Category Archives: Energy

GM Cites Quality Control in Huge Jump of 2024 EV Sales

Best EV value of 2024? Many people seem to believe so. The Chevy Equinox is poised to give EV market leaders Hyundai and Kia a run for their money.

I see a nugget of security analysis as a buried lede in the news of GM crushing 2024 EV sales goals.

In 2024, GM’s EV sales surged 50% to 114,432, its highest ever aided by the new Equinox EV…. That made it one of the fastest-growing players in the electric space.

…investing more than $1 billion in companies making graphite and lithium, as well as deals with South Korea’s LG Chem to produce cathodes for it in Tennessee. That results in big savings related to shipping battery components from China, a multiweek process, as well as fewer quality control headaches.

Like “having product on the water for five weeks that you’re financing, only to find out there’s a reject in that part,” [Kelty, GM’s vice president of battery operations] said. “There’s a lot of costs that are not included upfront.”

Moves to set up a lower-cost battery supply base were cited among reasons Deutsche Bank equity analyst Edison Yu raised GM’s shares to a Buy this month, noting that its EV strategy wasn’t “entirely dependent on volume but also on battery and materials cost savings.”

What an important supply-chain integrity point in an otherwise great report about GM’s already fruitful plans for EV growth. It reminds me of this 2024 chart, showing just how hot the California EV market was last year and where top talent has been going (Hint: reverse correlate with recalls).

Chart: Michael Thomas. Source: CA New Dealers Association

Update: 2024 EV registrations in CA versus 2023. GM is up over 1000% while Tesla is failing so hard their negative bar literally is falling off the charts.

The Security Professional’s Guide to Alien Science and Gravity Drive Claims

I was sent a very lengthy hours-long commentary about my earlier blog post on gravity propulsion claims:

Gravitic Drones From China: Classic Counterintelligence Pattern in Livelsberger Case

Honestly I’m impressed people have been reading my little security blog, let alone using their studio for hours of video to respond. The dedication to exploring complex topics with a desire to understand advanced technology is commendable. When someone comments on my blog post I’ve done my best to reply. So with this video sent to me I figured I’d also try to engage constructively by posting a response with some of the video’s key points while clarifying concepts that maybe will help advance the discussion. Here’s a sample of the video tone:

Davi Ottenheimer is a um cyber security specialist so he’s not not a physicist not really an expert im physics or uh hasn’t done the research that I’ve done or dug into the people and the scientists or talked to the physicists that I have or engaged with with that that type of information but let’s let’s hear them out… very few people are actually talking about anti-gravity technology and even reporting on it this guy did a decent job thank him for his work and and and send him this video I’m going to I’m going to do that right now flyingpenguin that’s his name all right

I’m not the expert this guy is, I get it. In fact I don’t think I ever said I was an expert anywhere on this, for better or worse, so his perception makes sense. I sure do appreciate the general sentiment expressed to help me understand better, not to mention the effort to reach out with the video for me to review and study.

Let’s start with the most important points that came through loud and clear:

  • Scientific consensus can sometimes be wrong (I’ve updated my post to make sure it is abundantly clear I agree)
  • Classified research programs do exist (hopefully that’s already clear enough in my post)
  • There may be interesting physics we don’t yet understand (also hopefully clear enough already that I agree)

These all reinforce my central thesis about how scientific breakthroughs develop and manifest. And notably he gives examples about classified research at Battelle and Wright-Patterson, which provide excellent support for the key point in my original post that real technological breakthroughs, even when classified have these notable features:

  • Generate observable patterns in research
  • Require substantial infrastructure
  • Leave traces in supply chains
  • Build on established physics principles
  • Can’t completely hide fundamental discoveries

Here’s a typical example of documents declassified decades ago that reveal “secret” research and observations at Wright-Patterson and Selfridge.

