Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Arnold,
Why is it that Harry shouldn't be the one? Why do you draw this conclusion? Harry has been inventing since he was 18 and holds many patents.
FraDog
Buenijo,
I have to apologize as well. Based on the info I was given I understood it to be a functioning engine as well.
FrazDog
Buenijo,
Great find. It amazes me that, in the spirit of trying to do something good, people neglect the "well to wheel" efficiency or other environmental impact of buying the new high efficiency vehicles.
This article pinpoints it so well. A must read for policy makers IMHO!!!
Thanks for sharing that with us.
Again, a must read!!!
FrazDog
Huh,
I read that page. Didn't see anything stating that the pictured items ran. Did I miss it? I saw a lot of information about multiple applications. 10 different types but only 4 pictures.
A diabolical plot to be sure. :)
I guess when I go into Staples and see the dummy computers setting on the desks for demo purposes I should tell them they are misrepresenting the facts.
I wounder if they would really care. Probably not.
Are you feeling okay. You dissension is usually much better than what you have been posting lately. Please come up with some new stuff for us to discuss.
Regards,
FrazDog
Statement from Cyclone.....
"We have completed Phase One of our development agreement with Raytheon Company, the $23 billion
defense contractor. In that test, we successfully ran our Mark II engine on a monopropellant called Moden
Fuel, which is capable of combusting without external air. In conjunction with our engine, Raytheon
believes that this system can be “transformational” in the fields of underwater and space power generation."
If they are lying about Raytehon? (someone should call Raytheon and tell them.)
I would think that this type of misrepresentation would come to a end rather quickly unless...........it is in fact TRUE!!!!
FrazDog
Notice to the board:
Cyclone Power does in FACT have a stand alone running motor.
I have seen it.
Piecemaker has seen and documented it on video.
Please contact them for a tour or to visit them at any shows they may be attending.
FrazDog
Buenijo,
That didn't take long to see huh? LOL.....
Alvin Toffler said that the true value of a company is TIME, SPACE, and KNOWLEDGE. I see CPT having depth in all three segments.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Regards,
FrazDog
Buenijo,
Actually, that in fact IS the engine. Its super quiet. The engine is inside that shell. According to Piecemaker there is a drive shaft coming out the bottom of it. Amazing huh?
FrazDog
Buenijo,
Cyclone has extended to me an open invitation to come to there shop and see the motors whenever I wanted to. Some members of this board have actually taken them up on this request. I visited them at the Orlando Power Generation show.
I can assure you, as an engineer that I have witnessed NOTHING improper or sketchy about this technology. The inventor himself spent time with me at length going over the inner workings of the engine.
I have found them to be extremely helpful and open to questions.
FrazDog
Arnold,
Again, I HAVE SEEN A FUNCTIONING ENGINE!
Piecemaker has seen and filmed a functioning engine, and posted it on his blog. Stop saying that they do not have a functioning engine. It is a bold faced lie and YOU KNOW IT!
Just because you refuse to go to a show or the shop and see it for yourself does NOT mean it doesn't exist!
Cyclone has a very open policy about visitors. A fact, you never seem to state in your vitriol.
FrazDog
Arnold,
Your right. Not sure if your being positive or not. But it is very simple.
Single crank with one point of connection to the crank. Very Linear on the stress riser. High cutoff means no one piston loading excessively.
What you see here is no cam shaft. No Oil Pump. No alternator spindle. I mean, that's pretty much it. pistons, crank, valves, done. You would only have one crank bearing. Not pictured is the heat exchanger, condenser and combustion chamber. It is very simple.
FrazDog
Arnold,
I saw a working model. Piecemaker has video of a working model that he filmed. Not sure what your asking for. Cyclone is an engineering group engineering engines. Not lawnmowers or cars. The power plant does work. Because its not attached to a mower blade does not make this less true.
FrazDog
Hello all...
Just an FYI, in Mozilla Firefox the links to the Videos DO NOT WORK...
You will need to use Internet Explorer.
Regards,
FrazDog
Arnold,
Scratch that.....don't think it would be good in an airplane after all.....LOL
This seems more like a skid mounted generator type solution to me.
FrazDog
Also...
An air compressor to actuate the valves. A more complicated valve train to accommodate variable timing. A timing controls system (computer) to control the efficiency.....
OIY!!!!!
FrazDog
Arnold,
I think it would be awesome for single engine light aircraft. A supercharger would increase its ceiling considerably. Also, I agree that it could have huge implications in automotive. This could be a big hit.
My dislike of ICE's has to do with it being more and more complicated every year. To many parts to break. Also, this motor still requires, I just read, a 3 stage converter to handle emissions. It will not pass emissions requirements by it self. However it is significantly less than standard ICE's.
FrazDog
ps... I was just reading about how the piston rods load the crank. Very little side loading. This could be big in high rev-ing applications as well.
