Ecomike, I addressed some of these topics in the other post, but I'm expanding on it here. It is true that piston engines are cheaper to build. But it's particularly difficult (and expensive) to make a small turbine that is also highly efficient. Below a power rating of about 1000 hp a piston steam engine can be economically viable. A well-designed piston steam engine in the low to medium power ratings will not only have lower up front costs, but can also see lower long term operating costs.
There are very few piston steam engines being manufactured today. There are a couple of companies in Germany that I know of, one in Brazil, and one in Australia that is soon to be available. In each case oil lubrication is not used. What sets the Cyclone engines apart from the others is primarily the extremely compact and lightweight design. This breakthrough makes it possible for piston steam engines to compete directly with internal combustion engines. Without this advancement the piston steam engine would remain relegated to obscure niche applications.
It's reasonable to be leery about the claims surrounding the Cyclone engines. After all, they are an unproven technology. But it seems unreasonable (to me) for one to conclude that any engine meeting these claims would not be successful in the market place. Will the Cyclone engines work as designed?... only time will tell for certain.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
