ENSC2001 MOTION

Motion Project: Soda-bottle Water-rocket

Milestone 4: Simulation Programs and Final Report
Submitted on 26th May 2015
By: Charles Jia, Marcus Domenic, Fujin Wang, Shenxin Zhuang
______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Introduction
The main aim of this assignment is to design and build a rocket made of a 600mL Coke bottle
and a circuit board that will control its launch. The performance such as the trajectory and drag
behaviour will be calculated and predicted. This final milestone (Milestone 4) focuses on the
team’s ability to design and construct the coke bottle rocket that has a parabolic trajectory and is
stable during flight. The rocket must also be structurally robust so that it can withstand a
minimum of three launches and subsequently, a minimum of 3 strikes to the ground upon
landing.
The launch is controlled by a launch vehicle with an integrated logic and timer circuit (built for
Milestone 2) with the former controlling the vehicle along a track and the latter controlling the
countdown for the rocket launch.
Simulations in Microsoft Excel were used to calculate the theoretical trajectory of the rocket and
its drag behaviour. In order to use the simulation, the local gravity was calculated and the drag
coefficient of the rocket was calculated by using a wind tunnel.

2.0 Rocket Design

2.1 General Design Guidelines and Rocket Limitations
Specific guidelines in the project brief were given in order to construct the rocket. This was
perhaps the most important stage since in order to be able conduct the launch, the rocket must
fall within these guidelines so that safety and design prerequisites were met. The overall mass of
the rocket must not exceed 100 g when empty and the nose cone must have a radius of at least 10
mm at any given point. Once these criteria were met then the next step was to ensure that the
design of the rocket allowed for a stable and parabolic trajectory. The rocket body must also be

1
able to withstand a pressure of 50 psi along with 50 mL of water and be structurally sound so
that it can endure three pressurised launches and therefore three landings without breaking.

2.2 Prototypes
Two prototypes were built for the trial launch so that as much data could be collected on the
flight path and the behaviour of the rocket during flight so that the final design could be
perfected as much as possible. The prototypes were designed to be as different as possible
(including difference in nose cone and fin design) from each other allowing a bigger range of
data to be collected. The launch and flight of each prototype was filmed in slow motion so that
further analysis could be made on the behaviour of the rocket during flight.

2.2.1 Prototype 1
The main objective of prototype 1 (P1) was to keep weight to a minimum so that the rocket could
remain airborne for as long as possible therefore increasing the overall horizontal distance of the
flight. Figure 1 below shows the design of P1.

Figure 1 Prototype 1 design

The nose cone was made from the top half of another coke bottle and the fins were made of a
thin plastic similar to the plastic found on a plastic folder. Due to the lightness of the fins the
added weight on the nose cone (in order to achieve a more stable flight path) was just sticky tape
wound around the bottle cap. This not only added more weight to the nose but made it more
streamlined as well. The final weight of the prototype was 42.99 g.
However during testing we realised that this design was inefficient and did not provide a stable
flight. When subject to high velocity, particularly just after launch when the rocket has reached
maximum velocity, the fins started to deform and bend. This can be seen in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Snapshots of prototype 1 during flight

2
The deformation of the fins meant that more energy was lost due to drag as the air passing over
and under the fins was no longer smooth. Although the rocket itself suffered no damages even
after three test flights the prototype was ultimately rejected due to the high degree of design
inefficiency.
2.2.2 Prototype 2
While prototype 2 (P2) also focused on minimising weight, the key idea was for the rocket to be
as streamline as possible. This ultimately would allow less drag and therefore a longer flight time
and further horizontal distance. Figure 3 shows the design for P2.

