And the control that wasn't supposed to make thrust also made thrust, which suggests that it's not the thruster making force. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM, David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >