Replies to post #23151 on Cyclone Power Technologies, Inc. (fka CYPW)

[MTM]

Thanks for your feedback. Your challenge to them is fair: "Any time they wish they can put their wonder on the market." You realize, of course, that the same challenge also applies to CYPW's products.

As a long-time shareholder, I'd love to see them succeed. Increasing the shares to 900,000,000 and not being able to put a product on the shelf as of February 9, 2014 (IPO July 2007) does not inspire confidence.

What would help a lot would be if Chris Nelson (or whomever is really running the show over there, I can't easily tell) would "come clean" and lay out the facts (i.e., things which we can independently verify) and provide some idea as to the real commercialization timeline.

We hear a lot of stories and have see many PR pieces - but - if you lay that out side-by-side with the quarterly reports, the difference is stark and quite telling.

[Tom Swift]

I read that website through carefully. They claim to have a diesel (internal combustion) engine and are claiming they can readily convert it to steam by changing out the cylinder head and adding a boiler. I actually have no trouble with that approach, if Cyclone had tried it rather than reinventing the wheel they might actually have developed something. The White Cliffs solar steam project in Australia did it with some degree of success although the valve mechanism they used was inherently flawed and prone to failure. The big problem with this new engine is that it uses a toroidal cylinder. That's an idea that's been looking for an application for a long, long time. It is difficult and expensive to build and maintain for no really appreciable gain. This is another bad case of reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. On the other hand, the images of their prototype components hints that the know far more about integrating design to minimize part count and facilitate production than does Cyclone.

Tom Swift