Analysis of a water-propelled rocket

Chris Holland
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds, UK

(Submitted for marking 14 February 2005)

_________________________________________________________________

Abstract: Water propelled rockets have captured the imagination of many a scientist.
In this report two geometrically different bottle designs are given detailed experimental
and theoretical analysis. The key aspects investigated are, the nature of expansion in the
pressure chamber, the thrust produced at launch and the coefficient of drag. The bottles
tested are a typical 2l coke bottle and a 1l “badoit” bottle. The badoit bottle is more
cone like in shape and is known to achieve superior altitudes. Results of the experiment
are then explained in terms of bottle design and compared with computer simulation.
The report concludes that an adiabatic treatment of the expansion is most appropriate,
that previous assumption made about thrust are inaccurate and that the badoit bottle is
more efficiently designed to deliver thrust and has a lower coefficient of drag than the
coke bottle.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION
The study of water rockets provides both an enjoyable and
challenging area of physics, where theoretical investigation
and modelling can be applied to a “real world” problem.
Coupled with the analysis of flight data, recorded using
various means such as high speed digital cameras and
pressure transducers, it gives an ideal opportunity to test
current models and then suggest improvements.

This investigation is split into three main parts. The first

part looks at the principles of rocket flight, analysing current
models and assumptions. The following section looks at the
internal pressure chamber and the relationship between
pressure and volume as the rocket undergoes the thrust
phase. It is then concluded by assessing the drag forces
experienced by the rocket.
II. THE PRINCIPLES OF ROCKET FLIGHT
At a basic level, water rockets work through fairly simple
but elegant physics. The empty bottle rocket is partially
filled with water (figure 1), placed on a launcher and then
pressurised using a bicycle pump. The pressure difference
between the internal chamber and the atmosphere dictates
that, given the chance, the pressurised air will expand and
escape from the bottle. In a neat piece of engineering none
of the air can escape until all of the water has been ejected.
The density of the water gives it significant mass, and
coupled with a high exit velocity from the bottle, significant
thrust is produced. The motion of the rocket is explained by
Newton’s three laws:
Figure 1 - Schematic representation of a water rocket
1. An object is at rest or in constant motion in a straight line
unless acted on by a force. Therefore, to take the rocket
from being at rest in the laboratory frame a force is required.
2. Force equals mass times acceleration. The force that lifts
the rocket is thrust, caused by the mass of water ejected and
its exit velocity.
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is
perhaps the key principle because as the water is forced out
of the rocket by the compressed air, it exerts a downward
force. The reaction forced due to this causes the rocket to be
propelled upwards in the opposite direction. Due to the mass
of water being significantly greater than the mass of the
empty rocket, a large upward force can be obtained,
propelling the rocket to astonishing heights.
A. Thrust

