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 1254725 times)

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1740 on: January 03, 2014, 07:51:04 PM »
mr sarkeizen mr sarkeizen,please calm down sir..im saying you, have to demonstrate to us,the validity of your kelvin statement for your battery titled,'oxygen concentration cell'.your battery sir.you may do this theoreticaly if a demonstration is 'inconvenient' sir.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1741 on: January 03, 2014, 08:06:54 PM »
mr sarkeizen mr sarkeizen,please calm down sir
Uh...right.  In what way wasn't I calm?
Quote
im saying you, have to demonstrate to us,the validity of your kelvin statement
Which kelvin statement and does that mean you have given up on your statement about textbooks necessitating eternal batteries?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1742 on: January 03, 2014, 10:49:18 PM »
A) in a polygraph way. B) im talking about kelvins statement about the 2nd law thermodynamics @ sarkeizen(youre the defence lawyer for info theory right?more like the accused now right?) and no i havent given up my statement,just boosted it by your inability to demonstrate or theoreticaly prove(how hard can this be?) that a battery named by establishment papers obeys the said kelvin statement.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1743 on: January 03, 2014, 11:42:40 PM »
A) in a polygraph way
Yawn...you're imagining things again troll-boy.
Quote
i havent given up my statement,
Then we can talk about whatever you're on about when you either provide a formal logical argument for your prior stated position OR admit you can't support your statement.  Remember you said that I didn't have to build anything for you to make your argument.  I just need to read textbooks.  You want me to show you where you said that?  Hmmm?  No?

Anyway since you SAID all I needed to do was read textbooks, my building anything has to be part of some *other* point (or is inessential for this point).  Right?  So we will leave your other point (or your inessential argument to this point) aside until you finish your first one.  Ok?  Great.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1744 on: January 04, 2014, 12:21:31 AM »
@sarkeizen..why do we have to finish the first point first?youre still waiting for that book to arrive at the library so technicly and realisticly the first point is on hold until youve checked on it.thus we havent much option but to switch(roles actualy) to the 2nd point,which is in support of the 1st point anyway so technicly we,re still busy with the 1st point when switching(roles actualy) to the 2nd point anyway,,,troll-boy.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1745 on: January 04, 2014, 12:28:16 AM »
why do we have to finish the first point first?
So you admit these are two different points?  Great. 
Quote
to the 2nd point,which is in support of the 1st point anyway so technicly we,re still busy with the 1st point
What?  Is it the same point or a different point?  Figure that out and get back to me.
 
If it's the same point, then it's unnecessary.  If it's a different point then it's irrelevant.  Right?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1746 on: January 04, 2014, 12:38:27 AM »
@sarkeizen no theyre all one point,divided into two parts but i like to call the 2nd part 'point 2' silly.otherwise how would we get a distinction between one-half point and another one-half point duh...and 2 one-half points arent unnecesary because 2 halves make a whole duh.. Makes sense now?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1747 on: January 04, 2014, 01:52:26 AM »
@sarkeizen no theyre all one point
So if you can show that textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build eternal batteries.  Are you saying that information theory can still restrict you from building an eternal battery (provided it's a MD device)?

If yes, then they are not the same point but it also undermines your point about textbooks.  Since they can say "You can build this" but you really can't.
If no, then the second point is unnecessary.

Right?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1748 on: January 04, 2014, 08:03:53 AM »
@sarkeizen i like that thought.but since your waiting for your library book we have NO CHOICE but to create a 2-half points,both which de-necessitate the other half-point.in other words if you can prove to us that your battery doesnt work forever we wont need point 1.although point 1 wil always stil exist and be ready for us,after you get your library book to varify for us its validity.   

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1749 on: January 04, 2014, 08:38:10 PM »
which de-necessitate
In other words if you demonstrate that textbooks do necessitate the existence and ability to build batteries which are eternal.  That can still very easily be wrong.  Right?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1750 on: January 04, 2014, 08:57:49 PM »
@sarkeizen..wrong.because the textbooks go hand in hand with wikipedias cell.all we want is for you to prove that the wikipedia cell can go permanently flat,thats all we want.here is the wikipedia cell in its simplest form,in off mode:

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1751 on: January 04, 2014, 10:33:28 PM »
@sarkeizen..wrong.
So if textbooks are found to necessitate the existence and ability to create eternal batteries.  Then, according to you it doesn't matter what information theory says.

In which case, again according to you.  It's irrelevant to pursue the information theory question.

Thanks for admitting that.  I guess we can just wait. :-)

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1752 on: January 04, 2014, 11:09:54 PM »
well this is why we need you @sarkeizen..to find a loophole in information theory that will accomodate textbooks,s loophole in the kelvin statement (-:..

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1753 on: January 05, 2014, 04:23:35 AM »
well this is why we need you @sarkeizen..to find a loophole in information theory that will accomodate textbooks,s loophole in the kelvin statement (-:..
Nope. You just admitted that the question about information theory is irrelevant.  If you need to find a loophole, then it *IS* relevant and the textbook argument is too weak to be supported.

Let me know when you figure out which one you are saying...you can pretend there's a third option but I'll just crush you when you do that. :D :D :D :D :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1754 on: January 05, 2014, 09:11:21 AM »
i knew you were going to say that which is why i setup my post like that to setup my next post like this:'if there is one hole in the kelvin bucket then all of kelvin spills on the floor'(profitis statement).quenco and other proposed perpetual motions may be very real if you cant show us how to kill that wikipedia battery @sarkeizen.the consequences of which may be truly enormous to the overunity.com crowd and far far beyond..perhaps spurring them on into a frenzy of research into other areas beside electrochemistry but with much more clarity this time.kill that wikipedia battery @sarkeizen before you start a revolt unintentionaly.do it at least in theory.at least in theory(something is better than nothing).