Arnold,
I guess your right. once you have rotary motion and horse power what else do you need?
FrazDog
Arnold,
Motor Trend likes your motor. I would love to see the data models from using a super charger.
FrazDog
Arnold,
Okay, I think I understand your point.
To your point I freely admitted that the system was running on compressed air. I see no real distinction in this application between compressed air and pressurized steam except one. Friction would be reduced in the steam application.
The engine Piecemaker taped was a standalone fully functioning machine. I feel that the previous only proves the later. Not a big stretch for me. Heat to water. Water to Steam. Steam to motion. Motion to work done.
FrazDog
Arnold,
I would propose steam.
Am I missing something in your question? Sorry if I don't follow...LOL
FrazDog
Arnold,
I would say, after spending 10 mins looking at it, it seems logical. At the end of the day its still an ICE. Suck push bang blow. LOL
Lower EGT make sense do to not compressing combusting gases.
Still needs all of the standard ICE support equipment. Starter, oil pump, radiator, transmission etc.
Block could be cast so that's a plus. I think in theory it could make a really good aircraft engine. Better thermal efficiency and higher compression.
Just my quick thoughts. How bout yours?
FrazDog
Arnold,
Would mind elaborating please? To what end?
FrazDog
Arnold,
I am considering the production of the source of energy. Waste Heat. Meaning that its heat wasted from a given process. Waste heat to usable energy is a plus no matter how you look at it.
You did see a video of a motor running on Piecemakers blog. If you choose not to acknowledge that what he video taped is real I can’t help that. What would be the difference in your mind if Cyclone released the same video? I feel that you would still say that it was "Rigged". I saw tubing to connect what looked to be a green Coleman LP bottle. I saw wires for the igniter. All of which would be necessary for the system to work.
I don't believe that you are a paid basher, what ever that is. I frankly find your skepticism refreshing. It forces those on here to think. So long as the discussion does not become petty. Nothing wrong with that!
Quote "What you saw was is an external source of power creating motion."
As to the above quote, I would have been concerned if I saw an external motor turning the Cyclone. What I saw was the Cyclone, turning an alternator, powering an AC converter, powering a lamp and a laptop. Yes, it was running on air pressure, but it WAS running on PRESSURE and VOLUME. The only difference between this and an installed application would be that the pressure and volume would be wet.
I spent some extensive time in the Cyclone booth. I spoke to many of the engineers who passed through. Many of them had questions for Harry and the crew. I did not witness one person, engineer or otherwise who left the booth saying that this was not going to work.
At this point I don't know what else I can tell you. I would say that you may need to visit their facility or one of their shows for yourself. This really is not rocket science.
In life we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. I spent the time to fly to Orlando, go to the show and see what this was for myself. The facts are that I saw a mechanical device converting pressure and volume to rotary motion. And I did in fact see the same device coupled to devices to make usable electricity.
FrazDog
Arnold,
I saw a running engine working off of pressure. Many other engineers saw it as well in Orlando. Here is a video of the Mythbusters using simple steam to power a gun.
Arnold,
I am not sure I am convinced that a pressure driven engine is any less complete whether or not it runs on steam pressure or air pressure. An impact wrench for example should run on steam. Would be really messy and wet but it would work. The motor I saw at the show in Orlando was running independently on pressure I can assure you. I looked at it very closely. The motor speed was directly affected by available pressure. When you turned the supply valve down the motor slowed. Harry even pulled some of the valve assembly apart for me to view it. The model at the show was exposed to show the valves and crank and such as it was operating. My personal and I guess professional take is that this thing will run providing available pressure. All in all, it is a VERY elegant design. Rolling bearing valve push rod assembly. Radial type configuration so that the loading piston is followed by like a 33% cutoff. It appeared to me that the motor would be very "Torquey" for lack of a better term. The crank load is carried by about three pistons at a time. While I was looking at the motor I was speaking with a retired aeronautical engineer who was also at the show. He nor I could find any magic gerbils....LOL. So, hope this help. That was my hands and eyes on impression of the motor. Let me know what you think.
FrazDog
Arnold,
Where do you think that the emissions test results came from? Do you suspect that these where all fabricated? If so, how come Raytheon is working with them. I would figure that the engineers would have went wheels up as soon as they spotted that the engine did not work. I have yet to hear that the Raytheon thing went south. Have you heard anything about this?
FrazDog
AWESOME VIDEO!!!
Great job bringing that to the board Piece.
Its really nice to see it running and knowing that you where there to view it. Makes it all that much more real.
FrazDog
Hello all,
Just an FYI. I went to the show. I got to spend a good amount of time talking with Harry about the solution. I have to say that from an engineering standpoint, it all looks good to me.
Regards,
FrazDog
Yup...
still here.
check your e-mail...
FrazDog
Arnold,
I know a while back you where talking about, unless I am wrong, calling CYPW to inquire about some things. I was just wondering how that call went. I know some of the other mods in here have talked with them and was looking for your take on talking to them.