Figure 3 Prototype 2 design

The nose cone was made from thick card wrapped around to form a cone and the tail fins were
made from standard cardboard. The nose cone had mass added again using sticky tape and the
tail fins secured by splitting the cardboard in half so that when opened there was a 0.5 cm edge
on both sides. The fins could then be taped down with little to no gap between the rocket body
and the fins themselves and therefore reducing drag. The final weight of P2 was 49.29 g.
During testing P2 provided a much more stable and consistent flight path than P1. There was no
deformation of the fins and the flight path was more parabolic than P1. However since the nose
cone was made out of card and not plastic, it suffered slight damage on the third landing. During
flight, although having a stable flight path, P2 rotated around its horizontal axis during flight.
Although some sort of body rotation does give a rocket a more stable flight, energy is used in
this process therefore meaning that the rocket will not travel as far. This can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Snapshots of prototype 2 during flight

The rotation of P2 during flight was most likely caused by the fins not being symmetrical.
Although the rocket rotated during flight and the nose cone was not strong enough, the final
design was to be based off P2 because of the stable flight and consistent flight path it had during
trial launches.

3
 2.3 Final Rocket Design
The final design had to meet all of the criteria as stated in the project brief. This meant the nose
cone of P2 had to be completely redesigned to be structurally sound for three launches and
landings. A plastic cap from a baby bottle was chosen due to its conical nature and its strength
and was secured in place by cloth tape. This cloth tape is not only stronger than standard sticky
tape but it also added weight to the nose cone allowing for the centre of mass to be closer the
front therefore meaning a more stable flight and trajectory. Using this baby bottle cap meant that
the nose cone was already uniform in shape and that the tape could be applied evenly for an even
mass distribution allowing for a more stable flight.
The fins were attached using the same principle as the fins on P2 however the shape of them was
altered. The fins are a crucial part to the rocket. They allow the rocket to remain straight and
stable during flight minimising any random motions (Barrowman, 1975). For maximum
efficiency they must be placed at ninety degrees to the surface of rocket body and placed at
regular intervals reducing the chance of any unwanted torque occurring at the tail. In order to
reduce weight, a three fin design was chosen for the final model. The shape of the fins was
carefully chosen. Having a large surface area lowers pressure drag but in turn increases friction
drag. Yet the fins must be long enough to be outside the turbulent air near the body of the bottle.
The final shape decided for the fins was a parallelogram (Apogee Rockets, 2015). The fins were
made using corflute, a material that is similar in design to cardboard only made with plastic
instead. This allowed for the fins to be fixed as close as possible to the rocket body (refer to P2
fin design) but also provided a stronger fin than cardboard without adding too much extra
weight. The final weight of the rocket was 84 g. The final design of the rocket is shown in Figure
5 below.

Figure 5 Final rocket design

Before the launch of the rocket, the rockets stability was briefly tested. The stability of a rocket
is affect by two major factors; one being the centre of pressure (CoP) and centre of gravity
(CoG). For a rocket to be stable the CoG must closer to the nose than the CoP otherwise the
rocket will begin to ‘somersault’ during flight. In order to test this, the rocket was suspended by

4
a piece of string. The string was moved along the body until the body was perpendicular to the
string. The CoG was located to be 11 cm from the nose. To find whether the CoP was behind the
CoG, the rocket was swung around in a circular motion. If the rocket did not tumble or fly tail
first then the CoP was behind the CoG indicating a stable flight. In this case, the rocket was
stable deemed to be stable. The heavier nose pushed the CoG towards the nose and the larger tail
fins pushed the CoP towards the tail (Rockets for Schools, 2010).
The rocket performed successfully during the launch and there was minimal body rotation.
Figure 6 shows the body rotation of the rocket over a 1.5 second interval, starting at the top left
hand image, moving right, then down to the bottom left image and finishing at the bottom right
hand image. Rotation during the time interval was a sixth of a full rotation in the clockwise
direction.

Figure 6 Snapshots of final rocket during flight

3.0 Model
3.1 Overview
In order to appropriately model the rocket flight, a number of simulations were used in order to
calculate the following data:
• Local gravity in Perth
• Drag coefficient of the rocket
• Velocity and displacement just after tube thrust, water thrust and free flight phases.
These simulations were conducted using Excel. The results from the each experiment
(Measuring Local Gravity, Free Flight Analysis and the Bernoulli Equation experiment) were
recorded. These results were tabulated into Excel and the relevant formulas need in order to
calculate the final results were entered into each of the cells. The results of the simulations were
tabulated and graphed.

3.2 Assumptions
For these simulations to operate, a number of assumptions had to be made. These include the
following:

5
 • The rocket is regarded as a point mass throughout the whole simulation
• The only force acting on the rocket is drag
• There is no lift force provided
• There are no crosswinds
• There is no rotation
• The air is smooth and not turbulent
• The mass of the air in the rocket is negligible when compared to the mass of water
inside the body
• Thrust stage continues at launch angle
• Ignore Gravity in thrust

3.3 Numerical Simulation

3.3.1 Gravity
The local gravity was calculated using a Kater’s Pendulum. In this experiment a reversible free
swinging pendulum was used. The pendulum was raised to five degrees past vertical and allowed
to oscillate twenty times while being timed. The pendulum length was changed to various places
using the pre-designated holes on the pendulum itself. The period was calculated by dividing the
time by the number of oscillations. The results were graphed and the slope of the graph was used
to determine the local gravity using the equation below. The full results can be found in the
Appendix 1.
𝐿𝐿𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑔𝑔 = 4𝜋𝜋 2 ≈ 9.88𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 −2 (1)
𝑇𝑇 2

3.3.2 Drag Coefficient

To calculate the drag coefficient the model rocket was placed inside a wind tunnel with pre-
calibrated measurements of the motor system. At several increments of motor speed (relates to
wind speed) the force exerted on the rocket was measured and tabulated. To produce a result for
the drag coefficient, drag force is plotted against the velocity squared with a trend line drawn.
The gradient of the trend line represents the Cave = 0.0004 kg/m. The experiment results are
shown in Appendix 2.
3.3.3 Tube Thrust
The tube thrust phase is the time period in which the rocket has been launch until the nozzles
reaches then of the tube on which the rocket was placed for launch. The linear momentum
accounting equation is used to determine the end velocity of the rocket and is modeled as a
closed system:
𝑃𝑃0𝑔𝑔 𝜋𝜋𝑟𝑟 2 −𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣 2 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = (2)
𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

The equation (2) is integrated and re-arranged providing the equation:

2𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝑃𝑃0𝑔𝑔 𝜋𝜋𝑟𝑟 2 −� �
𝑣𝑣1 = � (1 − 𝑒𝑒 𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
) (3)
𝐶𝐶

with v1 in the direction of the tube.

6
 Following the formula, the simulation provided the results for each rocket launch shown in the
Table 1 below.
Table 1 Tube thrust simulation results
Launch Vol. of Water Pressure Velocity Displacement
1 0 mL 30 psi 40.3 m/s 0.165 m
2 100 mL 50 psi 31.2 m/s 0.165 m
3 150 mL 40 psi 27.9 m/s 0.165 m

3.3.4 Water Thrust

The water thrust phase is the time period in which the rocket has left the tube and water and air is
being expelled from the nozzle of the rocket. The system was analysed as open (because water
and air is leaving the system) using the linear momentum accounting equations. A numerical
stepping method was used in conjunction with Euler’s equations. The results of the water thrust
are added to the results of the tube thrust phase to produce a combined result shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Water thrust simulation results
Launch Vol. of Water Pressure Velocity Displacement
1 0 mL 30 psi 39.9 m/s 0.733 m
2 100 mL 50 psi 35.2 m/s 0.662 m
3 150 mL 40 psi 27.9 m/s 0.560 m

