This is what Tom Posted to Arnold.
THAT response hurts Cyclone more than their critics!
Leaving aside the fact that the CEO of an outfit which has described itself as "disruptive" and "game changing" is nearly illiterate, the statement itself shows that they have NO idea what they are talking about.
(Honestly, a lot of 5th graders could have written that reply better. The fact that a company that describes itself as engaged in R and D can't figure out 'spell check' tells us loads.)
Let's look at their understanding of lubrication. First, we're told that water is a lubricant because you can slip in a wet bath tub. That is certainly true. Now, to slip, your foot has to make contact with the tub surface. If Cyclone is claiming their principles are the same, then they are admitting that there is contact between moving parts. Engines using oil lubrication avoid such contact by maintaining an oil film between the parts. This is the difference between stepping in the tub and letting a rubber ducky float in the tub. Needless to say, the ducky is not rubbing against anything.
I suppose one could argue that Cyclone is claiming that they float the parts on a film of water instead of oil. We measure the ability to maintain a separating film by examining the viscosity of a fluid. At 20 degrees Celsius, water has a viscosity of about 1 centipoise. SAE 10 weight motor oil, at the same temperature, is about 65 centipoise and 40 weight is 319 centipoise. Therefore, these oils range between 65 and 319 times better than water, at the same temperature. Since it is possible to 'lug' an oil lubricated engine badly enough to wipe out the lubrication film, it follows that water is perfectly inadequate to maintain a film given the same conditions. Any water lubricated bearing surface has to be 'slippery' because it can't separate the moving parts to avoid wear.
And that's where the real weirdness sets in. We are being told:
"unlike oil lubricants we don't sheer the metal and get mental in our lubricant that is one reduction in wear." (sic)
I'm going to assume this was meant to read:
"Unlike oil lubricants, we don't shear the metal and get metal in our lubricant, that is one reduction in wear."
I do have to concede that Cyclone is indeed "mental in our lubricant", but a good psychologist may be able to help with that.
At this point the stupidity is palpable. They are arguing that Cyclone doesn't shear the metal, but oil lubricants do. Shearing requires two materials working against one another. We've already noted that oil lubrication provides a film separating the moving parts whereas water lubrication cannot. Therefore, as is immediately obvious to our 5th graders, but not Cyclone 'engineers', water lubrication is far, far more likely to involve metal shearing than is oil. Unless someone is arguing that the nasty, hard, sharp oil is slicing little slivers of metal away.
(Maybe they are referring to the Langmuir Theory of Lubrication which states that the fluid film is composed of a number of layers are formed by the fluid shearing into different strata. Of course, since these fluid layers still keep the metal parts from contacting, this form of fluid shearing is perfectly acceptable and even desirable if it achieves the proper result.)
The argument about having a low number of moving parts is meaningless. You can have only one moving part and still have a bad product, if that part is prone to failure. Anyone arguing that lubricating with water makes parts less prone to failure is "mental" indeed. Don't get me started on the spider bearing as another source of failure.
I do have to give Cyclone credit. I thought you couldn't go any lower than previous discussions of aerodynamic drag nor assertions that bearings are "little generators" … but I stand corrected. At this point, the only question is whether all this fantasy is coming from one mind, or more.
If they are going to try to skin investors out of more money, you'd think they could get a better brand of gobbledygook to sell.
I AGREE !!!
