@sarkeizen thats why im shy to stake claims about the 2nd law. that is something for people to decide for themselves

Deeply and truly idiotic of you to say so.  A violation of the 2nd law is not subjective.  It's also ingenuous since you have many times made statements where are necessarily equivalent to breaking the 2nd law.

what i rather do here on the thread is simply show the connection of established formulas to the system and then ask you to help me find a flaw

Actually what you do is blather mindlessly to make yourself feel more convinced.  You constantly refuse to answer my question. (implied request #19).

 "Help you find a flaw" rings pretty empty when you explain poorly, define no terms usefully, refuse to think critically and have notation that would earn you a failing grade in anything outside of high-school.  So much so it's worthless reading just about anything you write. All of which could be helped by citing a text (Request #20) not to mention validating your initial assertion that every text supports your conclusion.

@sarkeizen but thats what im asking you,what part of a  O2 concentration cell doesnt fit

Actually what you're doing is (in addition to trolling) attempting to argue by ignorance.  You have had ample time to produce a cite.  I think it's reasonably likely that the textbooks don't really say anything very close to what you are concluding.  While you might be able to find formulae that vaguely resemble what you are typing (and it's not even clear that you even understand what you are typing considering you couldn't even tell me what one symbol meant).   You won't find a claim equivalent to your claim that you can build a battery that will run something like an iPod forever.

your making me angry so im going to delay quoting from the textbook now.

Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll...ROFL

you refuse to apply your rules to a common air-cell

Which rules are those?  The primary set of rules we've been discussing are those in textbooks.  That was your claim, that any textbook would validate that you can create a battery which would run an ipod like device forever.  I don't have a textbook  So I asked you for a cite.  At that point all, real conversation stopped and you spent post after post avoiding this really simple question.

At this point, I think it's quite possible that textbooks don't actually validate your point or at least you don't know if they do or not.   I lean to the former because evidence suggests that you actually don't understand the formulae you are posting.  You are also, of course going for some kind of trolling record.

As for me, aside from laughing at you.  I'm due to hit "hero member" in less than a month.  Given your problem with citing and my tenacity for calling you on it.

@sarkeizen i cited a

Wrong. Go back and read what a cite is.

why do you want a cite from a textbook?

Well for one because that was the claim you made and that I have contention with...do I really need to quote it again?  You made a clear-as-day claim that your conclusion was supported by not just *a* textbook but virtually all textbooks.  In fact you specifically requested that we focus on what the textbooks say. 

Are you withdrawing this claim? or does it still stand?  If the former then perhaps we can talk about something else if the later I will continue to pursue the claim you made.

sounds like your just being an ass.

ROFL.  Actually that's you.

It was your claim, is it somehow bad manners for you to be held to your own claim?  If so, then I guess I'm not Emily Post.
On the other hand you've spent a week or so just avoiding fulfilling a task that should be easy for you to do.  If it's hard, then I would have expected an explanation.  It seems deliberate so I figure you're a troll.  Which kind of makes you the ass, don't you think?

if you think i dont understand the formula

What evidence do we have that you understand anything?  A few formulae which doesn't really resemble what comes out of a textbook, containing symbols that are not standard math symbols and when asked what they are supposed to represent (both explicitly and implicitly you were asked this) you don't seem capable of answer.

What other choice does a rational person have except to consider you ignorant?

now lets hear your grievences with this crystal clear citation

Go back and read what I wrote about citations.  Why do you try so hard to avoid what any high-school student can do?  I mean unless you're a troll? 

l organise that textbook citation just now

Yawn.  Troll, troll, troll troll.

This sounds like an employee trying to weasel out of work.   Since when does citing a textbook - that you would think you OWN - requires organization.  Oh yeah, it's a HUGE undertaking, requiring thousands of person-hours to look something up in an INDEX.  It's like building the Brooklyn Bridge finding that thing that is in EVERY textbook.

You are hilariously stupid.

Aside: Isn't it kind of tedious typing deliberately poorly?

@sarkeizen so you have no grievences with that citation?yes or no?

It's not a cite.  Read what I wrote about citations, figure out what you did wrong.

In fact, as a general rule I would advise that few people enjoy repeating themselves as much as I do so your lack of desire and/or inclination in this respect might explain your inability to have a conversation with well...everyone here.

READING - those tv shows you watched as a kid were right.  It's important!

Also - 4 hours after your quick coffee...no textbook cite or are you still in the "organizational" part of that process.  Perhaps recruiting a team of researchers to find what you claim is in every textbook?

@sarkeizen so you have no grievence with that citation case closed.now theres no need to cite anything more..

As I said.  It's not a cite.

Suppose you were working your shift at Burger King and a customer comes in and orders a Whopper and you say: "Here's your sandwich let me know if you have any problems." and you hand them a frog.  Are you saying that you can infer they are completely satisfied with something you didn't give them?

I mean the frog isn't even between two slices of bread.