quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen lol you cant take an ordinary textbook and unmake my arguments

That would require for you to have made a relevant argument.  So far you are just asserting things.  The statement in question, remember is about textbooks necessitating eternal batteries.

So far I have an chemistry textbook that you selected (even though you don't have it), and it does not appear to have any information suggesting eternal batteries.  So this must reduce our confidence in your assertion.

So what evidence is there to support your assertion that textbooks *do* necessitate eternal and continuous batteries?

Let me know when you come up with some.

no one has yet risen to that challenge.no one has even risen to my challenge over 2 wikipedia instances

Nobody has risen to debunking something that you refuse to define, support by cites, provide experimental data or provide an argument for. I wonder why...

[MarkE]

@mark E put me in your lab and pay me in dollars(not south african rands) and you,l see my real intent :-).im just here for mental stimulation to see if anyone can rise to my challenge and point out exactly where and how any one of my diagrammed cells will run out of juice.no one has yet risen to that challenge.no one has even risen to my challenge over 2 wikipedia instances nevermind my designs.yes i agree that it will be very easy for you to determine if the suggested higher power devices are kelvin breaches but i dont need to be convinced.i need to be un-convinced.

Profitis, perhaps you do not understand:  It is the burden of one who makes extraordinary claims to provide strong evidence for those claims.  We already have plenty of evidence for what is ordinary.  You have made at least two extraordinary claims:  1) A claim of batteries that fully recharge themselves when they are not loaded, and 2) A claim of batteries that recharge themselves by drawing heat from a single ambient heat reservoir, IE there is no colder reservoir to receive heat removed from the ambient reservoir.  Anytime that you would like to offer strong evidence for either or both of your claims I am happy to review it.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen,if my argument was irrelevant then you would be able to show exactly how the nernst equation doesnt lead directly to an equal pressure gaseous concentration cell e.g.the karpen device and the wikipedia oxygen device. B) i need to define,support,provide cites,provide data for you to show me kelvins ROLE in 2 wikipedia instances? Is this a joke?

[profitis]

@mark E..but if i show you something that proves numbers 1 and 2 is there the possibility that you would give me a full-time job? :D

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen,if my argument was irrelevant then you would be able to show exactly how the nernst equation doesnt lead directly to an equal pressure gaseous concentration cell

Not true.  Your argument is irrelevant because it does not provide a cite from an ordinary textbook and you have not provided a formal logical argument from your cite.

Claiming that my inability to demonstrate anything somehow affects the truth of a statement like "(all) textbooks necessitate that you can build a battery that lasts forever and works continually" - is a logical fallacy - specifically an "argument from ignorance".