Regards,
FrazDog
Arnold,
What about the impact of the batteries on the environment? Just looking for you opinion on that. Have they gotten better at handling the chemicals and such?
FrazDog
Arnold,
I know that there is a private investment company looking to set up a "Co-Op" in the southern US to subsidize installation of photo-voltaic. Basically, they buy the system and install it and the homeowner only pays a flat fee per month for the system. The trade is that the lease is less than what an electric bill would be. Any excess energy generated is resold to the utility and the "Co-Op" keeps the profit.
Just an FYI.
FrazDog
Arnold,
Isn't this considered a "Private Placement". If so doesn't this require a minimum buy and the need to be an accredited investor?
If not I would certainly be interested in pursuing this further.
Also, are there any other specific pitfalls to buying shares this way?
Forgive the ignorance. I would appreciate any feedback.
Regards,
FrazDog
Arnold,
Thank you very much. I copied it off before such deletion may occur. LOL
This defiantly sheds light as well on your skepticism with CYPW and I hope gives light to others in here as to your point of view. I voice of decent, if you will, is not always a bad thing.
Would you not consider the companies you listed as more of a traditional investment? As in small-mid-large cap?
What I am getting at here is that I wonder if the differences we seem to always be encountering are more a matter of investment strategy.
I look forward to your response.
Also, I for one would appreciate it if you would call CYPW as a moderator and let us know what you find out from them.
Thank you again.
FrazDog
Arnold,
I see how skeptical you are of this company. I would like to ask what companies you see as having a less risky solution in the market right now that I could possibly invest in. Unless I am wrong I am guessing that you know of something that I am not aware of. I would also like to know how these companies line up with cyclone. i.e. Wind ROI vs. CYPW WHE etc. I know this may be asking much but I personally would see it as a huge conciliatory gesture to the board as our moderator.
Regards,
FrazDog
Nano,
Thanx for the clarification. Unfortunately in this technology I have to remain a big picture guy. It's the help and patience of folks like you that make me feel comfortable with my investment.
Regards,
FrazDog
Arnold,
In keeping with the spirit of decorum I would like to agree with you in part and disagree with you in part.
Firstly, I stated that you where correct in that, like technologies need to be tested together. If you remember I agreed and even said "to be fair this was true." (hard to believe huh?)
Secondly, I feel that over and over again we are taking our eyes off of the big picture in that "IF" Harry and his group can make electricity from "waste heat" that this in and of it self is a HUGE gainer. The leveraging technologies thing again. Right technology at the right time.(this is the disagree part)
I am trying not to be so myopic as to fathom the solution being only something we use to cut the lawn or power our cars. I have also stated that automobile solutions are probably the furthest from actual acceptance due to Highway safety testing and the like. If I remember right this was substantiated by other members of this board. Ultimately, I think you and I at least partially agree in this point as well
Moving forward, I am looking at the testing they have done recently and basing my judgment on testing using a "propane" engine. The science of using cyclonic combustion is "NOT" solely cyclones. It has in fact been around for years in many white papers as a way to reduce certain emissions based on complete combustion.
Please do not in any way take what I have said now or in the past as an affront to your position or skepticism.
Regards,
FrazDog
Nano,
Couldn't agree more.
Someone who knows more than this engineer can check me on this.
Isn't what we are talking a factor of size. For instance, the particle size plays heavily into what cells can and can not pass/accept the vaccine/medicine?
Feel free to blast me if I am way off base here.
Regards,
FrazDog
Arnold,
This is a valid point. There is another show coming up in Chicago soon I think. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out. The press from the last show was not very extensive all things considered.
Regards,
FrazDog
Arnold,
Not at all. I think it may be a part. An energy strategy needs to include lots of different solutions. Not just "Pond Scum". LOL
Flexible, renewable, cheap.... All good things.
"Outside the box" thinking is a good thing. Of course, not all will be accepted or be efficient enough. But it IS a good thing to at least be thinking of another solution. Whatever that may be.
To stay topical and not get deleted I applaud Harry and his team for trying to be part of the solution.
Technologies are leveraged. Often times they may not fit in there current iteration but are adopted later for great successes. Many times this leverage is not even considered at conception for what it may be ultimately used for.
For instance,
I am currently working with a defense contractor. There power plant is diesel. They are "definitely" (there words) going to look at Cyclone's power plant as a solution versus diesel because a low heat signature and simplistic design fits there value add proposition to the Military.
In this case efficiency is not the "primary" concern, its just a handy by-product.
I go back to Alvin Toffler's comments on deep fundamentals in any company.
TIME
SPACE
KNOWLEDGE
It is up to the individual investor to find this value in an investment. I would submit that "Pond Scum", wind, hydrogen, ethanol, and even nuclear all fit this model currently. But TIME will march on.......
Regards,
FrazDog