Why You Can’t Put A Wheel Generator On Your EV And Drive Forever

Thermodynamics Generator Ts2
ADVERTISEMENT

There’s a certain post that floats around the Internet with some regularity, and it caught my eye. It shows us a Chevy Bolt with what appears to be some kind of generating apparatus attached to the rear wheel. The post states that the rotation of the car’s wheel is used to recharge the EV’s battery as it drives along, avoiding charging stops and paying for electricity! Genius, right?

And yet, we know that’s too good to be true. If slapping an alternator on the rear wheels was enough to make electric cars run forever, everyone would be doing it. We’d never burn a drop of petrol again.

You might be wondering, though, precisely why this doesn’t work. Or, you might have a rough idea, but you want to be able to definitively explain to family and friends why this isn’t the magical solution to all of America’s transport woes. Today, we’ll dive into thermodynamics and examine what’s really going on here. Don’t worry—it’s easy! Plus, we’ll even try and figure out why someone might have built this in the first place!

No Free Lunch

Thermodynamics Is Not a Dirty Word

Let’s start by examining what we have here. We have the rear wheel of the car connected via a belt drive to what appears to be an alternator or generator of some sort. When it spins, it makes electricity. That electricity could of course be put to use charging a battery.

That all makes sense. But does this mean we should all be putting generators on our EVs to drive forever? Well, no. Because no matter how much energy you get out of the generator, you’re spending more power to turn it using the car’s motor. It’s simply not possible for the generator to produce more energy than the Bolt’s motor had to spend to get it turning in the first place.

Let’s make a diagram. I’m using the terms “kinetic energy” and “mechanical energy” to mean basically the same thing—energy from motion. It’s a little simplified, but it should give you an idea of how this all goes down.

Infographic Gen
Consider the car as if it were an isolated system, up on jacks. The battery runs the motor, which turns the wheels, which turns the generator, which charges the battery again. How much energy ends up back in the battery? Less than it put out!

It all comes down to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of energy. In very basic terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one kind to another, but you can’t create new energy.

This is why perpetual motion machines, free energy machines, and this “wheel generator” concept don’t work, and simply cannot work. If you had some kind of rotating machine which rotated forever, and you could get some kind of work out of it – say, by having it turn a generator – it would be creating energy. That’s simply not possible, due to the laws of physics. For the same reason, you can’t put a generator on your car’s wheel, recharge the car’s battery via the electricity generated, and drive forever.

In the case of the Bolt, the electric motor converts the electrical energy from the battery into motion. It accelerates the vehicle and spins the generator. The generator then turns rotational energy back into electrical energy again. All the energy coming out of the generator originally came from the EV’s battery itself. The generator didn’t make any energy, it just converted energy from one type to another.

2013 Sema Chevrolet Zz5 350
An alternator puts out less electrical energy than it draws in kinetic energy from the engine. When you convert from one type of energy to another, you always face losses.

A further lesson that thermodynamics teaches us is that every time we convert energy from one type to another, we lose some. For example, a light bulb turns electricity into light, but we also lose some as heat. Combustion engines turn chemical energy into motion, but they also have losses through heat and noise.

It’s the same case here. The energy from the EV’s battery is converted multiple times, each time with some level of efficiency less than 100%. The EV’s motor doesn’t turn 100% of the battery energy into forward propulsion, and the generator doesn’t turn 100% of the rotational energy it harvests into electricity. Even if you feed its output back into the EV battery, you’d be getting less energy out of the generator than you were spending to turn it in the first place.

Simply put, turning the generator adds to the load on the vehicle’s drive motor. The EV’s motor has to work harder to push the car down the road because this generator is now on the back siphoning energy off the rear wheel. It’s thus drawing more energy from the traction battery than it otherwise would if there was no generator hanging off the wheel. Whatever energy you get out of the generator will be less than you’re spending to turn it.

But What About Regenerative Braking?

It is worth remembering, as well, that EVs have ways of turning rotational kinetic energy into electricity anyway. It’s called regenerative braking, and in itself, it perfectly explains why a wheel-attached generator won’t give you free unlimited energy.

When an EV engages regenerative braking, it essentially turns its motor into a generator that is attached to the wheels. What happens? Applying the load of the generator to the wheels slows the vehicle down. It turns the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy to charge the battery. The generator can’t run without slowing the vehicle down. The electrical energy has to come from somewhere!

Naturally, there are some losses involved in the conversion. You can’t accelerate up to speed, then regeneratively brake, and get all the energy back. Some energy is lost in overcoming rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, and some is lost through electrical resistance in the electronics and as heat through the motor. Similarly, as the generator converts rotating motion to electricity, there are more heat losses in the electronics, motor, and battery in turn.

2020 Bolt Ev One Pedal Driving And Regen On Demand Chevrolet Canada 1 16 Screenshot

Sure, you might say that this rear wheel generator would generate electricity if the vehicle was going downhill, using no battery power to accelerate the vehicle. Yes, that’s true. But the Bolt’s electric motor is already capable of acting as a generator in that case anyway. Plus, you’re still not getting energy for free. You had to spend energy to get the Bolt to the top of a hill in the first place before you could reap the energy by rolling back down.

Many Such Cases

There are all kinds of “simple” and “free” sources of energy touted in snappy little videos on the Internet. For example, one touted the idea of putting turbines inside water pipes to get “free” electricity from the flow of water. Of course, this would be completely pointless for a great many water pipes, as their flow is generated by the city’s water pumps. The pumps would have to work harder to overcome the resistance presented by the turbines, using more energy than the turbines could generate.

Another example that is often bandied about is the use of an “HHO gas generator” to make a combustion-fueled car more efficient. This involves using a car’s electrical system to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. The mixture is then fed into a car’s intake to promote “cleaner” or “more efficient” combustion. Here’s the thing, though—even if the gas injection did improve combustion, you wouldn’t be getting out ahead. The energy required to split the gas would outweigh any potential energy you’d get back out of it when it passes through the engine.

Screenshot 2024 06 20 At 12.16.17 pm

What’s Really Going On

The post shown at the start of this article is actually not the original. Somebody saw the photo of this vehicle and made an assumption about what was going on. Then, they spun their tale of free recharging that apparently Big EV was too stupid to implement.

The original photo was actually made by a user called rhinnaflor on Reddit, a full five years ago. Posting to r/whatisthisthing, they asked as to the use of this contraption. There are some compelling theories in the comments, and they don’t violate thermodynamic principles.

Belt contraption attached to the rear wheel of a Chevy Bolt
byu/rhinnaflor inwhatisthisthing

AJ_Mexico pointed out that the Chevy Bolt may be a “dingy” vehicle that is typically towed behind an RV. With modern cars, it’s often recommended to tow them while switched on. However, this can drain the vehicle’s 12-volt battery over time if it is towed for many hours. The theory was that the system attached to the rear wheel was a simple alternator that had been hooked up to keep the Bolt’s 12-volt battery charged while it was being towed with its rear wheels on the ground.  This wouldn’t do anything for the main traction battery, and thus it wouldn’t improve the vehicle’s range. It’d just keep the 12-volt battery topped off, though you’d normally expect the Bolt’s traction battery would do a fine job of that already.

Naturally, this energy still isn’t free. The mechanical resistance of the generator would make the RV towing the Bolt expend more fuel—marginally—than if the generator wasn’t connected. Of course, there are easier ways to handle this task, too. One could simply fit a 12-volt solar battery tender to the Bolt, or hook up some kind of power line from the RV’s own supply. These would be much simpler.

Others suggest it might be some kind of instrumentation for data collection, but I’m not sure I buy that. It’s a very janky install, and the belt drive wouldn’t be super great for accurately tracking the wheel’s motion without slipping. It’d only be worse in wet conditions and when there’s any amount of suspension travel.

C
The generator seems to be hidden to a degree by some kind of black tape. And what’s going on with that thing in the middle of the bumper?

If we zoom in further, though, this case gets more mysterious. There appears to be a fuel filler neck, or maybe some kind of cabling, tucked under the rear bumper of the car. Commenters speculated as to whether some kind of standalone combustion generator might have been installed underneath as a range extender, but the jury is out as to the truth.

It’s very difficult to definitively pin down what is going on in this image. Our best guess is that it’s some kind of wheel-powered electrical generator, but for what reason, we can’t say. If you’ve seen anything like this before, or you know the car in question, perhaps you could shed some light on the matter for all of us.

Ultimately, I hope you found this article educational. You should have a better idea of why you can’t get unlimited range from slapping a generator on your car’s rear wheels. You might even feel confident enough to call out others who bandy about these long-disproven ideas. As much knowledge as there is out there on the Internet, free energy and perpetual motion ideas will seemingly never die. All we can do is call them out and have a chuckle when we see them.

Image credits: via Reddit, via AliExpress, Chevrolet

About the Author

View All My Posts

172 thoughts on “Why You Can’t Put A Wheel Generator On Your EV And Drive Forever

  1. I think that contraption is doing the opposite. It is actually a small ICE engine powering the rear wheel. That is a fuel filler in the middle of the bumper.

    It’s a rudimentary range extender that adds energy to the “isolated system” you defined above.

    Too hard to put the energy directly in through the car’s systems without them freaking out. So found a mechanical means to do it. The car will basically think it is coasting downhill while that thing runs. Add a fuel shark and it will run forever. Brilliant.

  2. I think that contraption is doing the opposite. It is actually a small ICE engine powering the rear wheel. That is a fuel filler in the middle of the bumper.

    It’s a rudimentary range extender that adds energy to the “isolated system” you defined above.

    Too hard to put the energy directly in through the car’s systems without them freaking out. So found a mechanical means to do it. The car will basically think it is coasting downhill while that thing runs. Add a fuel shark and it will run forever. Brilliant.

  3. Are you guys trying to ruin the business I was going to run with small ads in select magazines, and with all the trouble I had faking my own death to promote my product

  4. Are you guys trying to ruin the business I was going to run with small ads in select magazines, and with all the trouble I had faking my own death to promote my product

  5. My favorite quote about “perpetual motion” machines: “The hardest part of making a perpetual motion machine is hiding the battery”.

    No idea who said it, and I’m almost certainly paraphrasing it, but it’s true.

    It used to annoy me, as an engineer, seeing these videos. But now I just sit back and chuckle imagining someone seeing this, and truly thinking “OH MY GOD, THEY’VE DONE IT” then running into the next room to grab someone and show them the most important invention the human race has ever discovered, conveniently found in a post on facebook.

  6. My favorite quote about “perpetual motion” machines: “The hardest part of making a perpetual motion machine is hiding the battery”.

    No idea who said it, and I’m almost certainly paraphrasing it, but it’s true.

    It used to annoy me, as an engineer, seeing these videos. But now I just sit back and chuckle imagining someone seeing this, and truly thinking “OH MY GOD, THEY’VE DONE IT” then running into the next room to grab someone and show them the most important invention the human race has ever discovered, conveniently found in a post on facebook.

  7. I still find it funny that people think that the energy comes from seemingly nowhere. All mechanical systems are a net loss and need an energy input

      1. I mean there’s cosmic dark energy which is what is causing the universe to expand but other than that cannot be observed but quantum astrophysics doesn’t really apply to electric cars…yet.

  8. I still find it funny that people think that the energy comes from seemingly nowhere. All mechanical systems are a net loss and need an energy input

  9. This is an awesome article. I work for an aerospace company that was started the same individual that started an ev company. It’s wild how often we get those smug “elementary my dear Watson,” emails and messages from keyboard experts that “figured it out.” off the wall solutions, usually with an air of smugness to, to problems that either don’t exist or have been solved effectively. It blows me away. I really think it’s another example of the anti-intellectualism that has pervaded western culture.

    1. I remember when a guy who started an EV company then an aerospace company solved a non-existent problem by building a system of said EVs to run in underground tunnels, otherwise known as a less-efficient subway. Is he one of those keyboard experts? I heard he’s out there solving problems for a social media company now.

      1. This is also very true. That’s a fun conversation at work with folks who don’t know that full story. They had originally intended to make appliances apparently.

    2. I thought the aerospace company started by the guy that also runs the EV company was the one company in his portfolio that had their shit figured out. To now hear that this company has to silence the idiots from within is actually news to me. Glad there’s enough of the smart ones there to not have killed the people that company sent to space.

