rking at atmospheric pressure, he concluded that: "... the tension of the liquid column is neutralized and reversed by the compressive effect of the atmosphere on the opposite ends of the liquid column."
Potter and Barnes at the University of Edinburgh revisited siphons in 1971. They re-examined the theories of the siphon and ran experiments on siphons in air pressure. Their conclusion was that; "By now it should be clear that, despite a wealth of tradition, the basic mechanism of a siphon does not depend upon atmospheric pressure." 
Gravity, pressure and molecular cohesion were the focus of work in 2010 by Hughes at the Queensland University of Technology. He used siphons at air pressure and his conclusion was that: "The flow of water out of the bottom of a siphon depends on the difference in height between the inflow and outflow, and therefore cannot be dependent on atmospheric pressure…" Hughes did further work on siphons at air pressure in 2011 and concluded that: "The experiments described above demonstrate that ordinary siphons at atmospheric pressure operate through gravity and not atmospheric pressure".
The father and son researchers, Ramette and Ramette, successfully siphoned carbon dioxide under air pressure in 2011 and concluded that molecular cohesion is not required for the operation of a siphon but that: "The basic explanation of siphon action is that, once the tube is filled, the flow is initiated by the greater pull of gravity on the fluid on the longer side compared with that on the short side. This creates a pressure drop throughout the siphon tube, in the same sense that 'sucking' on a straw reduces the pressure along its length all the way to the intake point. The ambient atmospheric pressure at the intake point responds to the reduced pressure by forcing the fluid upwards, sustaining the flow, just as in a steadily sucked straw in a milkshake."
Again in 2011, Richert and Binder (at the University of Hawaii) examined the siphon and concluded that molecular cohesion is not required for the operation of a siphon but relies upon gravity and a pressure differential, writing: "As the fluid initially primed on the long leg of the siphon rushes down due to gravity, it leaves behind a partial vacuum that allows pressure on the entrance point of the higher container to push fluid up the leg on that side".
A research team at the University of Nottingham succeeded in running a siphon in high vacuum, also in 2011. They wrote that: "It is widely believed that the siphon is principally driven by the force of atmospheric pressure. An experiment is described that shows that a siphon can function even under high-vacuum conditions. Molecular cohesion and gravity are shown to be contributing factors in the operation of a siphon; the presence of a positive atmospheric pressure is not required".
Writing in Physics Today in 2011, J. Dooley from Millersville University stated that both a pressure differential within the siphon tube and the tensile strength of the liquid are required for a siphon to operate.
A researcher at Humboldt State University, A. McGuire, examined flow in siphons in 2012. Using the advanced general-purpose multiphysics simulation software package LS-DYNA he examined pressure initialisation, flow, and pressure propagation within a siphon. He concluded that: "Pressure, gravity and molecular cohesion can all be driving forces in the operation of siphons".
In 2014, Hughes and Gurung (at the Queensland University of Technology), ran a water siphon under varying air pressures ranging from sea level to 11.9 km (000 ft) altitude. They noted that: "Flow remained more or less constant during ascension indicating that siphon flow is independent of ambient 39barometric pressure". They used Bernoulli's equation and the Poiseuille equation to examine pressure differentials and fluid flow within a siphon. Their conclusion was that: "It follows from the above analysis that there must be a direct cohesive connection between water molecules flowing in and out of a siphon. This is true at all atmospheric pressures in wh