3.3.5 Free Flight

The free flight phase is considered a closed system as no more mass is exiting the system, the
calculations for this phase also use a numerical stepping method along with Euler’s equations.
The equations used in the excel document for each variable are as followed in Table 3 and results
shown in Table 4.
Table 3 Equations for free flight phase
Sx Sy Vx Vy
Initial Value 𝑥𝑥1 = 𝑥𝑥′𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶(𝜃𝜃) 𝑦𝑦1 = 𝑥𝑥′𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆(𝜃𝜃) 𝑣𝑣𝑥𝑥,1 = 𝑣𝑣𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶(𝜃𝜃) 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠,1 = 𝑣𝑣𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆(𝜃𝜃)
Formula 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛+1 𝑦𝑦𝑛𝑛+1 𝑣𝑣𝑥𝑥,𝑛𝑛+1 = 𝑣𝑣𝑥𝑥,𝑛𝑛 + 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥,𝑛𝑛 ∆t 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠,𝑛𝑛+1 = 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠,𝑛𝑛 + 𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠,𝑛𝑛 ∆t
= 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 + 𝑣𝑣𝑥𝑥,𝑛𝑛 ∆𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦𝑛𝑛 + 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠,𝑛𝑛 ∆𝑡𝑡
1 1
+ 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥,𝑛𝑛 ∆𝑡𝑡 2 + 𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠,𝑛𝑛 ∆𝑡𝑡 2
2 2
V Fd ax ay
Formula C𝑣𝑣 2 −𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶(𝜃𝜃) −𝑚𝑚𝑔𝑔 − 𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆(𝜃𝜃)
�𝑣𝑣𝑥𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠 2
𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚

Table 4 Free flight simulation results

Trial Vol. of Water Pressure Dispalcement
1 0 mL 30 psi 36.1 m
2 100 mL 50 psi 61.9 m
3 150 mL 40 psi 87.4 m

7
3.3.6 Rocket Pressure
300
Pressure in rocket
250
Atmospheric pressure

Pressure (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250
Time (s)
Figure 7 Rocket pressure
3.3.7 Summary of Numerical Values Used

Table 5 Numerical values

INITIAL CONDITIONS
Initial volume of water 0.00015 m³
Initial mass of empty rocket 0.084 kg
Launch angle 45 deg
Launch angle 0.785398163 rad
Initial gauge pressure of bottle 40 psi
Initial gauge pressure of bottle 275790.4 Pa
Bottle capacity 600 ml
Initial volume of air inside rocket 6.00E-04 m³
Length of tube 0.165 m

CONSTANTS GIVEN
Patm: atmospheric pressure 101325 Pa
ρw: density of water 998.23 kg/m
γ: adiabatic index for air 1.4 []
r: nozzle radius 0.01075 m

EULER
time step (s) Thrust 0.0010 s
time step (s) Flight 0.005 s

CONSTANTS MEASURED
g: local gravity 9.88 m/s
CD: drag coefficient 0.414 []
C: drag constant 0.000414 kg/m
Correction factor 1 []
Actual bottle drag 0.414 []

8
4.0 Experiments
4.1 Test Procedure
1. Set up the safety area and rocket testing area.
2. Attach the rocket to the launch vehicle and make sure that is securely fastened. Connect
the logic and timer circuit board to the vehicle.
3. Pressurise the rocket with 30 psi of air only. Detach the pump and clear the launch zone.
4. The launch will be digitally controlled via computer.
5. Measure the distance the rocket has travelled from the launch point to the landing point.
6. The second and third tests will be conducted manually.
7. Fill the rocket up with 100 mL of water and attach it to the launch device. Make sure that
no water is split during this process.
8. Pressurise the rocket to 50 psi and detach the pump.
9. Pull the launch string and measure the distance the rocket has travelled from the launch
point to landing point.
10. Repeat steps 7 to 9 for the third test using 150mL of water and with a pressure of 40 psi.

