Fuelless Engine Plans

reply to post by no name needed


mmm try a google search for "lutec fraud debunked " doesnt look so good now does it...

Originally posted by gambon
Sorry Stellar , just posting quotes ,that if you read Agree with my posts ,NOT yours about states of energy isnt going to work.

Please explain your disagreement with my opinion and/or the sources i provided. What i attempted to point out is that the first law should be considered in tandem with the system in question as a failure to do so makes any presumptions about the losses or gains of a system completely speculative.

Are you one of these conmen that tries to fleece people of there money ,You seem keen for others to spend theres,

If only i could find a way to make money by telling the truth i would probably have been a wealthy man by now. As things stand it's doesn't seem to have much financial gain to stick to what i happen to believe.

But refuse my challenge of building a device ....I wonder why?

I am not a engineer and since i don't want to seem to be in this for the money i would rather not sponsor one device over another. I am confident that such devices exists today and can be built in massive volumes but as i said i just don't have enough background to be sure enough of the mechanics. What i can do is tell if i believe a certain avenue of approach seems logical to me so feel free to present a few devices that interests you.

Im with scotty...no more from me, any one with the slightest nous ,can tell its horse **** by looking it up for themselves.

Well i don't wish to force you into a discussion you do not want to be in so feel free to stop at any time.

Stellar

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Gambon, you are absolutely right. And I don't think Stellar is a conman, he's just somebody who likes to "refute" tranditional science,

I am glad to see that even my 'opponents' , such as they seem to be, don't believe that i am in this for money; it's not much but i have come to realise that small steps is all you manage with some people.

As for the 'traditional' science i can almost always refer you to a actual honest to go degreed scientist who had the idea, provided evidence, and managed to convince me. Maybe i am a dupe ( i'm human; fallible etc) but i am by no means arrogant enough to come up with these ideas all by myself.

in search excitement and feeling important. I call this "science pr0n".

Do you find disagreeing with people you consider to be more ignorant than yourself, on a given topic, to be 'exciting'? If so i am glad that such cheap thrills satisfies you but for the most part me talking to people of Gambon's variety is bordering on being a chore.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Your understanding of science is laughable...I dont even think you understand what you post ,you havnt the skills to build a device ,but believe the yarn someone spins ypou ,against all rewputable science and experimentation ,than bury your head in the sand when given the chance to prove your detractors wrong....I for one would love free energy ,but unfortunatly it is a myth.

A degreed scientist eh...I wonder where I could find one of those....

[edit on 8-7-2008 by gambon]

Originally posted by gambon
Your understanding of science is laughable...I dont even think you understand what you post ,you havnt the skills to build a device

So can you build even a conventional generator or motor? If my understanding is so laughable and i don't understand what i am posting i am sure you can begin to make more specific claims and properly source them. Please clarify as to why you believe that the first law in fact makes over unity systems impossible as it's most certainly not implicitly stated anywhere in it.

but believe the yarn someone spins ypou ,against all rewputable science and experimentation

You are misrepresenting reputable science by claiming that it in fact deals with over-unity systems and i have never claimed that any of these devices need to break any of the known laws.

than bury your head in the sand when given the chance to prove your detractors wrong....

I am no engineer so since i can not build a device, or really validate what it might or might not do i ,am dependent on the claims of others and is the sole reason why i have in the last year decided not to 'defend' specific devices over others even if i might risk a few comments in terms of the processes they claim to be employing.

I for one would love free energy ,but unfortunatly it is a myth.

People who love do their best to find what their looking for so whatever you might be experiencing it's most certainly not love. The greatest 'myth' surrounding over-unity/free energy technologies are perpetuated by people who either do not understand the laws , lay ignorants such as yourself, or those few who do and who willfully misrepresent the intentions of the laws to serve those who pay their salaries.

A degreed scientist eh...I wonder where I could find one of those....

That's a good question. I do not mind continuing this discussion but i really must insist that you start making more specific claims, with properly sourced references, and to properly respond to my counter claims. If you can not discuss/debate this issue in a proper manner i suggest you return when you have wiped the foam from your mouth and taken whatever medication you normally do when you get too excited.

Stellar

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Just what part of the law of energy conservation don't people get?

reply to post by gambon


"I learnt a while ago not to debate with StellarX - he just spams until you give up. He always refuses to supply you with an actual device that might prove his claims though. Unlike some members I haven't actually put him on ignore, but I just flick past it all.

Lutec? Ah common, they aren't very good even for free energy hoaxers. Early on they got power and energy mixed up (surprisingly common) and I don't even think they were sure about volts and amps. Obviously they have Fire 2.0, but are just sitting on it a while looking for suckers, sorry I meant investors."

