quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell

Sorry.  No idea what this is.  Please define without using the word "wikipedia" or referencing wikipeda, or drawing pictures.

how much more of a bridge from establishment to overunity could a rational individual want?

There's only one thing being discussed.  Your statement: "Textbooks necessitate the existence and ability to create a battery which will power an ipod like device forever".  This requires at least one cite from a textbook and a formal argument.   Anything less, and you lose.

Karpen,s battery is related

Which hardly anybody has examined.  So again, you can not make this statement with any useful degree of accuracy.

to wikipedia,s battery

Sorry, no idea what this is.

i challenge you to

Yawn.  Another day another attempt by you to worm your way out of your original statement.   As I said before, I'm not interested in other discussions until you can either say that you can't support your original point or you support it.  Not to mention that what you propose is so colossally stupid it's hard to believe anyone would think it would settle anything.  I'm surprised that even you can't see why.

[profitis]

A)google it to find out what it is and no i dont want to define it without using the word wikipedia. B)textbooks necessitate batteries of the wikipedia-type,which can do just that. C)we have the blueprint.we have replicated it.same problem, we cant kill it.or even semi-kill it.D)check A.E) check B and please explain why its stupid to bring a scientist on to support kelvin statement in the wikipedia battery.. @sarkeizen

[sarkeizen]

A)google it to find out what it is and no i dont want to define it without using the word wikipedia.

You don't want to support your argument.  Doesn't that mean you lose?

B)textbooks necessitate batteries of the wikipedia-type,which can do just that.

So far this dream of yours has not be supported by you.  Again, a formal argument would do it...and again you said you would...and again you lied. Yay!

C)we have the blueprint.we have replicated it.

Nope.  You can say neither with any useful degree of accuracy.  You can not replicate something that has not be sufficiently examined nor can you have a blueprint of it.  You can *claim* to have replicated it or you can have something which *purports* to be a blueprint of a device (or I suppose you could have a document which was the *proposed* plan for the object).

lease explain why its stupid to bring a scientist on to support kelvin statement in the wikipedia battery..

So you are saying you don't understand why your request to me is somewhere between pretty stupid and extremely stupid?

[profitis]

A)nope.B)you dont think textbooks support wikipedia? C)yup we can.3-D is best.D)no im saying your answer is somewhere between mad and criminaly insane.we demand a scientist,NOW @sarkeizen..before i explode over just this issue.

[sarkeizen]

A)nope

Sure does, my argument was that you can't support your position...and you're refusing to support it.  You lose.

B)you dont think textbooks support wikipedia?

Thank you for admitting you are contributing nothing to the discussion.  The question at hand is if *YOU* can/will support your statement.  It appears that have now been cornered so badly that you are reduced to arguing the possibility that someone or something else might potentially be able to argue better than you.  Which is pretty much admitting that you have nothing to contribute. 

C)yup we can

Sadly, no.

D)no im saying your answer is somewhere between mad and criminaly insane

A post ago you asked me to explain.  I simply wanted to you admit that your request is because you don't know why your request is pretty stupid.  Again do you know why, what you are asking is stupid or not?  Say "no" and I'll explain why you're stupid.   Take your time.

.we demand a scientist,NOW

*ROFL*

@sarkeizen..before i explode over just this issue.

Hopefully you are simply a troll.  If not  then the world would be generally better without you.  So please don't let me stand in your way of you exploding.