Buddy, one always hopes they get a clue!
Look at that design! Tell me, how many manufacturers build generators that size which are designed for vertical operation? You'd have to put in thrust bearings just to manage the weight of the rotor. Why design an engine that doesn't readily mate up to most of the engine-driven machinery on the market? Is it due to "style" or just an out-of-control ego assuming the rest of the world will have to get onboard?
The whole supercritical steam consumption is laughable. They would need MUCH greater steam pressure. It's easy with turbines, the steam enters constantly. In a piston engine, you need to open and close an inlet valve. As your pressure climbs, you need to keep the valve open for less and less of the stroke so as to let the steam expand efficiently. The stated efficiency of 34% tells us that Cyclone plans on keeping the valve open for just a brief duration. Apparently, Cyclone figures valves are just like electric switches, you can start and stop the flow instantly. In the real world, the restriction is very great when the valve is slightly open; it passes only a small amount of steam … and this is at greatly reduced pressure. As the valve opens the flow increases and the pressure drop diminishes. When you admit steam for a long period, this isn't so bad but, when your admission is as short as Cyclone's MUST be, the pressure drop comprises a large proportion of the incoming steam's energy content. In other words, you need much higher pressure if you want to have supercritical steam in the cylinder.
Of course, who cares? This still isn't doing you a world of good since your steam pressure is still being choked off by a great deal. This choking represents a loss of efficiency both because there is less pressure in the cylinder and because the steam cools off when expanding.
I have NO idea why they think advertising huge starting torque is a good idea. They are driving generators for heaven's sake. You don't need a world of torque to start a generator, you can cut the load in AFTER you bring it up to speed. All that the torque represents is an added danger of damaging your machinery. Once again, this sounds like an ego thing: "Mine is bigger than yours." If this is indeed the engine they claim they intend to build, it signifies that they haven't learned a single thing.
More to the point, this is a company that bragged about all the lawn mower and weedwhacker engines they were going to make. Why would you want to buy a six cylinder Cyclone engine to cut lawn when a single cylinder Briggs or Honda does the job so well? As it stands, I've yet to see their lawn care engines in operation. When you can't follow through developing engines of a few horse, why would any sane person believe you can do it in thousands of ponies?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