Stellar x."That's a good question. I do not mind continuing this discussion but i really must insist that you start making more specific claims, with properly sourced references"

I have ,where are yours?
Apart from the ones that actually reinforce my point..!!!!lolol
You pick (inaccurate )sources to suit your beliefs in the matter.
Tell you what ,You show me the holes in the relevant equations /laws that let these devices exist

stellarx"I am no engineer so since i can not build a device, or really validate what it might or might not do i ,am dependent on the claims of others and is the sole reason why i have in the last year decided not to 'defend' specific devices over others even if i might risk a few comments in terms of the processes they claim to be employing."

followed by

stellar x"That's a good question. I do not mind continuing this discussion but i really must insist that you start making more specific claims, with properly sourced references, and to properly respond to my counter claims"

Well may I ask you the same with reference to your evasiveness in the previous quote..Just what exactly do you believe?
Love you ...

[edit on 9-7-2008 by gambon]

Originally posted by gambon
I have ,where are yours?

You have so far picked four of five entire pages , apparently at random, that mostly makes broad accusations that supports you views. I am referring to the type of sourcing where specific claims are being made and or supported so that we can discuss specific issues.

Apart from the ones that actually reinforce my point..!!!!lolol

You claim that they support your point but since you claimed that the first law negates the possibility of over-unity i provided the following source to indicate that it does not in fact claim anything as specific for a usual thermodynamic system:

The internal energy is just a form of energy like the potential energy of an object at some height above the earth, or the kinetic energy of an object in motion. In the same way that potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy while conserving the total energy of the system, the internal energy of a thermodynamic system can be converted to either kinetic or potential energy. Like potential energy, the internal energy can be stored in the system. Notice, however, that heat and work can not be stored or conserved independently since they depend on the process. The first law of thermodynamics allows for many possible states of a system to exist, but only certain states are found to exist in nature. The second law of thermodynamics helps to explain this observation.

If a system is fully insulated from the outside environment, it is possible to have a change of state in which no heat is transferred into the system. Scientists refer to a process which does not involve heat transfer as an adiabatic process. The implementation of the first law of thermodynamics for gases introduces another useful state variable called the enthalpy which is described on a separate page.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

In this source it's stated that the conservation of energy in a given thermodynamic system is dependent on whether it is a isolated, closed, or open system. If we can with great confidence establish that a system is in fact isolated we may presume that the energy in it will be conserved but since that determination can not be made as easily as you suggest, or at all, there does not in our knowledge exist a truly isolated system in the universe. In fact we have no evidence that shows conclusively that the Universe itself must be isolated or closed.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase

www.allaboutscience.org...

Interestingly this source states clearly that conservation requires perfect knowledge of the system in question and then broadly presumed that the universe i such. Since i am not aware of the evidence this claims rests on i must disregard it as just so much more ignorant posturing about knowledge not in evidence.

Applying this knowledge to nature, physicists found that the total entropy change (change in S) always increases for every naturally occurring event (within a closed system) that could be then observed. Thus, they theorized, disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the universe. When you put ice into a hot cup of tea (aristocrats of the Victorian era were constantly thinking of tea), heat will flow from the hot tea to the cold ice and melt the ice in the beloved beverage. Then, once the energy in the cup is evenly distributed, the cooled tea would reach a maximum state of entropy. This situation represents a standard increase in disorder, believed to be perpetually occurring throughout the entire universe.

www.physlink.com...

In the above example it is pointed out that entropy increases in a closed system without giving us any examples of what are and what is not representative of a closed system.

You pick (inaccurate )sources to suit your beliefs in the matter.

I can understand that you do not like my beliefs but i can tell you that my beliefs are in fact based on what i have read and not the other way round. I understand you are , just like me, attracted to making blanket statements about the lack of evidence presented by anyone but as you may or may not have noticed i am in fact supplying sourced references that at least provides you with the basis for my claims.

Tell you what ,You show me the holes in the relevant equations /laws that let these devices exist

There are many 'holes' in modern equations and maxwell in fact were far closed to then truth than many scientist in the field are today! If you want to discuss specific claims by Maxwell that is fine but just remember that the equations commonly used today are vast simplifications of what he originally came up with. It is in that rewriting and simplification that much knowledge and understand were lost and why the laws seem to support current views but in no way actually forbids over-unity systems.

Well may I ask you the same with reference to your evasiveness in the previous quote..Just what exactly do you believe?
Love you ...

