Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1182002 times)

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2565 on: June 13, 2014, 12:32:26 AM »
Yawn,,I give them childrens questions and they give me requests in return.please step in @phil hardcastle.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2566 on: June 13, 2014, 12:37:25 AM »
Yawn,,I give them
You keep hiding your argument then blame me for not answering it.  Ho-hum.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2567 on: June 13, 2014, 01:03:05 AM »
If contact is needed to establish a contact potential difference then I have a very legit ground on which to float my hypothesis of reversability @ sarkeizen because it will mean that the system's favoured entropy state will strictly depend on our switch being open or closed. If contact is not needed to create a contact potential difference to the full extent of a contacted one then my reversability hypothesis falls away because it will mean that there's only one favoured entropy state regardless of our switch.got it @sarkeizen? That's the dilemma here and I need more info from experts

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2568 on: June 13, 2014, 01:15:56 AM »
If contact is needed to establish a contact potential difference then I have
If you want to be humiliated then please produce a formal argument.  Starting from a textbook cite and ending in the conclusion violating 2LOT.  If you want to keep your argument secret.  Fine.  Nobody will help you find a problem.  That's your business.  If you don't know how to produce a formal argument you can just ask.

The rules have been the same for months.  I don't play "guess my argument".

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2569 on: June 13, 2014, 01:20:23 AM »
profitis is 100% correct, MarkE and Sarcastic have for dozens of posts avoided answering a simple question clearly posed by a simple diagram. Is this because they do not know the answer? is it because they are not prepared to be frank? or is it that their sole purpose on this site is to knock and criticise?


profitis has shown a diagram of two dissimilar metals, these metals have a starting condition where they are uncharged, he then shows a connection and a switch.


Next he states the switch is closed, he asserts electrons will flow from the low work function metal to the higher work function metal.


Now surely MarkE who lectures everyone about almost everything could manage to accept this as a validly stated starting condition and first action.


Then profitis argues that the flow of electrons will cool one of the metals.


He then states that a thermal and charged state equilibrium will be reached.


Next he says that the switch is opened, he argues that electrons will migrate from the high work function metal to the low work function metal via the vacuum. He calls this leakage and states that wiki says all capacitors have leakage.


Lastly it is profitis' position that the whole cycle can be restarted once the metal plates are back to neutral charge.


This is a simple and clearly stated challenge by profitis, all MarkE and Sarcastic have to do is to tell profitis why it would not work, but no, instead we get endless moronic comments by them that amount to avoiding the posed problem.


MarkE and Sarcastic, your comments to date might be seen to demonstrate to the members of overunity your real motives, tell profitis what is wrong with his idea, or stop your incessant bickering and leave in shame.


I will give you a week to answer profitis, otherwise I will tell everyone the simple answer and then everyone can see what MarkE and Sarcastic truly are.


Of course if you do answer profitis with a sensible and direct response to his challenge you will no doubt prove to the forum that what you have to say is based upon some knowledge, and not simple naysaying.


So far I must say that the lack or response, by forum members against unsupported negativity, does nothing for the reputation of this site as a forum to openly discuss energy concepts and ideas.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2570 on: June 13, 2014, 01:22:07 AM »
Thanks phil.either they intentionally avoid or they truly know jackshit about the subject :D

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2571 on: June 13, 2014, 01:37:56 AM »
profitis is 100% correct
Probably not.
Quote
MarkE and Sarcastic have for dozens of posts avoided answering a simple question clearly posed by a simple diagram.
Awww it's so cute you need to give me a nickname because you can't fight me man-to-man. :-)  As I've said before I've never once pretended to be an electrochemist, or physicist. 
Quote
Is this because they do not know the answer?
I admitted that I can't answer an electrochemical question ages ago but if you are too lazy to read the thread or to stupid to think that you might be wrong...well ok that last label fits but still...:D
Quote
or is it that their sole purpose on this site is to knock and criticise?
False dilemma.  See, the math guy picked out your pre-preschool logic in 0.4 sec flat.  Which is why if profitis can...like he led me to believe many times over produce a formal argument.  I'll see where it's wrong.  Same with you and your delusions about Quenco.  You had to "get offended" pretty quickly in order to avoid getting beat down.

Quote
Of course if you do answer profitis with a sensible and direct response to his challenge you will no doubt prove to the forum that what you have to say is based upon some knowledge, and not simple naysaying.
Naysaying is just countering someones assertion with a negative assertion.  Again if you read anything instead of just making shit up.  You would see that's not what I do.  Instead I lay out what I need to understand the question and then I crush it into dust.

Quote
So far I must say that the lack or response, by forum members against unsupported negativity, does nothing for the reputation of this site as a forum to openly discuss energy concepts and ideas.
Actually if you again, read this thread you would see that profitis is,  even by a number OU believers to be a jerk who can't actually engage in a discussion.  Open discussion requires that the person you are talking to is willing to provide information that you ask for.  This is part of the social contract of discussion.  Something you've never been known for understanding either Phillip - assuming you're not just profitis.

