Not sure this counts as a replication, yet. This is an un-refereed conference paper, I'd really want to see a proper publication.
The other strange thing in the paper, but not mentioned in the article, is that the 'null device' produced thrust:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).
The other strange thing in the paper, but not mentioned in the article, is that the 'null device' produced thrust:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).