Ecomike, thanks for your reply. By the way, I was aware of Turbine Truck Engines, but I checked it out a little more thoroughly recently. It's an elegant design... honestly, I really like it. I'm interested in a more throrough discussion of its design if you can provide it. For example, do you know whether or not the system must be used in a parallel hybrid configuration? According to their web site a "hybrid electric power plant" using their technology as its "heart" will "further increase overall engine fuel efficiency". The only way a hybrid can increase fuel economy is by compensating for lower part-load efficiency (and by providing regenerative braking). Like all turbines it seems that this technology does not provide high efficiency at the low end of its power range... hence the need to "hybridize" the drive train. But since a long haul truck spends so much time on the open road this may not matter much. What's the thermal efficiency? If it can deliver 35% or more at highway speeds, then it looks like a winner in that application.
Yes, I agree completely that success in the market is a function of many variables. With respect to Cyclone, if the engines work as designed I believe that it will be successful because there are so many applications. The Cyclone engines scale down very nicely. If the basic design proves durable, then the Cyclone can be used wherever small to medium power internal combustion engines are used today.
The working fluid in the Cyclone engines is the lubricant... pure water (deionized). There is no metal to metal contact in moving parts. The cylinders use a ceramic based coating, and the piston rings are made of "PEEK" (Poly Ether Ether Ketone). PEEK is also used in the main bearings. I wish I could provide more specifics, but there is very little information available. This is probably the biggest unknown about the design of the Cyclone engines... will the PEEK hold up? I don't know, and I think that only time will tell for sure. I do know that the friction in the engines is extremely low. For example, the 100 hp rated Mark V automotive engine requires only 3 hp to be rotated at its rated speed of 3500 rpm. That's impressive.
Why are piston engines cheaper? With respect to piston steam engines vs. steam turbines, the turbine requires very precise machining to achieve high efficiency. The smaller the turbine the more difficult the task becomes as clearances must be tighter, and operating speeds must be much higher. A piston steam engine can see high efficiency rather easily because the valve control system can meter a small volume of high pressure steam to the cylinder to allow for near full expansion. NOTE: getting high efficiency in a steam engine (or any heat engine) is all about getting full expansion of the working fluid in the engine while minimizing the losses along the way (i.e. friction, thermal losses, blow by, etc).
I think there are many potential applications for the Cyclone engines. In my opinion, the automotive application is certainly viable, but will not be seen for a long while (too much competition). I expect it to be one of the last applications (if at all). Some of the most promising applications include residential combined heat and power, putting waste heat to use, marine propulsion, and solar thermal. In case you're not aware, the inventor of the Cyclone engines and the CEO of Cyclone Power Tech. Harry Schoell is an accomplished marine engineer by trade. Cooling the steam condenser of the Cyclone engines with water in the marine application will increase the efficiency of the Cyclone engines by eliminating the cooling fan load, and also by allowing for greater steam expansion ratios in the cylinders. On combined heat and power... steam is a VERY useful medium for transferring heat. In fact, many CHP plants use waste heat to first produce steam before putting the heat to use. There are many ways to put this waste heat to use including water heating, space heating, and adsorption air conditioning.
With respect to efficiency, it is important to clearly define what is meant by "efficiency". For example, the automotive Cyclone engine in its current state can deliver a net thermal efficiency slightly better than the conventional gasoline automotive engine. However, the Cyclone Mark V requires no transmission, and it would drive like an automatic. So, to be fair we should compare it to the typical gas car with automatic transmission. The high speed gears in a transmission lose about 10% of the mechanical energy produce in the output shaft of the engine. The torque converter of the automatic transmission loses 10-15% of this energy. Since these losses would not be present in a car powered by a Cyclone engine, the effective efficiency of the power plant should be upgraded to reflect this. Therefore, an air-cooled Cyclone Mark V operating at 27% net thermal efficiency is like a conventional automotive power plant operating at 33-35% net thermal efficiency. This is in the Diesel range. But the lower weight of the Cyclone power plant, no engine idling, and superior part-load efficiency will make for even better MPG in city driving and combined cycle calculations.
Finally, in my opinion there is no internal combustion engine, turbine or piston engine, that can get emissions as clean as the Cyclone without the addition of some exhaust gas treatment system.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
