So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence

One way would be for you to produce a valid formal logical argument which ends in "Ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which would power an ipod-like device eternally and continually".  However you said

@sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words

So I guess that's out. Moron.

Or YOU can use a textbook to try find flaw in my statement @ sarkeizen.any gas electrode overpotential differential galvanic cell,NECESSITATES a 2lot violation.you have a nasty habit of partially quoting peoples statements around here.

To demonstrate a 2nd LoT violation isn't it necessary to define the boundaries of the closed system ?

..

Or YOU can use a textbook to try find flaw in my statement

...and if I didn't that would not significantly adjust the odds of you being correct.  Hence what I suggest is good evidence and what you suggest is stupid.  QED.

Its not stupid if you look into it.

I'm saying your test for evidence can't significantly shift the probability that you are correct.
Clearly any test which does not shift the likelihood is stupid.   Sorry that's just the way it is.

QED

your inability or ability to textbook-bash it increases or decreases probability dramaticaly.

Sadly your math is worse than Phillips.   How do you get so terrible at it?  Do you actually have to spend time taking courses that un-teach probability theory?  Or is it just a successive series of sharp blows to the head?

Please provide the calculations to prove your point.  You of course can't but it will be fun to see what dodge you come up with.

if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation

I love this answer.  Remember the question at hand is "Why don't I use your standard of evidence?".   Profitis has already admitted that she is unable to meet my standard of evidence.  I've stated that her belief that my ability to prove or disprove some things has no significant effect on their probability of being true.  For example I am probably unable to prove the Reimann Hypothesis.  Does that make it untrue?  Profitis would apparently say "yes" but that would of course be an exceptionally stupid thing.  As I am also unable to prove it's inverse.  Which would according to Profitis reasoning make it's inverse untrue.   However since the Reimann hypothesis must be either be true or it's inverse must be true.  Then the Profitis system of reasoning can not possibly be correct.
 
Profitis claims her belief requires no math.  However she is clearly attempting to add probabilities.  She also apparently was never taught how.  Do you think profitis can guess why 100 combinations may not add up to a significant shift in likelihood?  My bet is "no".

Profitis will now prove me right.

You just proved that Sarkeizen's prediction was correct.

No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark E