Uncropped photo. Mid-February
xxxx at FB
February 19 ·
Everyone hard at work at Cyclone engines. Years of R&D are almost finished. As bad as we would like those first production engines in service,
CTP has been very careful to protect their efforts from those determined to prevent it from replacing old technologies wasting fuel and polluting the air we breathe.
This is the future on engines.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
---attributed to Mark Twain (among others). I fear that BuddywhuzreallymadatCyclone may have aimed for a trifecta with this post. He cites a Cyclone Press Release that is dated February 16, 2018 "if you read the past release about settling judgments and reducing debt by over 40%". He then cites financial data from the 2017 Third Quarter 10Q filing, which covers the period through Sept. 30, 2017, and uses this to heap abuse on Cyclone who says in their Feb. 16 2018 Press Release that they are continuing to reduce outstanding debt. Does it occur to Buddywhuzperhapsnotafinancialwhiz that a lot of water has flowed under the bridge between Sept. 30 2017 and Feb. 16 2018? In which case citing 4.5 month-old data may be outdated, and therefore his conclusions might be wrong, perhaps egregiously so? I won't assert that Buddywhuzreallytickedoff is purposefully giving out untruthful information. But when one is mad, objectivity often goes out the window.

You (and Buddywhomaynotbeanexpert) state repeatedly that OSU/CAR found that Cyclone's water lubrication system does not work. This might be significant, if true, because OSU/CAR has some credibility. I asked you to provide a link proving this claim. Instead, you provide a Wikipedia link which shows that OSU/CAR made NO SUCH CLAIM. Instead the claim was made by the Wikipedia author. This means you are, in this instance, quite mistaken. Hopefully not on purpose! Because, in real life I'm sure you are kind to animals, don't beat your wife, don't cheat in golf etc. Of course, an alternate explanation is that you are so clueless that you don't know the difference between an authoritative engineering college and a random individual making a post on Wikipedia. And of course, even authoritative engineers can often be wrong too. But at least, let's get quotes correctly attributed!

Thank you Bobby for repeatedly "cutting and pasting" one of my excellent posts on the Cyclone/FSDS relationship. Please continue to call attention to my analysis. But then you toss a turd into the punch bowl by making a statement of your own: "We now know the feds closed fsds for fraud." Oh my! Where to begin? (1) FSDS is a Danish company and the US government ("the Feds", referring to our federation of united states, by the way) has no ability to shut it down for fraud, excess profits, sidelining in sex trafficking, or any other possible offense. (2) Since your excellent computer skills have been showcased by the repeated cutting and pasting of my excellent post, I ask you to expand into "googling"! Try "googling" Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems! (pro tip: in the "News" section of The Google). (3) Then, should you stumble upon some Danish language newspaper accounts of FSDS declaring bankruptcy, left-click on "auto-translate to English". Stay with me! It's not that hard! There you will read that FSDS spent a lot of money expecting an upcoming contract to retrofit some armored personnel carriers, (as I recall--this was back in October and I might not be getting every detail correct). But the contract was awarded to another company and FSDS was stuck with some bills it could not pay. A bank note was delinquent. And so, they have had to reorganize into a successor company, Falck Schmidt Systems, after paying off creditors, and carry on with the TRL testing of Cyclone engines, and so forth. (Which I have reason to believe is going splendidly! Which should give you heartburn!) Going bankrupt is not the same as being shut down for fraud. You have spread incorrect info. You are not necessarily lying, as I have insufficient information to make such a conclusion. Westinghouse went bankrupt last year while building $20 billion of nuclear reactors in the USA, $20 billion more in China too. It is not unusual for reputable companies to get into economic hot water. Westinghouse is now emerging from bankruptcy and is in intense negotiations to provide the technology for six (6 is a lot!) reactors in India. But, at any rate, bankruptcy is not fraud, much less "by the Feds". (4) Bobby, do not expect me to again reply to you, as under normal circumstances, your posts present the image of a giant Fountain of Non-Sequiturs, that I have a hard time believing anyone takes seriously. Sorry about that.

Nice switcheroo again, Arnie. Gerald Fly of OSU/CAR did not say in that quote that water lubrication failed. He said "minimal data exists". The claim that durability testing has failed did not come from OSU/CAR, but from the Wikipedia author. This author sounds an awful lot like a very familiar, very frustrated and compulsive anti-Cyclone poster we affectionately know as Buddy. That Buddy & the Whiners assert that water lubrication using new tech aluminum alloys and silicon carbide bearings and other advances does not work is not news. And to say that this comes from OSU/CAR...is...once again, dishonest. Go back to mining for more Fool's Gold nuggets. Buddy & the Whiners remind me of the incompetent gold miner who loses money on each ounce, but seeks "to make up for it on volume."

Your reply is dishonest. Your original post stated that solar thermal collectors could not power a 1500 HP engine without covering an entire state. It did not specify whether this was a turbine or piston engine. I refuted you. You blathered on for 5-6 IRRELEVANT paragraphs, with a dishonest switcheroo, saying you were talking about a piston engine being unable to put out 1500 HP solar thermal. You were not. You compounded your dishonesty by bringing up the old canard about water lubrication being disproven. I ask you again, provide the OSU/CAR link making such a claim, so we can evaluate it's merit (or lack of merit.) You did not do so. I suspect you can not do so. Keep squirming. Here's your original comment that I proved to be false:
"One would have to be delusional to think you could collect enough BTU's from some thermal collector to power a 1500 hp engine. The collector would have to be as large as the state of Nevada and on a sunny day. This is known as irrational exuberance."

A 1 MWe solar thermal plant is not impossible, without covering an entire state with parabolic troughs as you claim. Perhaps you should google this issue. I did. Here is some info that refutes your incorrect assertion: "In addition to the SEGS, many other parabolic trough solar power projects operate in the United States and around the world. The three largest projects in the United States after SEGS are

Mojave Solar Project: a 280 MW project in Barstow, California
Solana Generating Station: a 280 MW project in Gila Bend, Arizona
Genesis Solar Energy Project: a 250 MW project in Blythe, California"

Also: you repeat the incorrect assertion, spread by Buddy and others, that OSU/CAR refuted Cyclone's claims to success with water lubrication. None of you provide a LINK to such claims. I don't think such claims exist. And don't bother to provide a link to Gerald Fly's slide show in 2014, viewed at the IAASP (International Association of Steam Power) conference in LA. It says no such thing.

Buddy & the Whiners, our resident rock band, will of course, sing a different tune!

OK then! To Recap!
I suggested that auto companies could spend 5x the amount Cyclone has spent developing a new engine ($55-62 billion, what's a few billion between friends?) just developing a modified gasoline engine. Mr Swift said this was worthy of laughter and of therefore disregarding anything I have to say on this subject, or any subject, forever (“Based on that statement alone, I have to disregard any further comments from the source; either this claim is made from ignorance of the subject or an intentional misstatement of fact. Either way, any credibility is long gone.” Apparently the mirth was so overwhelming, he had to mention it twice: “Gotta bust out loud laughing sometimes. I saw the following and actually had to spend a moment laughing at the comment:")
I replied that it appears that Ford's cost of developing the Ecoboost gasoline engine were "assisted by the $5.9b ATVM DOE loan." Therefore, if this is correct, the total costs were more than that. For developing a modified gasoline engine. So instead of 5x Cyclone's costs so far, we are in the neighborhood of 100x Cyclone's costs. (55m x 100 = $5.5 billion). And so, if anything, my original comments were quite conservative ("5x" is much less than "100x").
Mr. Swift, apparently found it necessary to violate his own injunction to ignore any and everything I have said or will say, until the end of time...within 7 hours! So much for my credibility being gone! Our earnest and diligent Mr. Swift came up with this beauty:
"WOW! Cyclone fans are LAZY!
“The cost of a new engine factory, plus related tooling, can easily go north of one billion dollars. Somehow our Cyclone fan ignored that little tidbit and presumed the money all went for laboratory research. A little digging will show that Ford needed to do a lot of factory updating to get competitive and needed heavy capitalization or loans. To claim product development ate up all the funds is ludicrous."
And so, presumably, I have made a gross error! Omigoodness! Instead of suggesting that the Ecoboost engine program cost "north of $5.9 billion, I should remove $1 billion for factory updating from this figure. I am LAZY (in all caps to drive the point home) for not making this heroic effort at arithmetic, a subtraction. Well, I don't see the point of this pettifoggery. The new factory was apparently necessary for some strange reason. But if I grant this heroic and laborious effort at subtraction by Mr. Swift, we might arrive at a cost to develop the new, modified gasoline engine at "north of $4.9 blllion". OK then! Now, since we have been generous to Mr. Swift, perhaps we can be generous with ourselves and suggest that Ford's additional costs not covered by the DOE loan were at least $600 million. This is a mere 12.24% of the $4.9 billion costs Mr. Swift seems to have admitted. If I am allowed this generosity, lo and behold! We are back to the $5.5 billion cost, which is roughly 100x cost of Cyclone's efforts so far.
So Mr. Swift's predicament is not improved, by even one jot! Perhaps that is why Mr. Swift again (!) violated his injunction to disregard any and all comments I make on this or any other subject for all eternity...and he violated it in a brief 1 hour and 45 minutes! He couldn't wait! He adds: "Just to follow up, the program in question supports development of VEHICLES, not just powertrains." Oh my! This helps Mr. Swift's position immensely! By which I mean: not by a brass farthing.
The R & D cost of the "balance of vehicle, minus powertrain" is not going to reduce the cost expended from $5.5 billion (and probably, much more than that) to Mr. Swift's laughably less figure than "5x Cyclone's cost so far, of approximately $55 million, or $62 million--i.e. $275-$310 million. What is laughably less than $300 million? Who knows? Apparently the mirth is so overwhelming that laziness has overcome Mr. Swift and no figure could be divined, via arithmetic or any other means! The cost of development of "balance of vehicle" is, in other words, not going to eat up almost all of the 5.5 billion, with the R & D cost of the actual EcoBoost engine being an afterthought, a rounding error. I would submit that this is ... laughable. Quite mirthful even. However, I would not dream of suggesting that this means Mr. Swift has nothing valuable to say on any subject under the sun, from now until the end of time. That’s up for you, gentle readers, to decide.

It appears to me that the Ford Ecoboost engine development costs were north of $5.9 billion.

From Wikipedia: EcoBoost gasoline direct-injection turbocharged engine technology adds 128 patents and patent applications to Ford's 4,618 active and thousands of pending U.S. patents.[6] Some of the costs of US development and production were assisted by the $5.9 billion ATVM DOE loan.[7]

Ford's Ecoboost is a modified gasoline ICE.

So, I believe you are quite incorrect.

If Cyclone succeeds in bringing their engines to market, while spending only $56 million (or $62m or whatever) to do so, it will go down in history as a great technological achievement. The big auto companies spend 5x that amount to merely modify gasoline engines. In Austin Powers #1, Dr. Evil said it well: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY ("We demand one million dollars!"--laughter--"...er, what's wrong?")

I think they are issuing stock to pay their auditor. Why are they bothering to have expensive audits done? When (if) there are public, commercial product sales, Cyclone stock can be traded by brokerage houses only if they meet SEC rules including re. up-to-date audits. The critics on this site loudly proclaimed that Cyclone would never complete their 10K (2016) audit. They said that the difficulties they were having with their auditor were Cyclone's fault and that Cyclone had stiffed this auditor when they changed to a new one. All of these statements proved to be untrue. Did your resident critics humbly admit their multiple errors in judgement? Of course not. This is because they are not interested in discussing reality. They instead are desperately trying to defeat Cyclone. Often with slander. There are many bent individuals out there with different agendas. Some people are frustrated with their own lives and have carved out a niche among a small group of amateurs as "resident steam engine experts". Cyclone's success will make a mockery of that posturing, which has consumed decades of their life. Others have imprudently invested too much money in this stock when it had a P/E ratio of infinity ($1-2/share with negative earnings.) Rather than admit that they were foolish, they attack Cyclone for misleading them. But what engineer ever, has not been overoptimistic about their inventions, at early stages? And so, we are pummeled with "analysis" that "proves" Cyclone is a fraud because of their previous overoptimism. Well, past performance does not guarantee future results, in both directions. In my opinion, Cyclone success is looming. This is a 10-20 billion dollar/year market. Cyclone is not public about their technology, proving its merit. This infuriates many junkyard steam hackers who think they are entitled to discuss all the details. They are not. This is a commercial endeavor, with important secrecy requirements. These junkyard geniuses are not entitled to know squat. In any event, my schadenfreude will be exquisite should Harry Schoell and his comrades succeed in their aims to have purchase order deposits in 1Q 2018 and deliveries and revenue in 2Q 2018. Stay tuned. By the way, if so, dilution won't matter that much. Expect perhaps a 10-1 reverse split to facilitate getting the stock traded on a major Exchange. Your mileage may vary. By the way, never trust screamers and yellers who obviously lack scientific humility. It is a dead giveaway.

Harry Schoell of Cyclone is an inventive genius. Here is a 13 page article from a boating magazine that explains this to some extent.
http://trojanboat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/professional-boat-builder-harry-schoell-article.pdf

Of course, when Cyclone Power Technologies achieves commercial success, this will be more proof of this. Why the calumny on this website? Perhaps some people were greedy and bought CYPW stock when it went parabolic years' ago, and was at $2/share, and for no good reason. (An excessively laudatory Popular Mechanics article is in that category. That's what they do.) Or perhaps they bought more than they should have, which is their problem, because when buying a speculative penny stock, never buy more than you can afford to lose. Perhaps some regard themselves as world-leading experts in steam engines, and will become a laughing stock when the future discloses that they are more akin to those who derided the Wright Bros. and said nothing heavier than air could ever fly. This is typical in our age of technological revolution. Utteryly typical, mundane, and to be expected. Perhaps some are the inverse of "pump and dump" artists, which is "slander and buy". (Although I doubt any of our charming critics here are capable of being that clever. I do think a recently deceased member of their chorus is though! What a clever chap!)

