> the results have since been replicated several times by several organizations
The results are random. Sometimes nonzero thrust is observed in a direction opposite to what was expected [0]. Know what that sounds like? A null measurement dominated by statistical and systematic uncertainties.
> including NASA
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere: NASA is so big that that doesn't mean anything. Not everyone affiliated with NASA is a top-notch researcher. The word "NASA" is not automatic proof of good research.
The theory seems to predicts reversed thrust in certain conditions, it's at the end of the abstract. I don't know for certain whether they're random or not, but at least this looks interesting.
The results are random. Sometimes nonzero thrust is observed in a direction opposite to what was expected [0]. Know what that sounds like? A null measurement dominated by statistical and systematic uncertainties.
> including NASA
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere: NASA is so big that that doesn't mean anything. Not everyone affiliated with NASA is a top-notch researcher. The word "NASA" is not automatic proof of good research.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Te...