The thrust, T, of a rocket due to the ejection of mass from

the nozzle is given by the formula
 dM
T = ve (1)
dt
where ve is the exhaust velocity of the ejected mass in the
rocket’s frame of reference and dM/dt is the rate at which
the mass is ejected from the rocket [1]. Both ve and dM/dt
depend on the pressure of the rocket chamber and this varies
with time.
The jet velocity is determined by the transformation of the
stored energy of the pressurised air into the kinetic energy
of the water jet. The jet velocity of the exiting water and the
mass1 of water displaced with respect to time will be the
overriding factors in producing a rocket with maximum
thrust. A rocket which has initially too much pressurised air
and not enough water, will be able to push out all the water
with a maximum velocity, but will still be above
atmospheric pressure when all the water has gone. This will
result in a burst of air escaping, which will not be of much
benefit2 in terms of thrust. Conversely, a rocket which has
initially too much water and not enough pressurised air will
result in water still being present in the chamber once the air
has expanded and returned to atmospheric pressure.
To progress some assumptions must be made. To use
Bernoulli’s equation we must assume the water to be
invicid, incompressible and that it will exit in a steady flow
along a streamline. The invicid condition is met by an
efficient nozzle design3 [2], and under most circumstances it
is reasonable to attribute incompressibility to liquids and
solids and hence the second condition is met. For the
moment the third condition of steady flow along a
streamline is assumed but will be re-examined later.
Bernoulli’s equation is therefore [1]
1 1
P1 + ρv12 + ρgy1 = P2 + ρv 22 + ρgy 2 (2)
2 2
Referring to figure 1, taking point 1 as the surface of the
water inside the rocket and point 2 as being just outside the
nozzle; now some further assumptions can be made. The
pressure due to the difference in height of the water can be
excluded as this will be extremely minimal. The second
assumption used is to neglect the velocity of the water at the
surface of the water compared with that of the velocity at
the nozzle. These assumptions can be shown as
1 assume ã is constant [3] and for air this value is 1.4 [4]. I
P = Pa + ρ w v e2 (3)
2 appropriate.
1 The forces that oppose the rocket on its journey upwards are
Since water is incompressible and is of constant density
this is effectively the volume of water displaced with time.
2 will be flying it can be assumed that the force of gravity
The density of air is 1000 times less than that of water, so
in an “air burst” there would be very little mass ejected and
therefore little thrust force.
3 4
“Theoretically, a 100% efficient nozzle design is one for
which there is no entropy production. From a practical point
of view, efficient nozzle design requires smooth duct flow
surfaces with no rapid change in cross sectional area”[2]. It
is interesting to note that this will vary in different bottle
designs and may contribute to better or worse flow.
where P is the pressure inside the rocket, Pa is atmospheric
pressure, ñw is the density of water and ve is the exit velocity
of the water. Rearranged to solve for ve, we have
2( P − Pa )
ve2 = (4)
ρw
The other term needed to solve for thrust is the mass flow
rate out of the rocket dM/dt, but since mass flow rate is
equal to volume flow rate multiplied by the density of water
this gives
dM dV
= ρw = ρ w Ae v e (5)
dt dt
where Ae is the cross sectional area of the exhaust nozzle.
Combining equations 1 and 5 and substituting in equation 4
to eliminate ve, thrust can now be solved in terms of
pressure giving
T = v e2 ρ w Ae = 2( P − Pa ) Ae (6)
4
Which, setting atmospheric pressure as zero , simplifies to
T = 2 PAe (7)
Therefore finding pressure as a function of time will mean
that thrust as a function of time can be determined.
As the rocket is launched, the pressure gradient will push
the water out, lowering the pressure and increasing the
volume of air inside the rocket. The treatment of this
expansion varies from paper to paper, and the results of this
investigation will hopefully confirm the preferential use.
If the gas5 is in thermal contact with a heat reservoir and is
allowed to expand quasi-statically then isothermal
conditions are satisfied [3] and
PV = constant (8)
However if the gas is thermally isolated from the
surroundings or expands so rapidly that it cannot maintain
thermal equilibrium with the surroundings then adiabatic
conditions are satisfied. This means that the gas does work
on its environment, reducing its internal energy and hence
the temperature of the gas changes. In the case of adiabatic
expansion the relationship is [3]
PV ã = constant (9)
where ã is the ratio of the heat capacities Cp/Cv. For most
gases over a short temperature range it is acceptable to
intend to examine which method of expansion is most
B. Drag
those of gravity and drag. At the altitudes that our rockets
remains constant and can easily be included in any
Because this is the pressure the chamber will have to
return to and is a constant. However it is important to
remember that this assumption has been made when
analysing experimental results.
5
For this experiment the gas is air, which is assumed to be
an ideal gas obeying the relationship PV = nRT
simulation; however, the force of drag is velocity dependant
and therefore its treatment is slightly more complicated.
Drag force is defined as [5]
1 results. Unfortunately, in consultation with members of the
F= C d ρAv 2 (10)
2 using a simulation was going to be extremely difficult, due
where Cd is the coefficient of drag, ñ is the fluid density (in
this case the density of air), A is the body area normal to the
flow and v is the rocket’s speed. “For moderate speeds Cd is
independent of the size of the object and the speed of the
airflow” [1]. I intend to prove this and also produce an
accurate value for Cd using a wind tunnel.
C. The three stages of rocket flight.
Once the factors of thrust (which is effectively the
expansion of the gas) and drag have been taken into
account, the rocket flight as a whole can be examined. The
flight is effectively broken down into three phases: the
accelerating (thrust) phase when water is still present in the
rocket; the free flight phase, where the rocket is gaining
altitude but decelerating under the forces of gravity and
drag, until the velocity reaches zero at its maximum altitude;
and finally the rocket returns to earth, and the rocket flight
is accelerated by gravity but opposed by drag. Each part of
the flight needs to be treated separately and a computer
simulation has been written to represent this.
III. INTERNAL CHAMBER ANALYSIS
From previous work on this subject [6] it was noted that a
certain design of bottle rocket (which in previous life
contained Badoit sparkling spring water) achieved much
greater altitudes than the traditional shaped 2l Coke bottles.
After noting a statement in a scientific paper [2] about
“good nozzles not increasing entropy," and hence increasing
thrust, I was keen to explore the flow of water out of
different bottle designs and see if this was the overriding
factor causing the Badoit bottles to achieve superior
altitudes.
Coke Badoit
The Coke Air The badoit
bottle can bottle can
be roughly be roughly
modelled as modelled as
a cylinder Water a cone
Figure 2 - Differences in bottle design
Figure 2 shows the rough difference between the shape of
Coke bottles and the shape of Badoit bottles. The Badoit
bottle is more cone-like in shape and my initial feeling was
that this may make it easier for the water to flow out,
increasing the thrust. In previous years’ investigations, [7]
the cylindrical model, more akin to the Coke bottle, has
been used in simulations and analysis of experimental
department, modelling the flow out of a cone accurately
to turbulent flow effects. Having accepted that modelling
the water flowing out of the bottle was not going to be
possible, I turned my attention to the expansion of the air in
the pressure chamber.
A1. Internal pressure profiles
Having read the papers “Hydrodynamics of a Water
Rocket” by Prusa [2] and “Analysis of a water-propelled
rocket: A problem in honours physics” by Finney [1]. I
discovered that they took different approaches to the
treatment of the expansion of the air in the pressure
chamber, Prusa opting for adiabatic expansion and Finney
opting for isothermal. When the launch mechanism is
released, the expansion that occurs is extremely rapid, and
little or no time is available for the system to remain in
thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. This is akin to an
adiabatic expansion, whereby the temperature of the gas will
decrease, as will its internal energy and hence its thrust. I
have devised an experiment to test which treatment is
correct, or if in reality it makes such an insignificant
difference that both are adequate. This would make the use
of the simpler isothermal expansion preferable.
The first stage was to engineer a way to measure the internal
pressure and how it changed with respect to time. In
conjunction with some of the staff in the Mechanical
Engineering department, a suitable pressure transducer was
identified6. It had to be waterproof and fire extremely fast
(5000 times a second). A jig was then designed to house the
transducer in the bottle.
6
The transducer used was a Kistler 601A
 To
oscilloscope

Nut

Base of
bottle
Pressure
tight seal
Pressure
transducer

Figure 3 - Jig to house the pressure transducer

Once the jig was made, a hole was drilled in the bottle and
the jig was secured. Pressure testing was then carried out for
safety. The system was pumped up to 10 bar. This was
necessary as the integrity of the bottle may have been
compromised due to the hole made in the plastic necessary
to house the jig. It turned out that there was only slight
leakage and deformation at 10 bar and therefore it was
agreed that it would be perfectly safe to conduct
experiments up to 8 bar.

To carry out the pressure measurements, the transducer was

to be connected to an oscilloscope. This meant that the
rocket could not actually “launch” in the conventional sense
and it would need to be held static. A great deal of force is
exerted by the initial thrust, so a sturdy “cage-like” structure
that could be weighed down was constructed to house the
rocket. Once everything was declared safe, pressure profiles
of the thrust stage could then be collated. These would be
carried out for 4, 6 and 8 bar for both the Badoit bottle and
the Coke bottle.
A2. Results of internal pressure profiles It is interesting to see that the time taken to return to
atmospheric pressure in both graphs appears to be
independent of the initial pressure7. Instead, the gradient of
Badoit bottle the graph gets steeper as the initial pressure is increased.
This agrees with the theory that a higher pressure will push
9
the water out faster (increasing thrust). However, this would
8 also increase the volume of air in the chamber more quickly,
Pressure inside the rocket (bar)

7 causing pressure to fall more rapidly, and resulting in the

6
steeper initial gradients. There could well be an upper limit
on the exit velocity of the water, but it would have to be
5
caused by an initial pressure greater that 8 bar, as
4 graphically this would result in a longer time to reach
3 atmospheric pressure.
2
One aspect that was surprising is that there appears to be no
1 sudden drop in pressure, which would coincide with an “air
0 burst” experienced once all the water has been ejected, and
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09

0.11
0.1
0

-1 the pressure is still above atmospheric. This leads me to

believe that either the initial volume of water was optimal
Time (s)
for the initial starting pressure, meaning that there was no
air burst8, or that the air burst has no significant effect on the
Figure 4 - Pressure within the rocket as a function of time pressure gradient. This would mean that the air pressure
for initial pressures of 4, 6 and 8 bar using a 1l Badoit inside the chamber would drop just as quickly, even if there
bottle and 325ml of water. was no water in the chamber to start with. Faced with the
two conclusions I believe the latter to be true, because as the
Coke bottle same volume of water (1/3 of a bottle) was used for all three
pressures, it could not have been the optimum volume for 4,
9 6 and 8 bar. It also supports my earlier conclusion that the
8 exit velocity of the water is not limited in the range up to 8
Pressure inside the rocket (bar)

bar.
7
6
Another feature of the plots is the shallow curve present just
5 after the launch. This is present on all plots, although it is
4 slightly more pronounced at higher pressures. I believe this
3 may be due to a “sticking” of the launch mechanism, and
2
therefore a more linear relationship may be achievable with
a more efficient launcher. For this reason, I would not
1
attribute any thrust until after this point. There is also
0 curvature present in all the plots as the internal pressure gets
0.02
0.04

0.06
0.08

0.12
0.15
0.17
0.19

0.21
0.23
0.1
0

-1 close to that of atmospheric. This is akin to an exponential

Time (s) decay, which one might intuitively expect because, as the
pressure difference between the rocket chamber and
atmosphere becomes less, the rate of change will naturally
slow down.
Figure 5 – Pressure within the rocket as a function of time
for initial pressures of 4, 6 and 8 bar using a 2l Coke bottle Finally, I don’t believe from the two figures alone, that there
and 660ml of water. is any significant difference between the designs of the
bottles, which would lead to the conclusion that the Badoit
A3. Discussion of pressure results. bottles would perform better. However, looking at the
internal pressure is only half the story.
A feature to note in figure 4 is the large oscillations present
at 6 bar just before launch. I do not believe these to be a true
reflection of the situation. In order to carry out this testing
some very sensitive equipment was used. Therefore I
believe that, as these oscillations were seen only once
7
during the trials, they were actually the result of some The overall length of time for badoit bottles to return to
electrical problem with the equipment. However, once atmospheric pressure is roughly half that of coke bottles, but
“launched” however the curve behaves in a fashion common one might expect this simple relationship as the initial
to the other plots, so I decided its inclusion was reasonable. volume of air has roughly doubled (both bottles were filled
one third full of water) in this example.
8
Meaning that the rocket returned to atmospheric pressure
exactly as the last drop of water was ejected.
B1. Air volume analysis r

The second stage of the internal chamber analysis was to

observe the decrease in water volume (increase in air) with
respect to time. This was achieved by analysing still
h’
photographs of the static launches captured by a high speed
camera capable of 500 frames a second. A ruler was firmly
attached to the side of the bottles and food colouring was
used to make the water level more visible. It was then è
possible to analyse the thrust period frame by frame, noting
down the decrease in height of the water.
Figure 6 - A schematic or how the radius of the "cone"
Again, both designs of bottle were tested against each other was calculated as a function of height
this time at 4 and 8 bar initial pressures9. Due to the
difference in bottle geometry (as shown in figure 2), If this is applied to equation 12 we get
different models were used to ascertain the volume of the 1
water. The coke bottle was modelled as a cylinder, making Vw = πh 3 (tan θ ) 2 (13)
3
the change in volume from frame to frame
The volume of air is then the volume of the badoit bottle,
Vw = πr 2 h (11) (1l) minus the volume of water. Careful analysis of the stills
where Vw is the water volume in a given frame and h is the can be carried out, and profiles of the volume of air inside
height of the water level in a given frame. In the case of a the bottles during the thrust phase can be constructed11.
cylinder, r is constant, and the volume of air is simply the
volume of the coke bottle (2l) minus the volume of the B2. Results of air volume analysis with internal pressure
water still in it.
Pressure and volume against time for
10 badoit at 8 bar
The badoit bottle was modelled as a cone . This
complicates matters slightly as the volume of a cone is 900000 0 .0 0 12

1
Vw = πr 2 h (12) 800000

3 0 .0 0 1
700000
However, in this case r varies with height, decreasing as the
height decreases. This can be solved with simple geometry, 600000
0 .0 0 0 8
in that the angle between the centre of the cone and the

Volume (m 3)
Pressure (Pa)

cone’s slanted-side will remain constant. Figure 6 shows 500000

how this is done. In practice it is easier and more accurate to

400000 0 .0 0 0 6
measure h’ and the circumference (using a piece of string
and a ruler) at that point. This allows a calculation of the 300000

radius at that point, r. If r and h are known, è can be 0 .0 0 0 4

200000
calculated by trigonometry. And therefore the radius as a
function of height is given by h tan è. 10 0 0 0 0
0 .0 0 0 2

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

- 10 0 0 0 0 0

Time (s)
Pressure Volume

Figure 7 - A graph of internal pressure and air volume in

the rocket chamber as a function of time for a badoit bottle
with initial conditions of 8bar pressure and 325ml of
water.

9
Unfortunately bad light made the 6 bar static launch
impossible to analyse.
10
Even though the bottom of the bottle (as it would rest on
the supermarket shelf) is cylindrical in shape, the cone
model assumption is justified by the fact that the initial
volume of water was always 1/3 of a litre, and when turned
upside-down into launch position the level of water was still
within the cone section.
11
Due to practical difficulties with the transportation of
large amounts of equipment, it was not possible to film the
static launches and make the internal pressure measurements
at the same time. It has therefore been assumed that the
behaviour of the expansion is the same, regardless of the
measurement taken.
 Pressure and volume against time for Pressure and volume against time for coke
badoit at 4 bar at 4 bar

450000 0 .0 0 12 450000 0 .0 0 2 5

400000 400000

0 .0 0 1
350000 350000 0 .0 0 2

300000 300000
0 .0 0 0 8

Volume (m 3)
Volume (m 3)

Pressure (Pa)
Pressure (Pa)

250000 250000 0 .0 0 15

200000 0 .0 0 0 6 200000

150 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1

0 .0 0 0 4
10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

50000 0 .0 0 0 5
50000
0 .0 0 0 2

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

-50000 0 -50000 0

Time (s) Time (s)

Pressure Volume Pressure Volume

Figure 8 - A graph of internal pressure and air volume in Figure 10 - A graph of internal pressure and air volume in
the rocket chamber as a function of time for a badoit bottle the rocket chamber as a function of time for a coke bottle
with initial conditions of 4bar pressure and 325ml of with initial conditions of 4bar pressure and 660ml of
water. water.

B3. Discussion of volume results

Pressure and volume against time for coke In figures 7 and 8, it is strikingly obvious that the volume of
at 8 bar air in the bottle returns to 1 litre in about half the time it
takes for the pressure to reach atmospheric. This would lead
900000 0 .0025
to the conclusion that after about 0.06 seconds, only air is
800000 being discharged from the bottle. In terms of maximum
thrust, this is not ideal, and a higher initial volume of water
700000 0 .002
should be used12. However, when actually carrying out the
analysis on the stills from the high speed camera water and
600000
air can be seen mixing around 0.06. So whilst I was not able
Volume (m 3)

to quantify the volume of water, it should be noted that

Pressure (Pa)

500000 0 . 0 0 15

some water was present for a short time after 0.06 seconds.
400000
In comparison, in figures 9 and 10 for the coke bottle it is
300000 0 .001
worth noting that the time taken to reach maximum air
volume is relatively much longer (as much as three-quarters
200000 of the time to return to atmospheric pressure). When
observing the stills, it is also apparent that the air starts to
10 0 0 0 0 0 .0005
mix with the water relatively early in the coke bottle
0 compared to the badoit bottle.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

- 10 0 0 0 0 0
When the air starts to mix with the water the flow out of
Time (s) both bottles becomes turbulent. Once this occurs, the rate
Pressure Volume that the water level drops appears to slow down, especially
in the case of the coke bottles. This has caused a slight curve
Figure 9 - A graph of internal pressure and air volume in
on the graph. What I think could possibly be happening is a
the rocket chamber as a function of time for a coke bottle
“air-bubble” type effect (figure 11).
with initial conditions of 8bar pressure and 660ml of
water.

12
At the time of conducting the experiment the programme
designed to predict the optimum volume of water had not
been finalised.
 volume of water gives a large relative error, and even if the
absolute volume of the bottle was out by 10mls, very little
Perceived impact on the overall error would be made.
water level

The uncertainty in the volume of water. This actually varies

Coloured for the two different bottle designs due to the treatment of
Air water
the badoit bottle as a cone and the coke bottle as a cylinder.

Turbulent The volume of the coke bottle is given by equation 11. The
water and air radius r, and height of water h, are both measured quantities
mix
and will therefore have experimental uncertainties
Figure 11 - Possible "air-bubble" theory associated with them. The radius of the coke bottle remains
constant and is calculated by measuring the circumference
The way I propose this works is that as the water level gets of the bottle using a piece of string and a ruler. This gives r
close to zero, the air is able to push past the water and as
escape through the nozzle. At the same time, the remaining c
water is trapped against the side of the bottle. In this r= (15)
situation the actual mass of water displaced, with respect to 2π
time, would decrease, even though the overall flow out of where c is the circumference, which gives the uncertainty in
the bottle could be the same. This effect would cause thrust r as
to decrease, as the mass flow rate would be less, due to the ∆c
∆r = (16)
relative densities of air and water. There is evidence to
2π
support this (albeit slightly circumstantial), in that in several
If c can be measured to within 0.25cm then Är is 0.04cm.
consecutive stills, water is seen exiting through the nozzle,
The height of the water in the bottle changes as the water is
but there appears to be no decrease in water level. This is
expelled, and is measured by viewing the stills from the
slightly circumstantial because the air gap that may be
high speed camera. This is not without its problems, chiefly
present is masked by the coloured water pressed against the
because the water level is not always horizontal and the
sides.
ruler in shot is slightly blurred. I have estimated that I can
read height to an accuracy of 0.5cm, but this could be
I don’t believe that any of the kinks commonly found in all
slightly optimistic. The formula for the uncertainty in
volume plots are anything significant. They are far more
volume of water for the coke bottle is therefore
likely to be the result of some experimental error,
 ∆V   2 ∆r   ∆h 
2 2 2
propagated in the rather crude way the volume is measured.
  =  +  (17)
B4. Notes on uncertainties  V   r   h 
It is obvious that the error will increase as the height of the
As the plots above are not needed to prove the nature of the water approaches zero.13
expansion (that is the job of the PV and PVã graphs), I have
decided to omit the error bars as I feel they detract from the The volume of the badoit bottle is given by equation 13, tan
useful information. A careful analysis of uncertainty in P è has been produced by two other measurements, and
and V is needed nonetheless, as this information is used to therefore we must first step back to find its uncertainty. As
assess whether or not the expansion can be classed as shown in figure 6, the circumference and height were
isothermal. measured. By applying equation 16; Är is once again
0.04cm. The height of the bottle in the laboratory can be
The uncertainty in pressure is calculated by repeating the measured to 0.25cm which means the uncertainty in tan è
experiment several times for each pressure and bottle design can be solved.
 ∆ tan θ   ∆r   ∆h 
2 2 2
(figures 4 and 5). Due to the sensitive nature of the
equipment used, random fluctuations occur. The values used   =  +  (18)
to plot pressure in figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 were the mean of  tan θ   r   h 
the readings at a given time and this makes the uncertainty To find the uncertainty in the volume for the badoit bottle
in these values apply this to equation 13, and the uncertainty in the volume
σ as the stills are analysed becomes
(14)
 ∆V   3∆h   2∆ tan θ 
2 2 2
n   =  +  (19)
where n is the number of repeat readings taken.  V   h   tan θ 
Again as h tends to zero the uncertainty will once again tend
The uncertainty in volume of air: for this I have made an to infinity.
assumption that the volumes of the badoit and coke bottles,
when full, are exactly 1 and 2 litres respectively. This means
13
that the uncertainty in the volume of air is the same as the This is the reason that the last few error bars have been
uncertainty in the volume of water. It becomes clear that this omitted from figures 12, 13, 14 and 15 as they would be
is justified because the crude method of measuring the infinite.
C1. Comparison between isothermal and adiabatic Adiabatic treatment of the expansion for
expansion of the gas in the rocket chamber. badoit bottles at 4 and 8 bar

In the previous two sections pressure and volume with

60
respect to time have been carefully analysed. From this, the
nature of the expansion in the rocket chamber is easy to
calculate by applying equations 8 and 9. 50

(Pa m 4.2)
C2. Results of the different treatment of the expansion 40

gamma
Isothermal treatment of the expansion for
30
badoit bottles at 4 and 8 bar

Pressure . Volume
20
800

700 10
3)

600
0
Pressure . Volume (Pa m

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

500
-10
400 Time (s)

300
8 bar 4 bar
200
Figure 13 - A graph PV ã against time for badoit bottles at
100 initial pressures of 8 and 4 bar and 325mls of water. Only
the period up until the volume of the air in the bottle
0 reaches 1 litre has been plotted.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Isothermal treatment of the expansion for
Time (s) coke bottles at 4 and 8 bar

8 bar 4 bar
1400
Figure 12 - A graph PV against time for badoit bottles at
initial pressures of 8 and 4 bar and 325mls of water. Only 1200
the period up until the volume of the air in the bottle
3)

reaches 1 litre has been plotted. 1000

Pressure . Volume (Pa m

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-200
Time (s)

8 bar 4 bar

Figure 14 - A graph PV against time for coke bottles at

initial pressures of 8 and 4 bar and 660mls of water. Only
the period up until the volume of the air in the bottle
reaches 2 litre has been plotted.

Adiabatic treatment of the expansion for
coke bottles at 4 and 8 bar
120
100
(Pa m 4.2)
80
gamma
60
Pressure . Volume
40
20
0 densities of water and air, less thrust.
0 0.05 0.1
-20
-40
Time (s)
8 bar 4 bar
Figure 15 - A graph PV ã against time for coke bottles at
initial pressures of 8 and 4 bar and 660mls of water. Only
the period up until the volume of the air in the bottle
reaches 2 litre has been plotted.
C3. Discussion of expansion results
Firstly, it is important to note that in all four figures I have
only included data up to the point when the volume of air
first reaches the total volume for the given bottle. After this
point the air will continue to expand until atmospheric
pressure is reached. However, with no water in the bottle,
there is no way to quantify it. If you refer back to figures 7
to 10 it should be clear why the time scales for the latest
plots only go up to 0.06 and 0.15 seconds for badoit and
coke bottles respectively.
If we examine figures 12 and 13, it is clear that the adiabatic
treatment does give a more defined straight line. However,
there is not a large difference between the two treatments,
and within experimental error there is definitely a case for
the use of isothermal expansion. It also appears that the
different initial pressures make only a marginal difference to
the expansion.
In figures 14 and 15 for the coke bottle, the different
treatments of the expansion give a more pronounced
difference in the plots, and this time a horizontal straight
line cannot be constructed for the isothermal expansion. In
fact, even the adiabatic treatment does not yield good
results, but they are within experimental uncertainty. What
is interesting is the comparison between the badoit bottles
and the coke bottles, and we may have a clue to one of the
reasons for the increased performance of the former.
As already stated, for a badoit bottle an isothermal treatment
is possible within experimental uncertainty, whereas for
coke bottles this is not acceptable. This implies that the coke
bottle is losing more thermal energy during the expansion,
and hence losing more of its potential thrust. Part of this will
simply be due to the longer time period it takes to expel all
the water (because there was more water to start with).
However, the bottle design itself may also play a significant
role. If the “air-bubble” effect, mentioned in section B3 is
actually a feature of reality, then in the badoit bottle, water
held at the sides of the bottle, will be more easily ejected at
a higher pressure, than that of a coke bottle, (as is seen in
figures 7 to 10) due to its funnel like design. This is in
contrast to the schematic of the coke bottle shown in figure
11, where water can get trapped allowing more air to escape
at a higher pressure (velocity). This will leave the remaining
water to be ejected with less velocity, and due to the relative
0.15
An interesting feature of the plots is the curious peaks at
around 0.06 to 0.08 seconds for the coke bottle and 0.04 to
0.05 seconds for the badoit bottle. This is obviously a result
of my perceived water level analysis, but again this fits the
air-bubble theory and the parallels it draws between
different bottle designs versus performance. This is because
the peak in the badoit bottle plots appears much closer to the
end of the thrust phase, translating to less of a period of
water and air mixing.
C4. Uncertainty in the plots
If the calculations mentioned in section B4 have been
carried out, calculation of the error bars for the PV plots are
simply
 ∆PV   ∆P   ∆V 
2 2 2
  =  +  (20)
 PV   P   V 
Equally simply, the error bars for the PVã plots are
generated using the following
 ∆PV γ   ∆P   γ∆V 
2 2
 γ
 =   +  (21)
 PV   P   V 
In both cases the error in volume is dominant.
D1. Calculating the thrust of the rockets
A key motivation for carrying out some of the experimental
technique as described in this report was that thrust as a
function of time can actually be measured. This is done in
accordance with equation 7 as opposed to being inferred by
attempting to measure volume as in previous years [7].
Equation 7 is only applied when just the water is flowing
out of the bottle. However, as has been conclusively shown,
the water can run out or mix with the air long before the
internal chamber returns to atmospheric pressure. This
means that the simple relationship in equation 7 cannot be
completely applied to the values displayed in figures 4 and
5. All is not lost though, as from the analysis of the high
speed camera stills, the point at which the water runs out
can be determined as shown in figures 7 to 10. The next
question is how to treat thrust once the water has gone;
Finney [1] assumes that the resulting air burst has a
negligible effect on thrust. In this situation the thrust would
drop to zero the instant the volume of air was equal to the
volume of the bottle. However, one of my colleagues has
assumed otherwise [8]. In his work he has made a case that
once the water has been expelled the thrust can be
represented as
T = PAe (22)
This is based on the principle that the pressure inside the
bottle is acting in every direction, and is balanced by the
walls of the bottle in every direction except one; the nozzle.
The treatment of water-propelled thrust and air-propelled
thrust can then be combined and the transducer data can be
analysed right down to atmospheric pressure, as long as the
switch from the camera stills is identified.14 I went through
and analysed the data for both the badoit and coke bottles at
8 bar. A computer simulation has been written for this
project [8] which is based on adiabatic expansion and the air
burst contribution principle. Using the initial conditions of
the experiments, this simulation was then run to produce a
set of data points that should be in agreement with
experiment.
D2. Results of thrust calculations and comparison to
computer simulation.
Comparison of experiment to simulation
thrust in badoit bottles
600
500
400
Thrust (N)
300
200
10 0
0 there is an air and water mix phase that also has a bearing on
0 0 .0 2 0 .0 4
- 10 0
Time (s)
Badoit experimental Badoit simulation
Figure 16 – The experimental results in comparison with
the simulation for a badoit bottle at initial conditions 8 bar
and 325mls water. The sharp drop in the graph is the point
at which the water thrust switches to air thrust. Also the
14
This is obviously not as clear-cut as it might sound.
Various features of the transition between expelling air and
expelling water have already been discussed, but for the
sake of this piece of work it is assumed that the change is
assigned to one particular photo frame.
very early stage of the experimental launch has been
omitted as this is when the launcher is being forced out
and the simulation does not take this into account.
Comparison of experiment to simulation
thrust in coke
600
500
400
Thrust (N)
300
200
10 0
0
0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 .15
- 10 0
Time (s)
Coke experimental Coke simulation
Figure 17 – The experimental results in comparison with
the simulation for a coke bottle at initial conditions 8 bar
and 660mls of water. The sharp drop in the simulation is
where it believes all the water has been expelled from the
bottle. Again the stage of launch up to the launch
mechanism exit has been omitted.
D3. Discussion of thrust results.
The simulation has one very basic flaw. It works on the
principle that all the water is expelled before all the air is
expelled. It has two different equations to describe this
phenomenon and there is an exact moment in time that it
switches from one to the other. Reality is not like this and
0 .0 6 0 .0 8
thrust.
In figure 16 the badoit bottle experiment appears to be in
excellent agreement with the simulation. I believe this is
because in badoit bottles, the air and water mix phase is
right at the end of the burnout phase and lasts for a very
short time. This has already been proven in other parts of
the investigation and means that reality is close to the
defined step used by the simulation. In figure 17 the
agreement between simulation and experiment for the coke
bottle is terrible after the simulation switches to air
propulsion. In coke bottles it has been shown that the air and
water mix phase takes place a significant amount of time
before burnout. This is far from the step change used in the
simulation.
  2( P2 − P1 ) 
Figure 17 is slightly misleading as it appears that the coke
bottles have superior thrust compared to the badoit bottles.15 U =   (23)
However I feel there are deficiencies in both the simulation  ρ air 
and the experimental results as neither account for the mix
phase. A water thrust stage and an air thrust stage alone are where P2 is the static pressure and P1 is given by the
not enough to realistically model reality. There needs to be a pressure in the Pitot tube. The wind velocity was varied by
thrust stage attributed to the air/water mix stage. But this is opening a flap close to the fan by varying degrees.
far from a trivial thing to factor in due to turbulent flow, and
the fact that the initial pressure may have some bearing on
how quickly the air-bubble effect occurs. I feel the mix
Sting Mass balance
stage would actually be detrimental to total altitude gain in
free flight because although water is ejected for longer than
in a sharp cut-off situation, the mass that the bottle is Fan
carrying will be greater for a longer period of time, making
the force due to gravity more prominent. After the mix
phase has started the remaining water will also not be
ejected with as high a velocity as it could have been,
because the pressure inside the rocket is dropping Static pressure Pitot
continuously. Therefore this process is less efficient than a tube
bottle which undergoes little or no mix phase and dispenses
all its primary fuel quickly and in one go. The simulation Figure 18 - Schematic of the wind tunnel experiment
currently models one such ideal rocket, and to a good
approximation appears to be how the badoit bottle behaves. The mass balance is used to measure the drag force and the
This makes the badoit bottle a more efficient thrust equation 10 can be rearranged to give a value for the
delivering machine than the coke bottle. coefficient of drag.