I believe that the first over unity systems, devices and processes where observed in Maxwell's time but since the 'source' of the vast energy in question could not be established respected scientist obscured references to it to protect their standing in the science establishments of the time just as they are protecting their standing today by avoiding any discussion of what energy really IS. What would you have done if a similar situation having tried to establish the source of the energy flow that is commonly wasted in modern applications? For instance:

In the battery, the Poynting vector is outward, indicating
the direction of energy flow. ~Note the sensitivity of this
result to the sense of the current through the battery.! In the
vicinity of the conducting wires and next to the positive terminal
of the battery, S is parallel to the wire. Perhaps surprisingly,
S is directed from the battery on both sides of the
battery. Along the resistor R, the change of direction of E
outside the resistor causes S to change as well, gradually
turning from parallel to perpendicular to the resistor axis
~and entering it!, at its middle point ~zero surface charge!.

sites.huji.ac.il...

This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

Where is that widely acknowledged energy coming from ( if conservation is presumed in a standard circuit) and how and why is it being written out of our standard equations?

Stellar

Maybe i am a dupe ( i'm human; fallible etc).

Yes.

Do you find disagreeing with people you consider to be more ignorant than yourself, on a given topic, to be 'exciting'?

No. I'd rather these people complete a few honest college courses in physics. Goes a long way to counteract ignorance.

Stellarx Again you are posting irrelevant gumph as facts to support a case you like to believe.

What has energy transport by electromagnetic
waves got to do with your arguement (one which is unclear)

Have read many threads you appear on and you just seem to have a HUGE EGO ,love the last word and only believe stuff which supports your viewpoint.
you have admitted you do not have the skills to build /do experiments to proove your case but would rather believe what suits you .

stellarx"current views but in no way actually forbids over-unity systems."
I thought you insisted you werent taliking about over unity?
[edit on 9-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by gambon]

reply to post by gambon

I did warn you about his cut and paste spam in place of a cogent argument...it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Stellar thinks all the world's phsysists are wrong - he knows better than them. Yet he can't present a device, experiment or single line of math to support his extraordinary assertions.

He has the paranoid view that scientists all know that CoE doesn't hold true, but they keep up the pretense as they would somehow be out of a job if "free-energy" was confirmed.

In reality any scientist, if presented with some kind of anomoly that looked like an infinite energy source, would be on to it faster than a dog onto a bone. Vast grants, plaudits and Nobel prizes would all be flashing by his or her eyes as they imagined their names up their with Newton and Einstien. Supression would be the last thing on their minds.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
In reality any scientist, if presented with some kind of anomoly that looked like an infinite energy source, would be on to it faster than a dog onto a bone. Vast grants, plaudits and Nobel prizes would all be flashing by his or her eyes as they imagined their names up their with Newton and Einstien. Supression would be the last thing on their minds.

As a scientist, I can attest to that. And forget "grants", having an infinite fountain of energy under your control will surely make you the richest person in the world to the extent that Bill Gates would seem like a beggar compared to you. Why the hell would I suppress this? Why would I refuse a ride in a limo all studded with 10 carat diamonds with a few supermodels inside

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes.

And that's why i try not vouch for specific devices. In terms of physics i have offered nothing 'new' and just explained how known laws are being misrepresented to fit the agenda's of certain organizations and individuals.

No. I'd rather these people complete a few honest college courses in physics. Goes a long way to counteract ignorance.

And yet those very same educated people ( they didn't educate scientist a hundred years ago?) keep on making terrible mistakes that not only costs lives but holds up progress. Sure it would be easier to simply claim that i am right by virtue of holding relevant degrees but isn't that how so many breakthroughs by mavericks have been scoffed at only to be accepted later on? I am by no means introducing anything new into physics ,and even less of a maverick, and i all i would like to do here is to discuss the specific laws that some misinformed individuals are employing to attack a field of study they for some reason or another hate.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
As a scientist, I can attest to that. And forget "grants", having an infinite fountain of energy under your control will surely make you the richest person in the world to the extent that Bill Gates would seem like a beggar compared to you.

So are you denying the fact that the price of oil could be less than ten dollars barrel and that government regulation on energy pricing could drop electricity prices in most countries by very large margins? Aren't you just claiming that there are is manipulation of energy, and other marketable commodities, and that the capitalist system does not in fact exist to exploit every opportunity for profit? What stuns me most about people with your level of formal education is that you have so completely bought into the system that you can't even employ the very scientific principles of investigation that you so eloquently expound on when it' serves your economic interest to do so.

Why the hell would I suppress this? Why would I refuse a ride in a limo all studded with 10 carat diamonds with a few supermodels inside

Because you could be killed, not something normally required of those who's primary purpose was making money, the bribes are supposedly quite nice, for taking the diamonds out of all the rings that are bought with oil, coal, gas profits? Are you this closed minded and ignorant of the workings of the capitalist system on purpose , you are after all learned and thus probably well rewarded to serve as one of it's functionaries, or are you trying to butter your bread on both sides by denying that there were any choices to be made in the first place; you can't after all be serving perpetual greed if you just refuse to believe that there are any other choices?

In conclusion i would very much like to get back to some of the physics you say i am misrepresenting. Feel free to employ online sources that indicates why the 'laws of physics' does not allow for over-unity systems.

Stellar

Originally posted by gambon
Stellarx Again you are posting irrelevant gumph as facts to support a case you like to believe.

While i appreciate the fact that you have a opinion your opinion is meaningless to me in the absence of the evidence you built it on. Without being able to see the sources that have allowed you to reach your current beliefs i am just going to have to keep repeating myself

What has energy transport by electromagnetic
waves got to do with your arguement (one which is unclear)

If you read maybe you would understand but basically , as i pointed out, it's widely acknowledge that there is a larger energy flow from a standard generator/battery/dipole than is diverged and employed by the circuit to power loads.

Have read many threads you appear on and you just seem to have a HUGE EGO ,love the last word and only believe stuff which supports your viewpoint.

I have not read many of your threads ( i never created even a single thread related to this issue) and i will just go by your latest views as we have all made mistakes in the past. I obviously believe what i believe to be true and if you have questions as to what i base my views on i can supply the sources /views that would better help to explain my views.

you have admitted you do not have the skills to build /do experiments to proove your case but would rather believe what suits you .

Since i am aware that there is no known laws in physics that prevents over unity systems from existing in our universe i have absolutely no reason to dismiss all the claims about free energy devices out of hand. I have every reason to believe that not all the actual deg reed scientist involved in free energy research are crazy/greedy or just stupid and i am thus left with the decidedly star tingly realisation that our entire capitalist system of economics is designed to profit by the creation of shortages and pointless needs.

I thought you insisted you werent taliking about over unity?

Would have been silly to do that as the whole planet Earth represents such a over unity system hence the fact that your at your keyboard and i am at mine.

Stellar

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I did warn you about his cut and paste spam in place of a cogent argument...it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

I try make my arguments as cogent as possibly but it's a complex thing to do when you have to provide so much background and foundation work to the misinformed/uninformed people you are attempting to inform. If you have advice as to how best speed up the process of providing the required background information i am all ears as typing does take time.

Stellar thinks all the world's phsysists are wrong - he knows better than them.

I don't in fact think they are wrong as the problems i am referring to are largely in interpretation and not much of what i claim has in actual fact been excluded in the original claims of most of the laws normally cited. As you may or may not have realised i use sources reflecting the views of degreed scientist which would have been representative of a broader mass of them if many or any spent the time to study the law and not the presumptions of other scientist.

Yet he can't present a device, experiment or single line of math to support his extraordinary assertions.

And that's the sort of lie that invalidates all he agreements we have had in the past. I used to think that you could be reached but i suppose you have now completely bought into the repressive system that seeks to undermine more freely available energy.

He has the paranoid view that scientists all know that CoE doesn't hold true, but they keep up the pretense as they would somehow be out of a job if "free-energy" was confirmed.

Conservation of energy can't but be true and i have always tried to point out that we just do not have enough information to establish the size or scale of the system in question. If we could establish that the Universe is a isolated system then we can discuss scenarios about it's end but until then all discussion of isolated systems in the natural world ( especially local scales) are subject to a great many conditions and presumptions.

In reality any scientist, if presented with some kind of anomoly that looked like an infinite energy source, would be on to it faster than a dog onto a bone.

They few who did not have much to lose in terms of credibility ( or who were too stupid to realise what they were doing) were and it cost them all dearly. I am sure the energy source is not infinite in size and what is normally intended with such claims is that we would have no reason to be more concerned about it's energy source being drained than of the Sun running out of hydrogen by the end of this week.

Vast grants, plaudits and Nobel prizes would all be flashing by his or her eyes as they imagined their names up their with Newton and Einstien.

Are you familiar with what both Newton and Einstein had to endure and that their tales were in fact one of the few with happier endings? How much do you know about the history of science and would you mind a great deal if offered some more information about the long history of the suppression of discovery by those who pro fitted by current understandings? Sure there might be great reward if you could survive the process of getting your ideas published and widely acknowledged but why have you decided on the strange notion that scientific truths are always established on merit?

Supression would be the last thing on their minds.

If they were ignorant of the history of science or have never worked with colleagues who frowned at some pet theory they had. I think you a presuming more ignorance and general stupidity in science communities than i have ever proposed and frankly that again exposes the fact that you really will say anything to enable a casual dismissal of views contrary to those of your own.

