What's up with Steorn?

[happyfunball]

Leaving the solid-state thingy aside for a moment, could someone tell me (in a nutshell) what is the problem with the Orbo - as far as I know, Naudin has confirmed all of Steorn's puported 'effects' (Lenz violation, huge inductance change as rotor magnet approached etc.)

So what am I missing, why are so many saying this is a turkey?

Show me a single Orbo device in operation, powering anything. Their live demos included a battery, which required intermittent replacement.

[happyfunball]

delete

[exnihiloest]

...
Naudin has confirmed all of Steorn's puported 'effects' (Lenz violation, huge inductance change as rotor magnet approached etc.)
...

Naudin only confirmed conventional effects such inductance change, neither OU nor anomalous functioning.

Steorn based its OU claim on a measurement protocol which is obviously erroneous. Steorn assumes that the change of magnetic domains orientation in a magnetic field, under the effect of another control magnetic field, can be done at no price. It is false. Thus Steorn "proves" OU by supposing it from the start, it is a circular reasoning.

[lumen]

Naudin only confirmed conventional effects such inductance change, neither OU nor anomalous functioning.

Steorn based its OU claim on a measurement protocol which is obviously erroneous. Steorn assumes that the change of magnetic domains orientation in a magnetic field, under the effect of another control magnetic field, can be done at no price. It is false. Thus Steorn "proves" OU by supposing it from the start, it is a circular reasoning.

Because of the controversy around the energy required for the magnetic interaction of Steorn's claim, I spent a few hours collecting data on the event.
Mainly interested in the mechanical relationship between a magnet and a toroid coil, the data represents the attraction to the toroid core with constant current applied and without any power in small distance increments.
The main reason for the tests, was to find the maximum length of an electrical pulse at a given current that would compare the energy gained during the attraction to the core, to determine the time required to remove the magnet from the core to reach the break even point.

[Sprocket]

Naudin only confirmed conventional effects such inductance change, neither OU nor anomalous functioning.

Steorn based its OU claim on a measurement protocol which is obviously erroneous. Steorn assumes that the change of magnetic domains orientation in a magnetic field, under the effect of another control magnetic field, can be done at no price. It is false. Thus Steorn "proves" OU by supposing it from the start, it is a circular reasoning.

I'm really only trying to educate myself here, but didn't Naudin show that there was no Lenz effect when his motor was powering those hi-power LED's with the air-core coil?

And why would a company spend millions on patents and development on something that doesn't work?  The "scam" argument just doesn't cut it...