I know I'm a new poster, so being skeptical, you'll probably be skeptical about what I have to say, but that's alright, I'm just interested in a lively discussion.
Being sceptical about what you are going to say means looking for the evidence you are going to provide for what you are going to say.
I like what steorn is doing, while some of you are very skeptical and are just hoping that the shoe will drop, I'm actually taking the "lets see" approach here.
That's okay but, in the mean time, they have already done some things that can be criticised and which should make you suspicious of their intentions.
The reason being is that from my point of view, steorn is doing a lot of things right, both in the PR department and in the Business department.
What about in the science department?
What I mean by this is that they do try to interact on some level with the audience, they invited certain people on the inside and exposed them to certain level of information, sure nothing real, but it shows a level of transparency you wouldn't quite expect from fraudsters, so if you're dealing with frauds (on the PR side), they're on a much higher level than previously witnessed in this field.
And is this the way a scientific discovery should be handled in your opinion? What do you think of peer review, for instance?
What's interesting to me is the money they are spending. The full page ad in the economist is expensive, we're not talking small change here. The money they spent on patents is also quite big, their office/lab sizes are big and they have let people walk through them and see the equipment (without seeing how it works of course, but just the size/hardware they've saw is no small change).
This could mean that they are either naive in a scientific sense, or astute (or foolhardy?) in the business sense.
So, on the one hand they're spending a lot of money on this, they do have some back story (they didn't come out of nowhere) in technology and they are not just begging for investors left and right like all the other previous shams.
This is a puzzle, I agree. Why is a company with a long track record and technological expertise taking seriously a overunity device.
Some of you replied that they will be going for small investors as no serious company will invest in this (as it's not a really proven technology). But the thing is, it's not that easy getting that much money from small investors when everything is internet based and unproven. And they did mention that they will be giving the technology away (for free) for certain 3rd world projects, which can be a false claim, but again, it doesn't really match well with the fraud mind-think to me.
Perhaps they just need to do something different from the usual scam artists, in order to look legitimate. Perhaps they miscalculated.
If they are frauds, they're the best ever in the OU field, putting to shame all previous fraudsters with their level of detail and personal financial expenses.
Everyone needs a different angle to get the edge. The point is, something is wrong. It might not yet be totally clear what the "wrong" is, but something is definitely wrong.
Or there is going to be a "paradigm shift" in physics. 
I'm actually positive on this, even if it comes out as nothing, at least it raised some discussion about alternative energy means, oil is the current poison of the world. The world would be a lot safer place if we had an easy alternative mean of creating energy.
There is a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility 