I am NOT here to dismiss the achievements of scientist or science establishments but i have always feel compelled to point out how much faster all current progress could have come to pass if leading men in various parts of the world have not done their best to marginalise views that would endanger the very plaudits, grant and Nobel prizes they have received for supposed breakthroughs in science. As per your method in this thread i can see that you would be equally self serving in undermining the standing of the opposition no matter their prior achievements or record.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


"I obviously believe what i believe to be true and if you have questions as to what i base my views on i can supply the sources /views that would better help to explain my views. "

Yes ,that is exactly what im asking for ,"supply the sources /views that would better help to explain my views. "

"In terms of physics i have offered nothing 'new' and just explained how known laws are being misrepresented to fit the agenda's of certain organizations and individuals."

Err ,no you havnt ,you just keep alluding that laws are being misrepresented without saying how.

"i am just going to have to keep repeating myself"
I have noticed that.

"Since i am aware that there is no known laws in physics that prevents over unity systems from existing in our universe "

You told me earlier you were not on about over unity devices.

"Would have been silly to do that as the whole planet Earth represents such a over unity system hence the fact that your at your keyboard and i am at mine."


No you definatly said it.

Originally posted by gambon
Yes ,that is exactly what im asking for ,"supply the sources /views that would better help to explain my views. "

Please address what i have said so far with your disagreements. My only option in these cases is to repeat myself which is exactly why Fatherluke and others claim to not like my style! What am i supposed to do if no one addresses with counter sourced claims my sourced claims? What do you want me to do other than just agree with you without employing any sources at all? Is having a sourced claim of any sort a problem for you?

Err ,no you havnt ,you just keep alluding that laws are being misrepresented without saying how.

Please consult my last few posts and address the claims i made in them with your specific disagreements.

I have noticed that.

So please stop avoiding any discussion of the sourced claims i make?

You told me earlier you were not on about over unity devices.

Yes i did and in context it was clear that i do not like talking about specific devices and technologies as that just drives the misinformed fundamentalist in the lay scientist into overdrive. I would rather not further incite the naysayers by making the supposedly 'crazy' claim that such devices are operated by many individuals in many countries.

Sure i said THAT but since your reading comprehension absolutely suck when it suits you i am not surprised that you managed to twist my statement into something you felt you could attack me with.

Stellar

You havn't made any claims ,Tell me what your claims are so we can clear this up.
"Yes i did and in context it was clear that i do not like talking about specific devices and technologies"

Could this be because the devices and claims can be proved faulty ,if not ,put your money where your mouth is .

My reading is a lot better than your diction,You seem to claim to be taken out of context in any posts you make ,however I actually fail to see a context at all
in your claims due to you not actually having the nous to actually make any clear claims .Having responded to your attempts with sound scientific laws ,you have brought nothing new to the table.

However you are amusing several people here.For that we love you.

By the way when I said "I wonder where I could find a scientist " you seem to have missed the sarcasm./irony

[edit on 9-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by gambon]

I know you want to be right, in matter of fact, we would love it if you were right. It would mean an end to the energy crisis... not to mention, infinite energy for the rest of mankinds existence.

There are usually two types of scientific minds, those who stick to rationality and engineering, and those who are a little more fanciful in their thinking... I suppose "eccentric" would be a good term to use.

When the two types of minds come together, absolutely marvelous feats are achieved. One continuously comes up with off the wall ideas, and the other searches desperately for ways to make those ideas actually work.

But what you have here is a dead end. We WANT you to be right, but we know otherwise.

It's a pity that these kinds of claims are made. It gives wishful thinkers and eccentrics false hopes, and makes the actual advancements seem like basic improvements on old designs.
Kind of throws the image of engineering out of whack.

I would love nothing more than if you were right about this design... but thats just not the case.

I've been misled before, back when I was young. I dedicated a good year to trying to prove to myself I wasn't wrong... in the end, I had to face the facts.
It hurts, but thats life.

Gambon go to youtube look up : Topgear watercar
these guys just state facts!
they give the info General motors gave them.
drink up people the world is safed!
might as well kill ourselves becouse we wont be driving anything like that in our livetimes they shot that a long time bac and still nothing on the streets.
(id keep it runnin in my shad to if i had 1 )
if any1 know where to find the patents of this thing please let me know!

Look it up gambon and please tell me what you think.

Its the part about general motors.
(the part where they fill up 3 cars with water and drive with a snorkel is freakin hilarious )
your statements about thermo/electro dynamics seem sound, straight out the book sort of speak.
I look forward to hear your reply.