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 1261496 times)

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2640 on: June 17, 2014, 03:22:24 PM »
Mark E the electrons are free to randomly thermaly shoot across the vaccuum over time.if the system is stable neutral and seperate:that is the systems lowest entropy state when seperate.if the system is fully charged when contacted then that is the lowest entropy state when in contact.
Are you claiming that the system spontaneously moves the contacts together and pulls them apart?  If not then you have declared two different situations, neither of which you have shown are reversible.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2641 on: June 17, 2014, 07:10:15 PM »
No the switch moves them together or apart @mark E.the switch is miniscule in size compared to the two pieces who are arbitrarily large in capacitance.the system is clearly reversable

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2642 on: June 17, 2014, 08:54:42 PM »
I've given my formal argument
Nope. You have provided no set of steps and no validation that each step is inescapably true.   So, let me know when you get around to those.  After which you still need a textbook cite.  If you're interested in making your point.  If not.  Well, why would anyone be interested in someone pretending they're doing science but won't comply with one of the easiest and simplest (for the person making the claim) requirements.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2643 on: June 17, 2014, 09:23:08 PM »
No the switch moves them together or apart @mark E.the switch is miniscule in size compared to the two pieces who are arbitrarily large in capacitance.the system is clearly reversable
I think you need to avail yourself to a primer in thermodynamics.  The system is not moving the switch by itself.  Therefore the system cannot even reach one condition from the other by itself.  Therefore the system is not reversible between the conditions.  QED.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2644 on: June 18, 2014, 03:04:45 AM »
It seems phil was right markE.you have extremely limited knowledge on thermodynamics.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2645 on: June 18, 2014, 03:07:34 AM »
@sarkeizen.don't lie I have provided a completely formal annihilation of kelvins rule.I have provided 1) replicable information.2)exposed a whole CLASS of 2lot exterminator cells.3)an explanation entirely consistent with modernday textbooks.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2646 on: June 18, 2014, 04:06:04 AM »
@sarkeizen.don't lie I have provided a completely formal
If you had then you could show a formal validation - demonstrate that there is absolutely no possibility but for each step to force the next one.  However you have provided no proof of that.  Not even a single sentence. So by definition, you have not provided a formal argument.

Sorry.  This is just one of those times where your lying doesn't work. :D :D :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2647 on: June 18, 2014, 04:43:18 AM »
@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2648 on: June 18, 2014, 05:46:24 AM »
It seems phil was right markE.you have extremely limited knowledge on thermodynamics.
You are free to form any opinion of me that you like.  In the meantime you have destroyed your own claim.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2649 on: June 18, 2014, 05:48:07 AM »
@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..
LOL, there you go again, insisting that others produce your argument for you.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2650 on: June 18, 2014, 06:01:01 AM »
@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..
Your argument has not been presented in that form.  Hence it is not formal. QED.

Next time.  Lie less.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2651 on: June 18, 2014, 11:44:33 AM »
Incorrect @mark E.I have not destroyed my own argument(not claim) over contact potentials.infact,you've destroyed your defense.phil and I predicted that you would fallback onto the switch issue as a last desperate line of defence,gues what,you did (-:

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2652 on: June 18, 2014, 12:14:12 PM »
@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls short.he has to attack me directly on the issue of cyclic spillover.if he fails to do this then he cannot present a solid defence case on which to stand.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2653 on: June 18, 2014, 12:54:01 PM »
Mr sarkeizen.you have to show to the scientists who are watching here that spillover is not spontaneously cyclic.that is the only way out for you.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2654 on: June 18, 2014, 03:20:40 PM »
@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls short
Dude.  Where is this imaginary formal argument of yours?  This is just back to a month or so ago where you also claimed that you had a formal argument.  Yawn.

If you can present a formal argument stemming from a textbook cite.  I can defeat or show that it's not formal.  So far you haven't done either, so again this is just back to you hiding something and again I have no problem saying that I can't refute an argument that you have never presented.