11 July 1950. Source: Secrets Declassified, USAF

The distinction between engineering secrets and physics breakthroughs is crucial. In fact, as the video notes regarding metamaterials (engineered materials with unusual electromagnetic properties), new capabilities often emerge from creative applications of known physics rather than hidden fundamental forces.

So we all agree that extraordinary engineering breakthroughs can and do happen, even while obeying known physics principles! I have spent decades working on breakthroughs in engineering that depend on physics, so it’s hard for me to disagree with this tenet.

At this point you, like me, are maybe thinking ok so what? What’s the deal with a massively, massive two hour video response then?

Well, dear readers (hi mom!) I took the time to carefully wade through the whole thing (transcript) so you wouldn’t have to. What I actually was being given was a shining example of the kind of misunderstandings of basic physics, attachment to conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about suppressed technologies that likely fueled a Green Beret with PTSD and traumatic brain injury into tragic levels of anxiety and fear.

Below I’ll walk through specific technical errors I found in the video, with timestamps so you can verify the context yourself. I’ve organized these by physics domain to make them easier to follow. For each error, I provide both the mistaken claim and a brief explanation of the correct physics. While the list may seem long, understanding these fundamentals is crucial for anyone seriously investigating advanced technology claims.

Fundamental Constants and Special Relativity

  1. Speed of Light Misunderstanding (00:17:26)
    • Error: “if you change the variable refractive index you can change the speed of light so all these theories and and are based on constant c”
    • Correction: The speed of light in vacuum (c) is invariant. Refractive index changes light’s phase velocity in materials but doesn’t modify the fundamental constant c. This is a cornerstone of special relativity.
  2. Metamaterial Properties Error (00:17:52)
    • Error: Claims metamaterials can modify fundamental constants
    • Correction: Metamaterials alter effective electromagnetic properties but cannot change fundamental physical constants or modify gravitational fields

General Relativity and Gravity

  1. Dielectric Properties and Gravity Error (00:43:13)
    • Error: “If you modify the dialectric and ferromagnetic constants as part of Einstein’s field equation which is part of K which is part of G”
    • Correction: This shows fundamental misunderstanding of the Einstein field equations. Electromagnetic properties don’t couple to gravity in this way – the interaction is ~40 orders of magnitude too weak for engineering applications
  2. Quantum-Gravity Confusion (00:16:43)
    • Error: Using QM-GR incompatibility as evidence for hidden physics
    • Correction: The theoretical tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity actually demonstrates why proposed gravity modifications would leave clear signatures in current physics frameworks. The very public nature of this theoretical challenge demonstrates how fundamental physics questions can’t be hidden – thousands of physicists worldwide are working openly on these problems.

Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics

  1. Matter Constitution Error (01:47:57)
    • Error: “…matter is not made up of matter you know matter is made up of these things called you know fundamental particles you know electrons and positrons I mean electrons and protons and neutrons right mainly and those electrons neutrons and and protons are all made of quarks which are made of stuff that is not matter what the stuff that makes up matter is is rearranged spacetime”
    • Correction: Misrepresents quantum field theory and particle physics. Quarks are fundamental particles, not “rearranged spacetime”
  2. Vacuum Energy Misconception (01:48:41)
    • Error: Description of “unra radiation bath of space”
    • Correction: Misrepresents quantum vacuum fluctuations and zero-point energy. The vacuum state has properties but not in the way described

Electromagnetic and Nuclear Forces

  1. Plasma Physics Errors (00:26:22)
    • Error: Claims about plasma spheres controlling gravity
    • Correction: Confuses electromagnetic plasma effects with gravitational interactions. Plasma confinement is an electromagnetic phenomenon, not gravitational
  2. Cold Fusion Misunderstanding (00:55:20)
    • Error: Linking cold fusion claims to gravity modification
    • Correction: Nuclear fusion (strong force) and gravity are entirely different fundamental forces. Success or failure in one domain says nothing about the other

Classical Physics and Engineering

  1. Maritime Casimir Effect Misapplication (01:49:24)
    • Error: Comparing boat waves to quantum Casimir effect? “…in a maritime casimir effect right that shows that in a in a long in a harbor um the boats if you had two boats in a wavy ocean the waves are damped between the two boats so that there’s less waves between the two boats”
    • Correction: Macroscopic wave mechanics and quantum vacuum effects operate on entirely different scales with different underlying physics
  2. Crystal Structure Claims (00:25:32)
    • Error: “some of the crystal structures require uh micro gravity environment”
    • Correction: While microgravity can be useful for some crystal growth, the statement fundamentally misrepresents crystallography and materials science
  3. Supercavitation Physics (01:25:38)
    • Error: Conflating atmospheric and underwater supercavitation effects? “…you create this Super cavitated Bubble around the torpedo so that it can travel in a vacuum instead of through a viscous fluid like water which slows you down a ton and it’s you know hard reason you can paddle a boat right water is viscous it’s hard to move but you create this Super cavitated Bubble in front of it and boom you got super cavitation in this frictionless”
    • Correction: Misapplies fluid dynamics principles across different mediums with very different physical properties
  4. Energy Conservation Claims (02:08:36)
    • Error: Suggestions of “over Unity” effects
    • Correction: Violates First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy conservation cannot be violated through clever engineering

Scientific Method and Evidence

  1. Experimental Verification Error (00:15:30)
    • Error: “We’re showing the experiments about the tests that break these theories”
    • Correction: No peer-reviewed experiments demonstrate violations of fundamental physics principles claimed
  2. Classification Logic Error (00:19:50)
    • Error: Using classification as explanation for lack of evidence. “…the scale of such an Enterprise would be completely impossible to hide from the global scientific community. No it wouldn’t I show you exactly how they’re doing it they manage all of the National Labs.”
    • Correction: As demonstrated in the blog post, fundamental physics breakthroughs leave observable patterns even when specific applications are classified

Context and Implications

The real story of scientific discovery is often more interesting than hypothetical hidden physics. The errors above demonstrate consistent misunderstandings of:

  • Fundamental force interactions
  • The relationship between theory and experiment
  • The distinction between engineering challenges and physics principles
  • How scientific breakthroughs develop and manifest
  • The difference between classical and quantum effects

Furthermore, as stated at the beginning, while I may not be the expert this guy is I noticed the examples he cited actually support my thesis about how real technological breakthroughs develop and leave observable traces, even when classified.

The response and analysis here isn’t meant to discourage investigation of advanced technologies. Rather, it aims to help establish a more rigorous foundation for such research based on actual principles. When we conflate engineering possibilities with physics-defying claims, we risk not only misleading ourselves but potentially harming vulnerable individuals searching for answers.

Honda Zero Wows CES as Their EV Jumps to Head of AI Market

Honda innovation was hinted at last year’s CES:

2024 Honda Zero concept

And the reputable brand has more than delivered in 2025.

Their new Zero EV as reported by Verge is amazeballs in both looks and trustworthy innovations in engineering.

Honda says Honda Zero embodies three principles: “thin, light, and wise.” At CES, Honda executives said they were focused on showing off the “wise” principle.

That includes a new, in-house-developed operating system called Asimo OS, named after the company’s Asimo humanoid robot from the early 2000s that was designed for “people’s daily lives.”

Honda retired Asimo in 2018 to focus on “more practical” applications. But the company retained a lot of information from the more than 33.26 million steps the robot took over its lifetime about some of the stumbling blocks and safety issues a fully autonomous robot would have to overcome. When Honda unveiled Asimo in 2000, it was widely heralded as both a beloved friend (which once played soccer with President Barack Obama and could autonomously recognize a human wave as well as moving objects) and a symbol of Japanese technological advancement.

Honda Zero Saloon 2025
Honda Zero SUV 2025

That little robot didn’t just take 33.26 million steps, it was learning how not to fall flat on its face, which turns out to be pretty dang important when you’re building self-driving cars.

Kick it!

And more notably the ‘friend’ vision of AI agents isn’t just feel-good marketing. That’s the correct moral framing for our inevitable augmented future. It’s not your servant, it’s not your exploitable dislocated double or digital twin working in apartheid data mining depths hidden and unknown to you. It’s your verifiable friend worth caring about because it cares about you, in the same way trust works with “true” friends today.

Way to go Honda!

This intelligent EV, coupled with their battery revolution just announced, means Honda Zero is far more than another pretty face in the EV crowd. For thoughtful consumers and transit planners, this might be the one to watch. Finally – 2030 zero emission and fatality targets that don’t feel like creepy technologist-white-supremacist fan fiction.

And for everyone saying “but where’s my 1980s Civic with electric motors” I hear you.

Here’s the deal: Go look at what happened with GM’s Electrovette and Electrovair programs.

Then read about Nissan’s Lektrikar, or the actual Tesla technology inventors (AC Propulsion) Toyota eBox.

eBox was unveiled in Santa Monica, California on August 18, 2006. It was superior to Tesla, since it was designed by the company in Los Angeles that Tesla ripped their ideas from. The prototype used a battery pack consisting of 5,300 Li-ion cells arranged into 100 blocks of 53 cells each.

Then put some serious money up for retro-fit electric kits to keep older combustion cars on the road but instead powered by modern (solid-state) batteries. That’s the most literal path to what you seek.

Why hasn’t the market gone there? Simple. American economics are geared towards heavily subsidized throwaway big new exotics instead of long repair and retro-fit sensibly designed affordables.

In other words, this is bigger than just old and new car concepts. America always intentionally oriented towards an emphasis on the high-cost-of-maintenance private carriage because it inherently required lots of privilege, as a way of legitimizing literal social barriers to entry (no money, no movement, like the days of royalty and horse drawn carriages). Since the Model T (and Ford’s overt hate speech that put his extremist racist pamphlet on the seat of every new car) it’s been a not-very-secret strategy of market-manipulated discrimination against those historically pushed into poverty.

For those wondering why we’re talking social history in a piece about a fancy new EV, hang onto your hat…

Why do you think jaywalk laws were so cynically invented? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t about safety. It was about criminalizing pedestrian movement, especially in low income neighborhoods where crosswalks are delayed or denied.

The harsh truth? Access to good inexpensive cars threatens the racist foundations of American car culture – a system built on intentionally criminalizing pedestrians. White men in power prefer no public transit and car sales to be exotic and expensive as possible, as a means of legally restricting assembly and freedom of movement essential to prosperity. Source: StreetsBlog

Honda Follows Toyota in 2030 Solid State Battery Announcement

A little while ago I mentioned Panasonic was behind Toyota’s plans for solid state battery delivery in 2027.

Honda now is saying they predict a 2030 delivery of their in-house version that has impressive advantages over current EV safety and performance. The details now are all about industrialized output being cost competitive.

Honda says its ability to prototype new materials and processes on a mock assembly line will let it iterate on all those factors as quickly as possible and, the company stressed, will help it produce solid-state cells that are cost competitive with existing alternatives. That will let it achieve economies of scale faster and deploy the cells across many more products more quickly.

To be fair, Stellantis has been boasting it will be putting solid state battery “demonstration” cars on roads already in 2026.

Stellantis is taking another step forward in the EV race, partnering with Factorial to incorporate solid-state batteries into a demonstration fleet of Dodge Charger Daytona vehicles. Based on Stellantis’ STLA Large platform, this fleet will showcase Factorial’s solid-state battery technology in action by 2026.

And the Chinese like to say their Chery will achieve the first ready big production line.

Bottom line is Toyota’s release date has slipped before while Honda’s looks reliable. Stellantis seems just to be trying to jump the PR cycles, but in any case solid state is moving into mass production. The availability no longer will be just theoretical, as we watch the brands where real EV innovation is happening.