quentron.com

[profitis]

Except i didnt fail in that respect @ sarkeizen.i provided the audience with a clear,diagramed explanation integrated with known facts.my explanation can be thoroughly exhaustively tested to see if it fits the bill 3-dimensionaly and thats what makes it tilt so enormously powerfuly in my favour.the wikipaedia formula is the cherry ontop because it forces you to acknowledge that karpen wasnt necessarily a crapster ie. that 2 same gaseous electrodes of different work functions will absolutely behave as predicted by and for that formula.

[sarkeizen]

Except i didnt

Do you have any other tactic than "I really want to pretend I did what you asked"?  If not, you might as well not talk anymore, ever, to anyone.  (Just to be on the safe side )

i provided the audience with

...nothing like what as asked for.
1) Is a diagram is a textbook cite?  Nope.
2) Is a diagram a *formal* logical argument.  Nope.

How do we know?  If it was 1) then you could simply tell me which textbook it is from, the edition and then I could check.  This would be a textbook cite.  You haven't so it's not 1).  If it was 2) then I would have a written out set of steps which it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to any other conclusion.  I don't.  So it's not 2).

If I don't have 1) and 2) then your argument isn't nearly as strong as you claimed.

Hence you failed.    I'm sure it's not the first time either.

[profitis]

I think theres a misunderstanding between you and me @sarkeizen.im trying to prove that the wikipaedia formula is correct.correct.E=wf+contact potential with electrolyte is correct.2 gaseous electrodes,2 different work functions =battery.eg. cathode work function 1: O2 + 4H+ +4e- =2H2O. anode work function 2: 2H2O= O2 + 4H+ + 4e-.the end result is simply passage of gas from one electrode to the other in a closed system.the intrinsic work function differences remain constant eg gold remains gold,platinum remains platinum(under normal circumstances).

[sarkeizen]

I think theres a misunderstanding between you and me @sarkeizen.im trying to prove that the wikipaedia formula is correct

Sorry.  Not interested.  Unless you can provide a textbook cite for your assumptions (never done) and then a formal logical argument which reaches your conclusion "It must be possible to create a device that will power something like an ipod forever"

My position was that you would be unable to support "It must be possible to create a device that will power something like an ipod forever" with textbook cites.  So far I am correct.  I think you know I'm right and have been spending months trying to wiggle out of what you said.

Truth appears to be that text books do not clearly indicate that "It must be possible to create a device that will power something like an ipod forever".  So your argument that the <whatever> pile is based on textbook knowledge has failed.

Again I'm sure you will continue to fail, such is your life.

[profitis]

Perhaps this article will make things a bit clearer for you @sarkeizen www.researchgate.net/publication/243187093_The_effect_of_catalyst-electrode_potential_and_work_function_on_the_chemisorptive_bond_of_oxygen_on_Pt_interfaced_with_YSZ .here you see a direct relation between work function of a gaseous electrode and its binding ability to the respective gas.they change the electrode potential to shift the work function here.we change the work function to shift the potential in karpen,s formula.gold remains gold.platinum remains platinum.a little clearer for you now?