I noticed the same thing in the article. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:29 AM, William Blair <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The abstract says they tested it in a vacuum chamber left at atmospheric > pressure for some unspecified reason. I assume they did this to shield the > thruster from any drafts which would have been misinterpreted as thrust, but > why did they leave the vacuum chamber at atmospheric pressure? How could they > then be certain that air movement caused by the differential heating of the > air within the RF cavity hadn't caused the measured micro-thrust? I must be > missing something because this seems to be too obvious of a potential flaw in > the test. >