quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen forget about what lumen said and listen to what the textbooks say please.i dont understand your need to discuss the 2lot anyway as our main concern should be that the thing will do consistent useful work for us permanently and at no expense,indifferent to temperature gradient or no temperature gradient,not so?again im going to ask you,do you agree with textbook rules under subsection 'electrode concentration cells' yes or no because if you dont then i cannot prove to you that work function differentials are a permanent source of voltage and current,as they are in quenco.

[lumen]

@profitis,
Don't you see that everything sarky reads is true, without testing or proof, where everything you read is nothing real because you have no proof.

I call it the circular loop, his belief must be better than yours! Yes, the world according to sarky is the only correct answer, proof or not.
Like I said, he knows nothing about chemistry, or engineering, or science,  he only recites theory.
Whatever........

[profitis]

@lumen thats perfectly understandable yes but when he starts to disagree with the rules governing concentration cells then he steps out of line.

[profitis]

@lumen what also bugs me is that he is more concerned with the 2lot than with the economic viability of the thing.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen forget about what lumen said and listen to what the textbooks say please.

Sure.  Point me to a mainstream textbook which states clearly (that is requiring no inference) that a practical device can be built which can do work in an isothermal environment without limit.  Cite the paragraph and page number.  I'll find it when I have some time.

i dont understand your need to discuss the 2lot anyway

Ever get around to look at the name of this sub-forum "2nd 'law' violations".  More to the point is why you think it's germane to talk about something else here.

Don't you see that everything sarky reads is true, without testing or proof

*yip* *yip* *yip* What's that sound.  Some tiny dog barking at my heels.  As usual you live up to your crazy reputation.  I just got done explaining to you how a "theorem" in math is by far used to refer to something that *is* proven.

where everything you read is nothing real because you have no proof.

Well when someone starts saying: "Oh this thing that nobody has opened works just like this..." I think that's good reason to be skeptical but that's just me.  Perhaps in Lumen-land everything everyone says about everything is valid. Very post-modern of you.

I call it the circular loop, his belief must be better than yours! Yes, the world according to sarky is the only correct answer, proof or not.

Awww...so cute that you're so butthurt about being beaten so thoroughly.  Again I'd ask you to read what I wrote above but you won't or won't understand or just preen and posture like you've been doing.

Like I said, he knows nothing about chemistry, or engineering, or science,  he only recites theory.

What little expertise I have is in math which is just a branch of logic.  Which dictates, to a point how the world works.  Information theory, complexity theory is just physics from the bottom up.  As Scott Aaronson says "Perhaps the physicists and us meet in the middle".

The fact that without math every field you've listed would be pretty hampered it's interesting that you want to denigrate it so.   Math  relies on so few assumptions compared to any physical science that it's not unreasonable that mathematical theorems would be more soundly proven than something in physics.

What also bugs me is that he is more concerned with the 2lot than with the economic viability of the thing.

Huh?  In a conversation about 2LOT on a FORUM about 2LOT responding to a direct question about 2LOT.  You really think it's reasonable to take me to task about the fact that you show up, butt in and want to talk about something else?  And then be an ass about it?

Is that an example of the logic I can expect from you?