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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1105855 times)

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1935 on: January 28, 2014, 09:09:33 AM »
:D:D..and you dont suspect that a reversable contact potential difference,an type of equilibrium potential difference,has anything to do with my claimed reversable equilibrium gaseous pressure difference @sarkeizen?:D:D...

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1936 on: January 28, 2014, 03:40:02 PM »
:D:D..and you dont suspect that a reversable wikipedia contact potential difference,an type of wikipedia equilibrium potential wikipedia difference,has anything to do with my claimed wikipedia reversable wikipedia equilibrium wikipedia gaseous wikipedia pressure wikipediw difference wikipedia wikipedia wikipedia wikipedia
Currently you have given me no reason to think your claims are anything more than your fantasies.  I was at l east somewhat open to the idea that they are real.  In return you have repeatedly tried to deceive me by lying about what you would provide, lying about it's content and lying about your cite and I'm reasonably certain you've been lying from the start about what textbooks say, I'm pretty sure you know this too. You've lied about so much in so many places in this discussion that your word is practically useless.  Not to mention all of this is in the name of distracting from the point about textbooks you stated months ago.

The only thing that is going to make your argument something more than worthless is a textbook cite (since your point is about textbook content).

Again if you can't support that point and you want to argue something more speculative.  Then just let me know because considering that you've spent months lying and avoiding the point it seems pretty likely that you can't make it.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 06:35:13 PM by sarkeizen »

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1937 on: January 28, 2014, 10:04:59 PM »
wrong.the only thing thats going to make my entire discussion of any value is a working device based on my given blueprints and you know it.replicability in 3 dimensions is numero uno and you know it.i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero value,unless it is replicable in 3 dimensional time-space continuum @sarkeizen.only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of electrode concentration cells,wikipedia concentration cells,nernst equation,contact potential difference,work function,gaseous spillover effects etc.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1938 on: January 29, 2014, 12:57:57 AM »
wrong.the only thing thats going to make my entire discussion of any value is a working device based on my given blueprints and you know it.replicability
Naivety is so awesome, it makes this great sound when it's crushed.  The problem with "a working device" is that it's an implied form of begging the question.  A "replicated experiment" doesn't necessitate a working device.  There are thousands devices and experiments, replicated multiple times which are also completely, utterly and totally wrong.  Just like your argument here. :D

Phillips $10 experiment is a good example.  He claimed lots of people replicated it, but Phillip is still wrong and will be forever.  Homeopathy has been replicated a few times however all the positive studies are all completely and utterly wrong.  Even non-crackpot stuff like drug therapies have experiments which were successful, replicated and completely and utterly wrong.  You would know this if you were capable of math above the kindergarten level.

Quote
i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero value
However your argument was that your eternal battery was in EVERY textbook.  It's much harder to do that than make an amateurish experimental mistake.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D Hence, your textbook argument is better than your building argument but you were too stupid to notice. :D 
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote
only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of...
...nothing.  Remember you have no textbook citations.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1939 on: January 29, 2014, 04:42:00 AM »
and so lets discuss textbooks then @sarkeizen.modern textbooks: lets build a cell of the type Pt/Carbon/hydrogen in potassium hydroxide electrolyte and discuss it from a perspective of a phenomena known as hydrogen spillover: www.intechopen.com/source/html/38711/media/image14.png and more on it down near the bottom here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorption .what say you?

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1940 on: January 29, 2014, 02:10:00 PM »
and so lets discuss textbooks then @sarkeizen.modern textbooks
Please provide a textbook cite.  I've already demonstrated the ability and willingness to get a textbook even when all you were doing is attempting to deceive me. :D

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1941 on: January 29, 2014, 07:06:39 PM »
Www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1244777021/ref=rediv_mdp_mobile is a an example of the more modern textbooks dealing with this subject @sarkeizen but lets stick to wikipedia for now ok.they,re basicly saying that theres a thermodynamic driving gradient to shove hydrogen or oxygen adsorbed on platinum/nickel/palladium directly onto other substrates e.g. carbon.so if we take a piece of platinum and a piece of carbon under hydrogen or oxygen gas and put the pieces in contact,gas spills,flows,runs unidirectionaly from the platinum piece directly onto the carbon piece until concentration gradient equilibrium is achieved. pull them apart,and you return to prior thermodynamicly favourable state,before they were in contact.with me so far? Contact=spillover...seperation=prior state..any complaints?