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2572 on: June 13, 2014, 01:45:42 AM »
@profitis, as you can see from Sarkeizen's post, he openly admits he knows nothing about the subject, I suggest that you should not argue physics or chemistry with him on this thread, unless you simply want to wind him up.



This leaves MarkE to respond, fortunately for you MarkE does claim to be an expert on physics and chemistry.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2573 on: June 13, 2014, 02:00:24 AM »
@profitis, as you can see from Sarkeizen's post, he openly admits he knows nothing about the subject, I suggest that you should not argue physics or chemistry with him on this thread
Do you ever get anything right Phillip?

I have openly admitted from the start that I'm not a physicist or a electrochemist.  That's different than knowing nothing.  In fact most of the people who talk on OU are not physicists or electrochemists.   Are you excluding them from having conversations here too?  And after that stirring speech about how OU is going downhill too.

The fact of the matter is that profitis claimed he had a formal logical argument many times over.  If he was, as you say: lying.  Well that's not really my fault.  Part of the social contract is giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2574 on: June 13, 2014, 02:01:21 AM »
Yes Mark E throws his weight around here to play the superscientist @phil.he coulvde given me a straight answer to my childrens question long ago if he is what he projects himself to be yet he malingered,made same demands as sarkeizen. Maybe sarkeizen is mark E??

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2575 on: June 13, 2014, 02:37:49 AM »
Its two seperate states @markE.one in contact.one seperate.I'm saying when seperate neutrality is favoured.when in contact charged is favoured.unless you can disprove this using textbooks.
If it takes an external action to go between the states then the system is not reversible.  The problem here seems to be that you do not understand what reversibility means.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2576 on: June 13, 2014, 02:49:52 AM »
profitis is 100% correct, MarkE and Sarcastic have for dozens of posts avoided answering a simple question clearly posed by a simple diagram. Is this because they do not know the answer? is it because they are not prepared to be frank? or is it that their sole purpose on this site is to knock and criticise?


profitis has shown a diagram of two dissimilar metals, these metals have a starting condition where they are uncharged, he then shows a connection and a switch.


Next he states the switch is closed, he asserts electrons will flow from the low work function metal to the higher work function metal.


Now surely MarkE who lectures everyone about almost everything could manage to accept this as a validly stated starting condition and first action.


Then profitis argues that the flow of electrons will cool one of the metals.


He then states that a thermal and charged state equilibrium will be reached.


Next he says that the switch is opened, he argues that electrons will migrate from the high work function metal to the low work function metal via the vacuum. He calls this leakage and states that wiki says all capacitors have leakage.


Lastly it is profitis' position that the whole cycle can be restarted once the metal plates are back to neutral charge.


This is a simple and clearly stated challenge by profitis, all MarkE and Sarcastic have to do is to tell profitis why it would not work, but no, instead we get endless moronic comments by them that amount to avoiding the posed problem.


MarkE and Sarcastic, your comments to date might be seen to demonstrate to the members of overunity your real motives, tell profitis what is wrong with his idea, or stop your incessant bickering and leave in shame.


I will give you a week to answer profitis, otherwise I will tell everyone the simple answer and then everyone can see what MarkE and Sarcastic truly are.


Of course if you do answer profitis with a sensible and direct response to his challenge you will no doubt prove to the forum that what you have to say is based upon some knowledge, and not simple naysaying.


So far I must say that the lack or response, by forum members against unsupported negativity, does nothing for the reputation of this site as a forum to openly discuss energy concepts and ideas.
Mr. Hardcastle it is up to Profitis to state his argument for each of his claims.  In the claim he has been conversing with me on, he has gotten to the point where he requires an external action to move between states.  If as you assert that is his claim; then he has disproven his own reversibility claim before ever getting out of the gate.

He seems to be suggesting, but does not state that current will flow indefinitely around a loop made with two dissimilar metal "C" pieces with or without a gap.  Whether or not current does flow, and for how long does not help any claim of reversibility if the process does not spontaneously reverse.  He can at any time state what his actual beliefs are.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2577 on: June 13, 2014, 02:59:02 AM »
made same demands as sarkeizen.
Demands that you said you could meet at various points in time and then it turns out you were lying. 

Dude, all you had to say, at any time is: "I can't construct a formal logical argument for my particular delusion" and we would be done.  Say it now if you want.  Won't hear a word from me after.

Quote
Maybe sarkeizen is mark E??
Yes.  All people who care about logic and reason are sarkeizen and mark E.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2578 on: June 13, 2014, 11:24:28 AM »
So your saying that if a system has a  switch that perpetuum mobilum is impossible @mark E? Where did u get this ludicrous idea from? How does this interfere with cyclic thermodynamics??

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2579 on: June 13, 2014, 11:30:01 AM »
So your saying that if a system has a  switch that perpetuum mobilum is impossible @mark E? Where did u get this ludicrous idea from? How does this interfere with thermodynamics??
Here we go with yet another of your straw men. 

It is rather apparent that you present yourself as unfamiliar with what thermodynamic reversibility is.  Here is a link to the wikipedia article which is not bad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_process_%28thermodynamics%29

We will see if you ever get around to actually constructing a cogent argument for your gapped bimetal "C" core representing a reversible process.