Filtered for
a. better than "can be assumed to be a hoax"
b. "really reactionless"
Woodward: I wouldn't call it plausible because many experiments have failed to produce thrust and the thrust produced is in the range of measurement error.
EM and Cannae drive: EM is the drive we are talking about. Cannae is similar.
So in fact we have 2 similar methods. One of them is what this discussion about so it doesn't count. The other is similar to that one.
My conclusion: the word "several" is pulled out of your ass.

A tennis ball in a car is reactionless and moves. That doesn't make it a drive. By definition if it doesn't produce trust it is not a drive in the sense of an engine.
However I shall comment on the devices mentioned:
The Alcubierre drive is very far beyond our current technology and is not really an engine as the EM drive is. It is more of a way to help an engine cheat the laws of physics.
I say this because the Alcubierre drive doesn't move you from A to B. It makes the distance from A to B shorter so a normal engine (be it rocket, orion or reactionless) can get there in a reasonable amount of time.

"Swimming in spacetime" is not a drive because it's not a device. It is an interesting theory and if proven correct it may eventually be possible to build a drive based on it but for now it's not a drive.

My VCR works fine. It always blinks neatly how many times I have used it since plugging it in.

Technically the user voluntarily uses Windows. So any data send by Windows is send voluntarily. Please note that informed consent is not used.

The devices on that wiki page are:
Dean drive: We can safely assume it's a hoax because he doesn't want anyone verifying the experiment.
Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT): Verified a hoax.
Quasi-reactionless methods: Not reactionless.
EmDrive: That'd be the device this whole fuss is about.
Micronewton electromagnetic thruster: A small ion drive. Not reactionless at all.
Woodward effect: Many experiments have failed to produce thrust. If it worked it would be cool but for now it seems like the experiments that have produced thrust are measurement errors. I'd love to be wrong on this of course.
Cannae drive: Similar to EM drive. If the EM drive works the Cannae will be tested with similar rigor.
Devices that do not generate thrust: Not relevant in the topic of reactionless drives.

Every time humanity comes close to explaining the universe the universe is replaced seamlessly with something more silly.

I find it interesting that people assume that invention often follows science. The only devices I can think of where that was the case are the laser and semiconductor tech.
Granted those are important in the modern day and age, but most things we use were invented in primitive form, next the theory behind the working was discovered, next the device was massively improved based on the theory, next the theory was improved based on anomalies in the improved device, repeat.

That can be easily shorted to "It is a good rule not to do anything overmuch" because overmuch is like that.
If an experiment is verified sufficiently and independently we can assume it is correct. If the theories do not agree then the theories are wrong.
See gravity. We don't know how it works but we have sufficiently and independently proved that it works. Even sir Eddington would not doubt the existence of gravity because we don't know how it works.
Ergo, once and if the EM drive effects are confirmed by a dozen labs around the world and at least two experiments in deep space I would be really confident that the current theory is wrong.
As it stands now there is reason to begin to think of what could be wrong with the theory in the case that the EM drive experiment is verified sufficiently. Just to get a head start, you know.
However claiming that the current physical theories are bollocks is jumping the gun at this point.
As usual the wisest path is across the middle ground.

To generate tachyon beams.

For home batteries the mass doesn't matter that much. Price/kWh is where the ball is at.
Assuming what you say is correct it still is irrelevant for this discussion.

Mass of a lithium atom is approx 7 by the way. You forgot the neutrons for lithium, and they weigh in approximately similarly to the protons. You did count the neutrons for aluminium which is dodgy to say the least.

AFAIK what matters in the end is the weight divided by the number of electrons you can store in an atom. Aluminium can be oxidized to 3+ easily. This comes out to 9 atomic weight per electron.
Lithium can go to +1. This comes out to 7 atomic weight per electron. Still better than aluminium but the gap isn't as big as you claim.

Yeah that that would deprive all the fish from their antidepressant. They'd commit mass suicide.

My mini-PC has only a few USB ports but the idiots that build it have opted for a pointless RS 232 port.
There are USB-RS232 adapter you know, it doesn't have to be native and 90% of the population isn't going to use it anyway.

yes

What does the BIOS have to do with it? The BIOS will be happy with the built in keyboard and the OS should detect the USB devices by itself.

1) Depends on the thickness.
2) Probably not. Neither is this the case with normal bullet proof glas

Yes, Nuclear bomb owning Pakistan would love a country being nuked upwind from them. The prevailing winds in the altitudes above 3km would give them all that precious nuclear fallout.