quentron.com

[profitis]

:D..and you dont suspect that a reversable contact potential difference,an type of equilibrium potential difference,has anything to do with my claimed reversable equilibrium gaseous pressure difference @sarkeizen?:D...

[sarkeizen]

:D..and you dont suspect that a reversable wikipedia contact potential difference,an type of wikipedia equilibrium potential wikipedia difference,has anything to do with my claimed wikipedia reversable wikipedia equilibrium wikipedia gaseous wikipedia pressure wikipediw difference wikipedia wikipedia wikipedia wikipedia

Currently you have given me no reason to think your claims are anything more than your fantasies.  I was at l east somewhat open to the idea that they are real.  In return you have repeatedly tried to deceive me by lying about what you would provide, lying about it's content and lying about your cite and I'm reasonably certain you've been lying from the start about what textbooks say, I'm pretty sure you know this too. You've lied about so much in so many places in this discussion that your word is practically useless.  Not to mention all of this is in the name of distracting from the point about textbooks you stated months ago.

The only thing that is going to make your argument something more than worthless is a textbook cite (since your point is about textbook content).

Again if you can't support that point and you want to argue something more speculative.  Then just let me know because considering that you've spent months lying and avoiding the point it seems pretty likely that you can't make it.

[profitis]

wrong.the only thing thats going to make my entire discussion of any value is a working device based on my given blueprints and you know it.replicability in 3 dimensions is numero uno and you know it.i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero value,unless it is replicable in 3 dimensional time-space continuum @sarkeizen.only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of electrode concentration cells,wikipedia concentration cells,nernst equation,contact potential difference,work function,gaseous spillover effects etc.

[sarkeizen]

wrong.the only thing thats going to make my entire discussion of any value is a working device based on my given blueprints and you know it.replicability

Naivety is so awesome, it makes this great sound when it's crushed.  The problem with "a working device" is that it's an implied form of begging the question.  A "replicated experiment" doesn't necessitate a working device.  There are thousands devices and experiments, replicated multiple times which are also completely, utterly and totally wrong.  Just like your argument here.

Phillips $10 experiment is a good example.  He claimed lots of people replicated it, but Phillip is still wrong and will be forever.  Homeopathy has been replicated a few times however all the positive studies are all completely and utterly wrong.  Even non-crackpot stuff like drug therapies have experiments which were successful, replicated and completely and utterly wrong.  You would know this if you were capable of math above the kindergarten level.

i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero value

However your argument was that your eternal battery was in EVERY textbook.  It's much harder to do that than make an amateurish experimental mistake.

Hence, your textbook argument is better than your building argument but you were too stupid to notice.  

only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of...

...nothing.  Remember you have no textbook citations.

[profitis]

and so lets discuss textbooks then @sarkeizen.modern textbooks: lets build a cell of the type Pt/Carbon/hydrogen in potassium hydroxide electrolyte and discuss it from a perspective of a phenomena known as hydrogen spillover: www.intechopen.com/source/html/38711/media/image14.png and more on it down near the bottom here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorption .what say you?