4.2 Safety Precautions

The safety of the students, facilitator and the general public is our responsibility. Please ensure
that the following safety precautions are followed with the utmost integrity.
1. Safety tape must be placed around the launch area with a distance of at least a metre at
any point from the launch pad.
2. Safety hats and glasses must be worn at all times for all students including the facilitator
3. At least seven wardens are to be placed around the perimeter of the rocket-testing site
each with a STOP sign. Persons not involved in the test approaching the test site must
have the situation explained and guided around the site. An eighth safety warden will
give the all clear before a rocket is launched.
4. Only one team member and the facilitator are allowed to enter the launch site at any one
time when the rocket is pressurised and prepared to be launched.
5. While pressuring the rocket, the persons must stand behind the rocket in case of
premature launch. The immediate area in front of the rocket must be clear of any persons
during this period.
6. The rocket is to be pressurised slowly. If there is any signs of failure (i.e. audible hissing
sound, rocket failing to increase in pressure) stop immediately.
7. Under no circumstances is the rocket to be launched if there are persons directly in front
of the rocket or on the test site.

4.3 Operating Conditions

The weather was favourable during the test. There was little wind and the general environment
was calm. There was absolutely no rain for the whole duration of the test. These conditions were
optimal for the test because there would be little to no interference from weather.

4.4 Rocket Performance and Measured Distances

The rocket had a stable flight for all three tests and remained undamaged after the third landing.
There were no signs of structural failure (i.e. fins breaking or leakage). The data collected is
shown in Table 6 below.

9
 Table 6 Rocket performance

Test Operating Conditions Distances

1 No water Test = 30.1 m
Air pressure = 30 psi Simulation = 36.1 m
2 Water volume = 100 mL Test = 67.1 m
Air pressure = 50 psi Simulation = 61.9 m
3 Water volume = 150 mL Test = 53.7 m
Air pressure = 40 psi Simulation = 87.4 m

5.0 Results and Discussion

The estimated drag coefficients of the rocket from numerical simulations and experimental
results are compared to typical drag coefficients found in the literature.
Drag coefficients of rocket from
Simulation: 0.414
Experiment: 0.26
Literature for cone: 0.5 (Hesterman et al., 2015)
Literature for hemisphere: 0.4 (Hesterman et al., 2015)

20
Vertical distance (m)

16

12

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal distance (m)
Figure 8 Simulated path of projectile for 40 psi and 150 mL water flight
The results from the rocket launch test compared with the simulation test run in excel involves a
level of variance. The real world test gives results that include all other factors that aren’t
factored in during the calculations for the simulation, the simulation provides us with a rough to
close approximation of what to expect from a real world test. Using the results from the 40 psi
and 150 mL water test (closest results to simulation) we can adjust the drag coefficient for future
tests to give us a more realistic calculation of height, distance and speed of the rocket.
However, it is important to note that the drag coefficient used in our calculations were derived
from a previous model rocket which included a nose cone that was much sharper, switching to a
more hemispherical nose cone (as required by the brief) would have lowered the drag coefficient
as seen in quoted from the literature above. With this understanding it is possible that if the final

10
rocket design was used in the wind tunnel, a drag coefficient closer to the real world result might
have been obtained, leading to a more accurate excel simulation.
Other factors that influence the accuracy of our result could be from the value used for gravity in
or simulation compared with actual testing. The value measured for gravity in the laboratory was
found to be 9.89 m/s2 (Appendix 1) which is partially higher than the scientific standard of 9.81
m/s2 (Taylor & Thompson, 2008), using the SI unit for gravity on Earth the simulation result
shifts closer to real world result.
From the table on thrust phase for the 40 psi and 150 mL water, we can see that the phase only
lasts 0.005 s before all the water is expelled, this estimation is closely accurate to the real world
test as seen in the film of our rocket which was filmed at 240 frames per second (Figure 9). Even
slowed down 8 times the rocket is expelling water for what only seems a fraction of a second.
This shows that the pressure of water inside the bottle actually expels the water in what could
almost be considered instantly. Besides the astounding rate of which the water leaves the system
the slow motion capture of the rocket launch actually confirms the calculations in the thrust
phase of excel as the time steps match.

