> Yes, but remember that this cleaning power of modern cars is a result > of the catalytic converter, not of the engine itself! Remove the > catalytic converter and the modern engine is no better than that of the > 70s. The higher efficiency of modern engines is mostly due to improvements in electronic controls, manufacturing techniques and lubricants. Catalytic converters play a part in this. You could argue that the introduction of the PCV valve in the early 1960's was even more of a milestone. > Now YOU tell me: which would be better - the humongous bank of > batteries and no fuel engine, or an ICE generating electrcity, or a > turbine engine of the same power and expense as the ICE generating > electricity? It's a no-brainer, at least as far as I can see. A no-brainer indeed. Personally, I would go with the proven technology and avoid technological dead-ends and vaporware. BTW, you forgot to include perpetual motion machines in your list of options (since I am being asked to choose between some options that are available now and others that may never be viable). This reminds me of something that an NHK executive supposedly explained about HDTV. Apparently, when NHK first started working on HDTV in the late 1970's, they set their technological goals so that the new technology would be every bit as good as motion picture film. Unfortunately, by the time they had a product that was (literally) "ready for prime time," film technology had improved so much that HDTV could not stand the comparison. The web sites that you have linked to tell basically the same story. 30 years ago, some people claimed that they could make automotive turbines that would be as good as any contemporary reciprocating engine. That may be, but in the meanwhile piston engines have become twice as efficient and polute 99% less. Ardeshir, if you can indeed design an automotive turbine that is competitive with today's piston technology, all I can say is don't wait 30 years to do it. Bernard