep trying to squirm out of the trap.  It won't change.   Now if you want you can always just say: "Hey I want to *change* my hypothesis" and lose that argument and then  argue one that you think is more important or stronger or better.  Whatever but I'm not going to bother starting a new conversation with someone who can't admit they are wrong.

At some point in life you need to learn this.  Might as well be now.

Also considering your change of subject.  I'm starting to think that when I get this textbook and turn to the indicated page I won't see the quote.  Pretty sad if you have to just keep lying about things.