William Blair (Redacted sender wbblair3@xxxxxxxxx for DMARC) wrote: > 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. Well, the abstract (is the full text available anywhere?) did mention a comparison run they did with an "RF load" replacing the test device, which seems to be intended to control for effects such as you suggest. (If the test device wasn't designed and baked out for operation in vacuum, escaping air from crevices, and outgassing of surfaces, could conceivably create spurious forces of their own if the chamber was pumped down to vacuum.) -dave w