[Christ]

When you made the suggestion that electric and gas motors should be distinguished from each other via the use of either term, you suggested that they be used improperly, as both are technically defined as a motor, in the sense that we use them, which is "an object or device specifically designed to produce motive force".

By definition, a motor is an engine, meaning that both electric and gas engines can be openly referred to as either. Clearly, you misunderstood the point, because you later suggested that those were"internet definitions", and that "because lay people use a term incorrectly does not mean they should be accepted", to which I agreed, while pointing out your hypocritical misuse of the above stated. Those, sir (?), are NOT internet definitions, but definitions stated in my own words, derived from study of the topic. They are not an accurate description of how the terms are commonly misused, rather a distinction from said misuse, declaring the appropriate use.

Once again - by definition, a motor is an engine, however, this is not reverse applicable. And engine does not necessarily provide motive force. Therefore, the terms are not universally interchangeable, but can be used interchangeably in reference to something which fits both definitions, which then would require that said object be defined as "an object or device which converts a (any) form of energy, at least partially, into a motive force."

A light bulb can be defined as an engine, but not as a motor, unless some portion of the hest or light derived from the bulb is directly used to create motion, i.e. the heat turbine experiments from elementary school.

Nothing about this is difficult or so advanced that a young child couldn't understand and appreciate the concept... In fact, I believe I was taught exactly this while attending basic elementary level schools.