One more time with feeling seems to be the theme here. It would be refreshing if Cyclone made an announcement that showed a mass produced variant in operation, demonstrated this engine's capabilities in real world scenes, gave a fixed price for the engine and information as to where you can buy one, presented a warranty and submitted independent test results from EPA, SAE and maybe a university engineering lab or two. This isn't some kind of wild, elaborate maze that they should negotiate ... it's what other engine manufacturers do all the time. Cyclone has repeatedly claimed their product is vastly superior to internal combustion competitors --- it would seem they should be deliriously happy to demonstrate it on the same basis as their "inferior" competitors.
It would also be refreshing to see them explain how the new system deviates from the "exclusive patents" used to sell investors in the first place. They could start by explaining why the gage pressure is 500 rather than 3500; as you would expect to see in supercritical operation. Mind you, I always thought the idea of a supercritical, single stage, piston engine running supercritical was questionable BUT they collected a lot of money by advertising that this is what they were selling.
Likewise, why the external heat exchangers? The engine was supposed to be very compact with integrated engine, burner, steam generator, condenser, blower and feed pump. Given that investors were sold on the company based upon the engine having all these features, it seems only ethical to explain why none of them seem to be integrated any longer.
I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in making changes, that is what R and D is about. However, when you sell based on the original design, it's only fair to explain why you are not delivering on the advertised goods. It's also integral to a sound business model; you can't develop a sound strategy for the future if you fail to identify what failed in the past...and why.
Many companies make announcements and people take them as true ... because they have a track record of delivering. The weed eater, lawn mower, boats, LSR cars shown on the IH page (not forgetting the Mark 5 and 6, Combilift, Genie and so on) make it necessary to seek verification before trusting.
I am sure Cyclone personnel and supporters regard public disbelief in their statements to be inflammatory but, so far, such statements have been little but unsubstantiated advertising.
As mentioned before, there is one thing the company could do that would lend some believability. Forget speed records, those are just stunts, engine lifetime can be measured in minutes and they prove nothing about the value of the item as a marketable product. Cyclone could simply find a public venue (say, a shopping mall parking lot) and set up one of their generator sets along with a practical load --- perhaps a bank of flood lights. Installing a watt meter will provide indisputable proof of output at any moment. Likewise, a flow meter to measure the fuel delivery rate will provide a good estimate of the energy being supplied to the system. Why these two meters indicate energy output and fuel flow, together they also indicate system efficiency. The only other critical parameters are reliability and operability. Start the engine up and let it provide an electrical output for a solid week, non-stop. That's hardly a drop in the bucket compared to commercial gen sets, but it at least establishes a minimum level of competency. At the same time, let it prove operability by painting a white outline around the rig and exclude all technicians from this area, it should be able to run itself without effort.
After doing the above, simply let the buying public judge for themselves. If the power plant is truly as developed as claimed, such a demonstration makes for a superior venue in which one could sell gen sets. Done right, this demonstration could be a money making evolution!
If they do something like this, I might even be a believer. It's currently impossible for a dispassionate observer to believe given the gap between claims and evidence presented to date.