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1942 on: January 29, 2014, 08:20:43 PM »
is a an example of the more modern textbooks dealing with this subject
Yay more lying....

What you linked to on Amazon isn't a textbook.  It's a dissertation. It's interesting that you're too stupid to know the difference.  You just picked something that you hoped you could use to deceive me or other people reading (as you seem concerned about that).

lets stick to wikipedia for now?
Are you saying you can't make your point from virtually any textbook?  ONLY from wikipedia?  Because that sure sounds like what you're saying. :D :D :D :D

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1943 on: January 29, 2014, 08:49:18 PM »
theres plenty textbooks on catalysis covering the subject @sarkeizen.i dont own any of them so i rely on internet for information on gaseous spillover : images.gizmag.com/hero/carbon-hydrogen-storage.jpg.. heres a journal publication: yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-b79c8766-68be-3913-8510-c5798c4b44ff .wikipedia will have to do for established science @sarkeizen.we will use it

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1944 on: January 29, 2014, 09:43:17 PM »
heres something on palladium/copper H2 spillover: www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v12/n6/abs/nmat3620.html thus you take a piece of palladium and a piece of copper under hydrogen,bring them in contact,hydrogen spills over from palladium onto copper,,thermodynamicly favourable.seperate them and they return to prior most stable state,thermodynamicly favourable.2 entropy states.contact=spillover,seperate=prior state

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1945 on: January 29, 2014, 09:45:34 PM »
theres plenty textbooks on catalysis
But you said that your argument can be made from virtually ANY textbook on electrochemistry - you seemed to imply it was true for even high-school level ones....and now you seem to be saying that it can't.  Right? :D :D :D :D
Quote
so i rely on internet for information on gaseous spillover
I think you mean, you randomly search for stuff to try to snow people with.  You didn't even know that you had linked to something that wasn't a textbook. :D :D :D :D  Now you're just linking to papers you haven't read.

Does this crap actually work on anyone you know?


Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1946 on: January 29, 2014, 10:03:02 PM »
it works for gaseous spillover@sarkeizen.And it opens a thermodynamic possibility for galvanic cells powered by gaseous spillover,in the same way that any spontaneous chemical reaction e.g. zinc + oxygen can be tapped electrochemicaly.and its no co-incidence that the gradient which drives gaseous spillover,is in fact a chemical concentration/activity gradient

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1947 on: January 29, 2014, 10:15:41 PM »
you have to now show the jury how the kelvin statement applies to the thermodynamic cycle of gaseous flow between a catalyst particle and substrate particle in a wikipedia-type spillover closed system @sarkeizen.contact= unidirectional gas flow.seperation= random diffusion.2 seperate entropy states,one system.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1948 on: January 29, 2014, 11:14:13 PM »
it works for
Then you should have no problem finding a cite in an ordinary textbook  :D :D  This is what you claimed right?  You know the kind I can find in a library or a bookstore, like I did before when I was being honest and you were being dishonest... :D :D

Or are you giving me the victory that I think most people know I won a few months back and saying you can't support your point with virtually any textbook? :D :D

Do you need me to find where you said those things?  No?  Because you know you did and you know you are lying (for like the fourth time about a core issue).  Now just fess up. :D :D


Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1949 on: January 30, 2014, 06:58:29 AM »
not by a long-shot @sarkeizen.you,l get no victory until you can show us the role of kelvin statement in a closed gaseous spillover cycle.we the scientific community demand that you show us the role of kelvin statement when we contact a nickel particle to a copper particle under hydrogen and then pull them apart.