Talk:Steorn

The Steorn website now redirects to orbo.com. This site only has two products- a charger and a phone. They also list their activity as "battery technology-based products". I have updated the info box to reflect this. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Can they really be called "products", when they're not available for purchase? Spiel496 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

::Steorn/Orbo have products that are constantly arriving but never seem to arrive. In the world of marketing this is known as a teaser campaign. The laws of physics and academic research are not a teaser campaign, which is why the mainstream media has largely lost interest in Steorn/Orbo. I agree that the Wikipedia article should be wary about playing along with teaser campaigns. If "the battery is dead" (which it is according to the current main page of orbo.com) it would require a complete rewrite of the laws of thermodynamics. Steorn/Orbo has never satisfied anyone in the mainstream academic community that any of its products can do anything that would require a rewrite of the laws of physics. WP:PRIMARY and WP:REDFLAG apply in this type of situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you go to http://orbo.com/collections/all and hover the mouse over the girl holding the device, it says "the battery is dead OCUBE - PRE-ORDER. SHIPPING IS 6 WEEKS FROM PAYMENT Regular price €1,200 Sold out", so if you wanted to order one today you couldn't anyway. If you hover over the phone, it says "the battery is dead OPHONE - PRE-ORDER. SHIPPING IS 12 WEEKS FROM PAYMENT Regular price €480 Sold out". It will be interesting to learn if anyone gets their hands on either of these devices in 2016. If you go to http://orbo.com/pages/terms-and-conditions it says "No contract exists between us and you until we notify you that we have accepted your order, we have received payment and your order has been shipped to you. We are not obliged to accept your order and we may cancel your order for any reason. If we cancel an order after you have made payment we will provide a full refund." Make of that what you will.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steorn&diff=prev&oldid=712511691 this addition], does Frank Acland meet the "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" of WP:BLOGS? I'm wary of a blog entry that has somebody announcing "finally I am in a position where I think we can test on an isolated Orbo cell" a few days before April 1st, and we can't quote Acland saying in this blog post that he has confirmed "what Steorn claims happens with Orbo cells" and that "the signs are now more hopeful of confirming Steorn’s claims than I have seen to this point" per WP:SELFPUB's "exceptional claim". --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear that [http://www.e-catworld.com/submit-a-post-to-e-cat-world-2/ E-Cat World] fails WP:RS, as it is a site where people can post their own research without peer review. The claim about the Orbo battery is well into WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory, and would require more than a website that few people have ever heard of with "news, information and discussion about advanced energy technology"[http://www.e-catworld.com/about-contact/].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

::@Ianmacm well the "submit a post" link you give makes it clear that the work is peer reviewed, it's just peer reviewed by the editor of the website (who's a believer in exceptional energy generation) not the academic world as a whole. With that said, far be it for me to criticize, but taking 8 weeks to test whether something needs power sounds inordinate and leaves question marks about the competence of the experimentalist. It's also uncommon for scientists to publicize the research process as well, only when the results are in. Banedon (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Steorn could have given one of its devices to Eric Ash ten years ago to test it. It appears that no mainstream academic has ever managed to get their hands on one of these devices.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Steorn. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=730095356 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060218012648/http://meta.wikimedia.org:80/wiki/Cite/Cite.php to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make a legitimate comment about Steorn not being investigated for investment fraud. As a scientist, I find Wikipedia to be too soft on pseudoscience. Just want you to know that you will never get a cent of support out of me. I hope that Wikipedia goes bankrupt. 92.14.41.137 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:It is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. It also has WP:BLP issues to imply fraud without very good evidence. Steorn has fizzled out without convincing anyone in the mainstream scientific community that it could produce free energy. It is silly to say things like "if you don't do this, I won't contribute to Wikipedia".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)