quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

it is highly relevant

Not to the True Profitis Statement which is what is being discussed or if it is then there's no cogent argument for it.

i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words

Sounds like you're conceding my point concerning the True Profitis Statement.  If the True Profitis Statement is false.  That you can't simply use logic and textbooks alone to NECESSITATE the existence and ability to build a battery which will last eternally and continually.

Then say so, plainly.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen i told you i can use textbooks and formality ALONE to substantiate all 2 of my statements in one shot: in the LAST PROFITIS STATEMENT.you can argue szilard or fenyman or loschmidt or trupp through the whole year but it is impossible to not breach kelvin laws with that last statement of mine.it will go down in history as the definitive kelvin-quencher(at least on this website).be glad @sarkeizen,you were part of this golden moment.

[sarkeizen]

i told you i can use textbooks and formality ALONE to substantiate all 2 of my statements in one shot: in the LAST PROFITIS STATEMENT.

It can't.  In fact you said so yourself.

You said that some fake profitis statement could not be validated with ordinary textbooks...I can quote where you said this if you like.  Since ordinary textbooks are required by the True Profitis Statement for validation any statement which can not be validated by ordinary textbooks is, by your own words excluded from being able of validating the True Profitis Statement

Let me know when you figure it out.  Loser.

[profitis]

the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statement,which you can check out using just about any higher grade college physical chemistry textbook @sarkeizen so your above statement is false,null,and void until you prove the last profitis statement to be false,null,and void which you cannot possibly do.if i use standard formality textbook words to declare a kelvin breach you better be prepared to show me wrong or else confess defeat.

[sarkeizen]

the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statement

Sorry, I've laid out a formal logical proof showing you to be incorrect.  If you have a problem with that then you should probably consult the proof.