Figure 9 Four consecutive frames recorded at 240 fps of the thrust phase
Lastly, also examining the videos of each rocket launch shows that the calculated flight time of
the rocket is accurate also, for the second launch again the flight time lasts about 3.7 s, a count of
the video shows the rocket in flight for roughly 4 s. With horizontal speeds nearing 14 m/s at the
time of landing, and extra 0.3 s equates to just over 4.5 m, this can also suggest where the extra
distance in the real world test came from. The combination of drag variance and time variance
would explain the differences in result.
It is important to note that the results for the first and second launch had similar variances in the
simulation results, around 10% from the real world results. The third launch real world test had a
result almost 40% lower than the simulation. This discrepancy could be due to the calculation or
to other combination of factors, more possibly any sudden gusts of wind that are experienced at
heights above the ground that cannot be felt to those at ground level. However, similar results
were discussed amongst the other groups testing their rockets and as such the discrepancy
requires further investigation to determine why it is so large in comparison to the first two
launches.
What the results demonstrate in this project is how accurate the calculations can be and how
close they can resemble a real world result. By accounting for more factors it is possible to refine
these calculations to provide more accurate simulation results. Currently accepted constants in
science and engineering are garnered from using more accurate equipment and in depth
formulas, the building blocks for these more these improved methods and equipment is seen

11
from our more rudimentary experiments, such as the gravity laboratory, which were the starting
experiments used to first measure acceleration due to gravity, and to achieve results similar to the
SI units proves the experiments reliability.

6.0 Conclusions
The motion of a soda-bottle water-rocket was investigated through numerical simulations and
actual field testings. The design of the rocket was selected to minimise rotation and drag
resistance while maintaining structural robustness and stability during flight. The rocket design
was improved from four fins to three fins and from a conical tip to a hemispherical tip.
The actual performance of the rocket for test 2 was well predicted by the numerical simulation of
the projectile path with the measured test distance of 67.1 m slightly greater by 5.2 m than the
simulated distance of 61.9 m. There was also good agreement for test 1 with the measured
distance 6.0 m lower than the predicted distance though a significant discrepancy was observed
for test 3.
The measured drag coefficient of the rocket (CD = 0.26) was slightly lower than the drag
coefficient obtained from numerical simulation (CD = 0.414) and published values in the
literature (CD = 0.4) for a hemisphere. The discrepancies between the estimated drag coefficients
and published data from the literature are mainly due to a slightly different gravity level and
variable actual field wind level.

7.0 References
Apogee Rockets (2015). Technical Publication 16 – What Type of Fin Shape is Best. Available
from: https://www.apogeerockets.com/Technical_Publication_16

Barrowman, J. (1975). Technical Information Report 33 – Calculating the Center of Pressure of a

Model Rocket. Centuri Engineering Company, Phoenix, Arizona.

Hesterman, D., Guzzomi, A., Togneri, R., Ghisalberti, M. & Keating, A. (2015). ENSC2001
Motion. The University of Western Australia, Perth.

Rockets for Schools (2010). Basic Rocket Stability. Available from:

http://www.rockets4schools.org/images/Basic.Rocket.Stability.pdf

Taylor, B.N. & Thompson, A. (2008). Declaration on the unit of mass. The International System
of Units, pp. 52

12
 Appendix 1 Gravity Laboratory Results

Time for 20 cycles, t (s) Period,

Length, L1T2 Gravity,
T = t/20 2 L12 (m2)
L1 (m) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average (ms ) g (m/s2)
(s)
0.255 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 1.23 0.38 0.07 9.89
0.205 23.9 23.8 23.8 23.8 1.19 0.29 0.04 9.88
0.155 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 1.20 0.22 0.02 9.79
0.105 25 25.3 25.4 25.2 1.26 0.17 0.01 9.89
0.055 31.3 31.4 31.1 31.3 1.56 0.13 0.00 9.95
0.055 31.4 31.5 31.4 31.4 1.57 0.14 0.00 9.85
0.105 25.1 25.1 25.3 25.2 1.26 0.17 0.01 9.95
0.155 23.5 23.7 23.8 23.7 1.18 0.22 0.02 9.98
0.205 23.7 23.8 24.1 23.9 1.19 0.29 0.04 9.86
0.255 24.6 24.5 24.7 24.6 1.23 0.39 0.07 9.81
2
AVERAGE G VALUE (m/s ) 9.89

