There has been some good discussion on Reddit about how the thrust results shown in the paper are still most likely measurement errors due to thermal effects. It is a shame that they haven't released their actual data for independent analysis.<p>Link: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em...</a>
Paper listed in article, <a href="https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120" rel="nofollow">https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120</a>, appears to cost well over a thousand dollars to access. I found <a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000277.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...</a> online; I think it's the same thing.
NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive.<p>Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA <i>must</i> be wrong.
The quote of interest (being able to be tested in months) references another article where nothing has been committed but could be done in 6 months.<p>On one hand it's great that this is being reviewed and tested. The other hand, that it's not getting properly tested in space where it really can make a difference is somewhat saddening. Can anyone point to a committed space trial?
As always, the relevant XKCD: <a href="https://xkcd.com/955/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/955/</a><p>While I don't really believe it, I am intrigued by the possibility. It has been a long time since we learned anything truly new in physics. The recent breakthroughs (Higgs boson, gravitational waves, for example) were satisfying, but not surprising. I would desperately like to be surprised.