I guess I missed it. What happened at their latest "reveal" on Sat 13. I believe that Shawn was going to show a working Orbo?

The only thing 'up' with Steorn is that they are full of shite. 

Somebody better put poor old Astweth on suicide watch (somebody else full of shite).  He just did the biggest backflip ever over at EnergeticForum 6 months after telling how he was going to "bring pain to British Petroleum with E-Orbo".  LMFAO      Poor Ash, now a big change of story and it's "oh yeh the solid state is the REAL DEAL folks!!"

I shan't expect he will admit he was wrong when he learns he was duped there also. 

What a tool.

E-Goose

They're getting ready to release plans for their new OU device. It's slated to be called the Mylow MkII.

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.

...
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.

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...

I know this thread is questioning the solid state device, but I'm not so sure it's that easy to write off the previous device. I have not graphed the data but it already seems like something is puzzling about it.

This is a brief description of what I'm thinking, and the values I am using are real.
First, lets say a magnet is attracted at a close distance to a toroidal core with a force of 200 grams.
When a current is applied of 100 ma, the force reduces by 10 grams to 190 grams attraction force.
When a current is applied of 1000 ma the force reduces by 100 grams to 100 grams attraction force.

This all makes sense. Now, as the distance is changed in steps of .01", the change in attraction force remains linear! The 10 gram reduction from the 100 ma current remains a 10 gram reduction at every distance until a 10 gram reduction results in no attraction.

The same applies for the 1000 ma current and the 100 gram reduction.
The strange part is that the distance itself causes the normal square x distance reduction in attraction and is not linear.

So given this, what it really means is that at some speed, the energy expended in the current pulse to reduce the attraction could be less than the energy gained from the attraction. But this is only proven by the mathematics of one part of the interaction and not necessarily true due to unknown other events.

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.

Uh-huh.

I would be interested to know how you made your measurements.

I was interested in this as well, so I did some careful measurements. I used a Shimpo digital force gauge, with milliNewton readouts. I mounted the Shimpo vertically on a micrometer stage, so I could control its position to the tenth of a millimeter; I mounted a typical 1/2 inch NdBFe magnet (same as I used in my Orbette 2.0 replication) on the sense end of the force gauge. The toroid under test was mounted rigidly under the force gauge/magnet/micrometer assembly, and was supplied with DC power from a regulated supply, with current monitored by a Fluke 87 multimeter. I tested several toroids by applying currents of different values (like 0, 50, 100, 200 mA) and recording the attractive force as indicated on the force gauge as the separation was taken from 0.1 mm to 20 mm by the micrometer, first at 0.1 mm intervals and then at 1 or 2 mm intervals for the larger distances (typically about 30 data points per current level per toroid).
I spent several hours a day for about a week taking this data; it was intensely boring.

I was surprised by several things: One, the reduction in attractive force at a given distance, when current is applied, can be very small, a few percent or even less, for toroids that produce typical performance in an Orbo motor. It's hard even to see the differences on some of the graphs, the change in force is so small---but it's effective in the motor design.
Two, good Orbo toroids saturate relatively quickly: increasing the current beyond the saturation point does not reduce the attraction further, it only wastes energy.