    3. I find that mentality so frustrating myself, usually if I come to a conclusion with an easy/simple solution to a tough problem, I always lead with “this seems way too easy to work, but…”

  10. This is an awesome article. I work for an aerospace company that was started the same individual that started an ev company. It’s wild how often we get those smug “elementary my dear Watson,” emails and messages from keyboard experts that “figured it out.” off the wall solutions, usually with an air of smugness to, to problems that either don’t exist or have been solved effectively. It blows me away. I really think it’s another example of the anti-intellectualism that has pervaded western culture.

    1. I remember when a guy who started an EV company then an aerospace company solved a non-existent problem by building a system of said EVs to run in underground tunnels, otherwise known as a less-efficient subway. Is he one of those keyboard experts? I heard he’s out there solving problems for a social media company now.

      1. This is also very true. That’s a fun conversation at work with folks who don’t know that full story. They had originally intended to make appliances apparently.

    2. I thought the aerospace company started by the guy that also runs the EV company was the one company in his portfolio that had their shit figured out. To now hear that this company has to silence the idiots from within is actually news to me. Glad there’s enough of the smart ones there to not have killed the people that company sent to space.

    3. I find that mentality so frustrating myself, usually if I come to a conclusion with an easy/simple solution to a tough problem, I always lead with “this seems way too easy to work, but…”

  11. Not an engineer…. not an expert… actually, I’m kinda a dumb ass.

    Anyway… what about having the drivetrain made with magnets… and then have a surround that also has magnets…. Yes, you need a tiny bit more energy to rotate the heavier (due to the magnets) drivetrain, But then you do not have any mechanical contact to generate the electricity.

    Of course it wouldn’t be a “spend 1 kW, earn 1 kW”, but would/could it be enough to lower the amount of charging (time) needed?

    Or, am I, as I suspect, a dumbass?

    1. What you’re talking about is enhancing efficiency. I don’t know about your particular idea, but reducing losses i.e. from friction would increase range, though probably not affect charging time.

      1. I had to do a little digging… it’s a rotating magnet and a copper coil…. Magnetic Induction.

        P.S…. increasing range is the same as decreasing time to charge. Less energy required to top up = less time to do the topping.

        1. I see what you’re saying, but for me charging time is not the same as time spent charging. Charging time is how long it takes to charge the battery. Time spent charging is a function of the frequency of charging and yeah, frequency would be reduced, so overall time spent charging would be reduced.

        2. If you do more digging you will actually find that GM and Tesla use/used permanent magnet motors in some of their cars. Also there are no motors that have been used with just permanent magnets and next to nothing else as the motor would just return to equilibrium pretty quickly after starting. Also permanent magnets are what they say they are permanent so you wouldn’t have changing magnetic fields. What I always found funny when I was testing magnets for a particle accelerator people always asked like your fridge magnets? I would so no completely different those are permanent magnets not an accelerator magnet haha.

          Also side note I am not a physicist and wouldn’t classify myself as engineer though I have an computer engineering degree and have worked briefly as an engineer. So I am no where near qualified to supply correct info on this topic haha

          1. I’m talking about generator…

            So.. you have Engine or Motor powering vehicle. Power turns drive shafts. Normal operation.

            In my thinking, everything is the same, except you put a 1/2 inch wide strip of magnet down the shaft(s). Surround shaft with copper wire coil.

            Motor/Engine is already driving the car. I’ve ADDED a non mechanical (so therefore it shouldn’t introduce more power loss) magnetic induction generator.

            Of course, I’m sure plenty of smarter engineers already know why I’m wasting keystrokes… otherwise all the Elec vehicles would have such a drive-shaft generator already.

            Yes, I know copper coils weigh a LOT. But, with super strong magnets, maybe it could work with a lighter material in the coil?

            1. Most electrics nowadays have done away with driveshafts though since you have the individual motors running to the wheels now. But from what it seems like you are saying is to have permanent magnets around the driveshaft and have a coil around the driveshaft which I would assume is powered to creates a field also so it helps the driveshaft spin?

              1. The opposite. It’s using the already spinning shaft’s rotation to generate energy.

                Not to help it spin.

                Please remember… dumb ass here.

            2. Nope, the magnets will still put more drag on the driveshaft for the motor to overcome. The motor is already driving the car, but the minute you add all those magnets and coils, you’re adding more drag.

              Doesn’t matter if it’s “non-mechanical.” The driveshaft will be harder to turn because the interaction between the magnets and coils adds resistance.