Positions 1-5
0.07

y = 0.2502x - 0.0309
0.06 R² = 0.9999

0.05

0.04
L1^2

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
L1*T^2

13
 Position 6-10
0.07

0.06 y = 0.2471x - 0.0301

R² = 0.9998

0.05

0.04
L1^2

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
L1*T^2

14
Appendix 2 Drag Coefficient Laboratory Results

Motor Air Reynold's Spring Drag

ΔL = L -
speed, f speed, v Number, length, force, CD
L0 (mm)
(Hz) (m/s) Re L (mm) FD (N)
28.0 27.2517 1.28E+05 84.0 12.0 0.43371 0.2397
25.0 24.2397 1.14E+05 82.2 10.2 0.38853 0.2714
22.1 21.3281 1.00E+05 80.0 8.0 0.33331 0.3007
19.3 18.5169 8.68E+04 77.0 5.0 0.25801 0.3089
16.0 15.2037 7.13E+04 76.0 4.0 0.23291 0.4136
13.0 12.1917 5.72E+04 74.5 2.5 0.19526 0.5393
10.1 9.2801 4.35E+04 73.5 1.5 0.17016 0.8111
7.2 6.3685 2.99E+04 73.0 1.0 0.15761 1.5952
Static length of spring (mm), L0 = 72
Diameter of bottle (mm), D = 72.2
Length of bottle (mm) = 330
Air speed calibration: v = 1.004 f - 0.8603
Drag force calibration: FD = 0.0251 ΔL + 0.13251
Air temperature (deg C) = 24.1

0.5

0.45
y = 0.0004x + 0.136
0.4
R² = 0.9909
Air speed squared, v^2

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 200 400 600 800
Drag force

15
Appendix 3 Venturi Laboratory Results

FAST FLOW
Flow Distance Duct Static Dynamic Total Total Head
Volume Time Duct Velocity
Rate Point Into Duct Diameter Head Head Head Measured
(mL) (s) Area (m2) (m/s)
(m3/s) (m) (mm) (m) (m) (m) (m)
178 1.21 1.47E-04 A 0.00 25.0 4.91E-04 0.295 0.30 0.0046 0.300 0.285
194 1.28 1.52E-04 B 60.28 13.9 1.52E-04 0.298 1.00 0.0508 0.348 0.250
150 0.91 1.65E-04 C 68.68 11.8 1.09E-04 0.295 1.51 0.1158 0.411 0.205
154 0.91 1.69E-04 D 72.58 10.7 8.99E-05 0.293 1.88 0.1805 0.473 0.155
166 1.03 1.61E-04 E 81.08 10.0 7.85E-05 0.290 2.05 0.2146 0.505 0.100
Average 1.59E-04 F 141.54 25.0 4.91E-04 0.200 0.32 0.0053 0.205 0.180

SLOW FLOW
Flow Distance Duct Static Dynamic Total Total Head
Volume Time Duct Velocity
Rate Point Into Duct Diameter Head Head Head Measured
(mL) (s) Area (m2) (m/s)
(m3/s) (m) (mm) (m) (m) (m) (m)
234 2.63 8.90E-05 A 0.00 25.0 4.91E-04 0.248 0.18 0.0017 0.249 0.245
134 1.43 9.37E-05 B 60.28 13.9 1.52E-04 0.247 0.62 0.0194 0.266 0.228
154 1.8 8.56E-05 C 68.68 11.8 1.09E-04 0.245 0.78 0.0312 0.276 0.213
160 1.89 8.47E-05 D 72.58 10.7 8.99E-05 0.245 0.94 0.0452 0.290 0.195
138 1.58 8.73E-05 E 81.08 10.0 7.85E-05 0.240 1.11 0.0630 0.303 0.175
Average 8.80E-05 F 141.54 25.0 4.91E-04 0.220 0.18 0.0016 0.222 0.200

16