quentron.com

[profitis]

And I might not even be satisfied with phil's explanation mr sarkeizen.we'l see.

[sarkeizen]

Mr sarkeizen it boils down to

Dude.  You came in here boasting about how you know so much about this branch of science but you don't know:

i) Enough to put your argument in formal terms stemming from a textbook.  What would you do if you had to write a paper?  You would have to be able to produce an argument that was at least somewhat formal. 
ii) Enough that Philip who is not a specialist in electrochemistry says he has a counter-argument and now you are "Oh yeah, I thought there might be a problem".

If this thread isn't a setup then you really don't know enough about what you're talking about to convince any non-stupid person that you have this figured.

And I might not even be satisfied with phil's explanation mr sarkeizen

If you say so.

[Philip Hardcastle]

profitis, why do you continue to argue with Sarkeizen? he openly admitted that he knows nothing about the subject, so I suggest you focus on the issues that MarkE is prepared to debate if you are going to progress your thought experiment.


MarkE has tried to obscure the debate by putting forward an argument that energy is expended by the operation of your imagined switch, you have argued that as the plates can be any size, the energy you claim they might harvest would exceed the fixed amount of energy to operate the said switch, your statement is valid but irrelevant, I will state here with absolute certainty that MarkE is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks the switch is the issue.


As to your statement that you might not agree with my explanation, that is rather provocative, all I can say is this thought experiment is rather trivial, that MarkE is having such difficulty despatching it tells me he is not an expert in either electrochemistry, physics or thermionics, I do believe MarkE is generally a person of some genuine scientific training and so he should be able resolve this thought experiment from first principles, but he will need to stop putting forward objections of formality of argument, or rusty and hard to operate switches.


I'll give you all until the end of the week to resolve the debate, otherwise you will all be humiliated by having to be told the really simple reasons that the arrangement cannot violate 2LOT.


Good luck.

[profitis]

Ive got a sharp eye for hidden entropy states that most people don't see, that's my talent,even if its not in my ballpark science branch I know how to picture heat-and-change in my mind and make a logical conclusion from there.entropy is simply...change and cost over time.we want to look at the balance books here @sarkeizen.we don't need any formality for that.we do need all the behavioural facts first though.

[sarkeizen]

profitis, why do you continue to argue with Sarkeizen? he openly admitted that he knows nothing about the subject, so I suggest you focus on the issues that MarkE is prepared to debate if you are going to progress your thought experiment.

Philip why do you insist on personifying the word "blowhard"?  I tend to think that such posts are done for my benefit as there can be no cost to profitis in posting to me.  He is an advanced troll and perfectly capable of trolling many people at once.  So the likely case is I'm getting to you.  Thanks for sharing that. 

MarkE is having such difficulty despatching it tells me he is not an expert in either electrochemistry, physics or thermionics

However, according to you he is right and profitis is wrong.  Which makes profitis pretty stupid.

need to stop putting forward objections of formality of argument

That's me, not marke.  You don't even know what I'm talking about when I say these things so perhaps you should hush up.

I'll give you all until the end of the week to resolve the debate, otherwise you will all be humiliated by having to be told the really simple reasons that the arrangement cannot violate 2LOT.

I've actually told Profitis several reasons as to why.  However profitis wants me to guess a hidden argument and refute it.  That's different than being told why something can not work.   So if there is a simple reason you will have proven two of my points:

i) Profitis's argument persists because he simply withheld information.
ii) Profitis is a moron.

So how does you proving me right humiliate me?  I'd think someone as arrogant as you might be humiliated by proving someone you consider to have zero knowledge of a subject correct.