              It’s the same deal. Your design is just putting a generator around a driveshaft. That generator will put drag on the motor and generate less energy than it sucks up.

              Using magnets doesn’t change anything. You can’t get energy for free, the energy coming out of your copper coil has to come from somewhere. In this case, it’s coming from the motor, which has to work harder to turn the driveshafts because you wrapped a generator around it.

            3. You can replace copper conductors with aluminium to save mass.

              It won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problem of it being impossible to get more out of a system than you put in.

    2. It sounds to me like what you’re proposing is a magnetic floating bearing to replace conventional journal/roller bearings. Problem is, there are dozens of these bearings, and it’s imperative that all of them have as little play as possible. If there was wiggle room, as you’d see in a non-contact bearing, you’d be able to move all the shafts around a bit, which would be a huge reliability and safety problem.

      Perhaps more importantly, the bearings we already have are very efficient. They account for less than 1% of drivetrain losses, before you even start to consider wind resistance an Rolling resistance from the tires. Grab a fidget spinner, flick it and you’ll see exactly how much resistance a roller bearing has. So all the compromises needed to make these would net you maybe a 0.5% drivetrain efficiency gain, but the extra weight alone might bring you back to zero, with all the drawbacks of cost and reliability

  12. Not an engineer…. not an expert… actually, I’m kinda a dumb ass.

    Anyway… what about having the drivetrain made with magnets… and then have a surround that also has magnets…. Yes, you need a tiny bit more energy to rotate the heavier (due to the magnets) drivetrain, But then you do not have any mechanical contact to generate the electricity.

    Of course it wouldn’t be a “spend 1 kW, earn 1 kW”, but would/could it be enough to lower the amount of charging (time) needed?

    Or, am I, as I suspect, a dumbass?

    1. What you’re talking about is enhancing efficiency. I don’t know about your particular idea, but reducing losses i.e. from friction would increase range, though probably not affect charging time.

      1. I had to do a little digging… it’s a rotating magnet and a copper coil…. Magnetic Induction.

        P.S…. increasing range is the same as decreasing time to charge. Less energy required to top up = less time to do the topping.

        1. I see what you’re saying, but for me charging time is not the same as time spent charging. Charging time is how long it takes to charge the battery. Time spent charging is a function of the frequency of charging and yeah, frequency would be reduced, so overall time spent charging would be reduced.

        2. If you do more digging you will actually find that GM and Tesla use/used permanent magnet motors in some of their cars. Also there are no motors that have been used with just permanent magnets and next to nothing else as the motor would just return to equilibrium pretty quickly after starting. Also permanent magnets are what they say they are permanent so you wouldn’t have changing magnetic fields. What I always found funny when I was testing magnets for a particle accelerator people always asked like your fridge magnets? I would so no completely different those are permanent magnets not an accelerator magnet haha.

          Also side note I am not a physicist and wouldn’t classify myself as engineer though I have an computer engineering degree and have worked briefly as an engineer. So I am no where near qualified to supply correct info on this topic haha

          1. I’m talking about generator…

            So.. you have Engine or Motor powering vehicle. Power turns drive shafts. Normal operation.

            In my thinking, everything is the same, except you put a 1/2 inch wide strip of magnet down the shaft(s). Surround shaft with copper wire coil.

            Motor/Engine is already driving the car. I’ve ADDED a non mechanical (so therefore it shouldn’t introduce more power loss) magnetic induction generator.

            Of course, I’m sure plenty of smarter engineers already know why I’m wasting keystrokes… otherwise all the Elec vehicles would have such a drive-shaft generator already.

            Yes, I know copper coils weigh a LOT. But, with super strong magnets, maybe it could work with a lighter material in the coil?

            1. Most electrics nowadays have done away with driveshafts though since you have the individual motors running to the wheels now. But from what it seems like you are saying is to have permanent magnets around the driveshaft and have a coil around the driveshaft which I would assume is powered to creates a field also so it helps the driveshaft spin?

              1. The opposite. It’s using the already spinning shaft’s rotation to generate energy.

                Not to help it spin.

                Please remember… dumb ass here.

            2. Nope, the magnets will still put more drag on the driveshaft for the motor to overcome. The motor is already driving the car, but the minute you add all those magnets and coils, you’re adding more drag.

              Doesn’t matter if it’s “non-mechanical.” The driveshaft will be harder to turn because the interaction between the magnets and coils adds resistance.