Or, the TARDEC project has prepared the conditions for success with it's continuation, the FSDS project for a military auxiliary power unit. One that can run A/C systems for tanks and armored personnel carries, while using less fuel. And which would save hundreds if not thousands of lives of soldiers who are fatalities from guarding fuel convoys. Of course babies enter the world and go through teething difficulties. Often this results in tears. But it is a curious fact that Cyclone, while encountering teething difficulties in bringing something new, actually revolutionary, into the world, is not crying. No the caterwauling and bawling is from its critics. Yes, yes Cyclone has stumbled in the past. Past performance, however, is not proof of future performance. Boilerplate, d'uh. This is not difficult to understand. Some people feel threatened by Cyclone's impending success. Could it be that some much vaunted "steam experts" will be shown to be a laughing stock? I think so. Total, abject humiliation. If not "impeachment" from high posts at Steam Clubs. For lies and slander, perhaps. Or perhaps for off-the-charts engineering stupidity that fails to recognize that all radically new inventions undergo repeated first-of-a kind difficulties.

If one reads the IBES-energy.com website for understanding, instead of a frenzied search for dirt to toss at Harry and Cyclone, one might find that the IBES burner/heat exchanger was developed by 3R Denmark (the IBES predecessor) for their wood burning furnaces. Please read https://www.ibes-energy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Info-Brochure-Biomass.pdfm If you do so, I think you will see that an apology to Harry is in order. Why am I not holding my breath for this?

Yeah, FSDS are contemptible pipsqueaks whose only concern is procuring enough smoked fish to eat. This dripping disdain is according to legends on this site who have never invented anything; never marketed anything; and work for wages at Grenade Engine manufacturers. Hahahaha. Projection, much?

http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1854147

RAYTHEON, FALCK SCHMIDT UNVEIL REMOTELY OPERATED LONG-RANGE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
Mast-mounted FLIR improves soldier safety

About Falck Schmidt
Falck Schmidt Defence Systems has more than 40 years experience in design, manufacturing and delivering electrically driven telescopic masts, auxiliary power units, structural composites, and cable harness and instrumentation to land combat customers worldwide. The company offers system integration of its own and third party products, fully integrated solutions, and assembly of armored vehicles including integration of sensors and weapon systems. Visit us at www.f-sds.com.

About Raytheon
Raytheon Company, with 2012 sales of $24 billion and 68,000 employees worldwide, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, security and civil markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 91 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems; as well as a broad range of mission support services. Raytheon is headquartered in Waltham, Mass. For more about Raytheon, visit us at www.raytheon.com and follow us on Twitter @raytheon.

Media Cont

Falck Schmidt Defense Systems is a dominant world leader in aerospace/military auxiliary power systems, according to an industrial research report offered for sale at http://importantevents24.com/2017/08/07/united-states-aerospace-and-military-auxiliary-power-unit-market/

I think it is highly likely though, that they have been snookered by Harry Schoell, after years of collaboration to bring to production a superior APU . It is also likely that this collaboration existed from FSDS' side, only to acquire data from CPT on what not to do when designing a steam engine. FSDS obviously wants to replicate a 2 cylinder, oil lubricated steam engine that takes the Stanley Steamer as its starting point. Yeah, this is all so plausible. I read the steam experts pontificating on this site...for laughs.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/cyclone-power-technologies-delivers-engine-militarization-fsds-releases-2017-q1-worldwide-otc-pink-cypw-2229112.htm

Let's do a review: Cyclone will be successful, and its "expert" detractors humiliated. Have a nice day.

Notification of Late Filing (below)
"POMPANO BEACH, FL, March 29, 2017, Cyclone Power Technologies (OTCPK: CYPW) Releases audited financial statements for the 2014 and 2015 with unaudited/un-reviewed three Quarters for 2016 and complies with the reporting requirements of the governing bodies in order to bring the company current." And so they were current for perhaps two days, until the 2016 filings were due on March 31.
But, having recently brought their audits into SEC compliance for the years 2014 and 2015, CPT now appears on the verge of doing so as well, for 2016. See below.
It looks to me like they are making a concerted effort to make their shares capable of being sold by brokers, who otherwise are prevented from doing so by "House Rules" which ban buying/selling shares in (tiny) non-SEC compliant corporations.
But what would make their shares come into demand? The volume per day at this time is very low. What do they know that this message board does not?

https://fintel.io/doc/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2FArchives%2Fedgar%2Fdata%2F1442711%2F000149315217003181%2Fnt10-k.htm




U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 12B-25



COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 000-54449



Cyclone Power Technologies, Inc.



NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING


PART III. NARRATIVE



The Company is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 by the prescribed date without unreasonable effort or expense because the Company’s audit review is in process and has not been completed. The Company believes that the Annual Report will be completed within the fifteen calendar day extension period provided under Rule 12b-25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.