              It’s the same deal. Your design is just putting a generator around a driveshaft. That generator will put drag on the motor and generate less energy than it sucks up.

              Using magnets doesn’t change anything. You can’t get energy for free, the energy coming out of your copper coil has to come from somewhere. In this case, it’s coming from the motor, which has to work harder to turn the driveshafts because you wrapped a generator around it.

            3. You can replace copper conductors with aluminium to save mass.

              It won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problem of it being impossible to get more out of a system than you put in.

    2. It sounds to me like what you’re proposing is a magnetic floating bearing to replace conventional journal/roller bearings. Problem is, there are dozens of these bearings, and it’s imperative that all of them have as little play as possible. If there was wiggle room, as you’d see in a non-contact bearing, you’d be able to move all the shafts around a bit, which would be a huge reliability and safety problem.

      Perhaps more importantly, the bearings we already have are very efficient. They account for less than 1% of drivetrain losses, before you even start to consider wind resistance an Rolling resistance from the tires. Grab a fidget spinner, flick it and you’ll see exactly how much resistance a roller bearing has. So all the compromises needed to make these would net you maybe a 0.5% drivetrain efficiency gain, but the extra weight alone might bring you back to zero, with all the drawbacks of cost and reliability

  13. I hate that I live in a world where this needs to be explained to people.

    Bravo on the article, it’s very well done, but, like, why is it so difficult for people to see why this doesn’t work?

      1. Remember back before the internet when we thought the world would be so much better if everyone had access to more information? Yeah, that wasn’t the problem…

    1. The vast majority of people believe anything they see on the internet, and the ability to instantly connect globally with like-minded people creates echo chambers both good and bad. Just look at how prevalent flat-earth argument have become recently.

      As a mechanical engineer, these perpetual motion arguments are laughable at best, but I have to remind myself the vast majority of people haven’t the slightest clue how physics works. Cars are mechanical magic, cell phones are electrical magic, even basic things like running water in your house is hydraulic magic.

      1. As a Mechanical Engineer myself I still believe electricity is witchcraft, but mostly because undergrad Electrical Engineering courses scarred me in a very particular way. Is there professional therapy to unlearn bad college courses? I wonder if my HSA would cover that…

    2. The thing is we’re all idiots about something. The world is massively too complex for anyone to be an expert (or even vaguely understand) everything that happens in it. I have a reasonably solid understanding of thermodynamics – at least enough to know why this won’t work – but I have no idea how to bake a cake from scratch or paint someone’s portrait. People who know how to do those things might not understand thermodynamics at all.

      To me, the most important thing is to recognize when you don’t know something and either learn about it or ask someone who does know about it. Too often people will say something from a position of ignorance and then defend that position to the heat death of the universe

  14. I hate that I live in a world where this needs to be explained to people.

    Bravo on the article, it’s very well done, but, like, why is it so difficult for people to see why this doesn’t work?

      1. Remember back before the internet when we thought the world would be so much better if everyone had access to more information? Yeah, that wasn’t the problem…

    1. The vast majority of people believe anything they see on the internet, and the ability to instantly connect globally with like-minded people creates echo chambers both good and bad. Just look at how prevalent flat-earth argument have become recently.

      As a mechanical engineer, these perpetual motion arguments are laughable at best, but I have to remind myself the vast majority of people haven’t the slightest clue how physics works. Cars are mechanical magic, cell phones are electrical magic, even basic things like running water in your house is hydraulic magic.

      1. As a Mechanical Engineer myself I still believe electricity is witchcraft, but mostly because undergrad Electrical Engineering courses scarred me in a very particular way. Is there professional therapy to unlearn bad college courses? I wonder if my HSA would cover that…

    2. The thing is we’re all idiots about something. The world is massively too complex for anyone to be an expert (or even vaguely understand) everything that happens in it. I have a reasonably solid understanding of thermodynamics – at least enough to know why this won’t work – but I have no idea how to bake a cake from scratch or paint someone’s portrait. People who know how to do those things might not understand thermodynamics at all.

      To me, the most important thing is to recognize when you don’t know something and either learn about it or ask someone who does know about it. Too often people will say something from a position of ignorance and then defend that position to the heat death of the universe

Leave a Reply