IV. DRAG FORCE ANALYSIS
To produce an optimum rocket one must maximise thrust
and minimise drag, although in previous years’ work [7] a
value for the coefficient of drag has been looked up in a text
book and the assumption has been made that “For moderate
speeds Cd is independent of the size of the object and the
speed of the airflow”[1]. I saw some merit in making the
measurement of the coefficient of drag for the different
designs of bottle at varying wind speeds for ourselves.
An initial thought on how to measure the coefficient of drag
involved a pulley system, a spring balance and driving
extremely fast down the motorway with the rocket trailing
behind. Fortunately the use of a wind tunnel was secured
courtesy of the Mechanical Engineering department.
The reasons for selecting the test subjects used in the
experiment are as follows. Fins are a vital part of successful
rocket construction, if a vertical flight is to be achieved.
They work on the principle that if the rocket starts to tilt in
flight, more air will press against the protruding fin and
therefore straighten the rocket flight. However having fins
will add to the overall drag experienced by the rocket, so a
key aim was to quantify the extra drag caused by adding
fins. Minimising drag is essential to create an efficient
rocket, making it preferable to ensure rockets are as
aerodynamic as possible. One way to do this is to add a nose
cone. The effect on drag by adding nose cones was also to
be investigated. Finally the difference in performance
between badoit bottles and coke bottles could once again be
assed to see if further explanation for the increased
performance of the badoit bottles can be identified.

A1. Making drag measurements A2. Results of drag measurements

The apparatus was set up as shown in figure 18. The body

under test is mounted in the wind tunnel supported on the
“sting” of a drag force balance. There were 8 variations of
rocket to be tested. They were: badoit with no fins and no
cone; badoit with no fins but with cone; badoit with fins but
no cone; badoit with fins and a cone; coke with no fins and
no cone; coke with no fins but with cone; coke with fins but
no cone, and coke with fins and a cone. For each variation
measurements were taken at 5 different air speeds. An
electronic monometer was used to measure the static
pressure and the pressure in the Pitot tube and from this the
air speed in the working section can be calculated using the
following equation

15
The area under the graph would be total thrust.
 suited due to its rather small size and the fact that under
Coefficient of drag against air speed for normal use it would not test a body the length of our
badoit bottles rockets. The major problem was that the rocket was held in
place right at the nozzle end. This made it quite unstable
0 .5 when the air flowed. As the airspeed increased, in some
0 .4 5
cases the rocket would shake from side to side eventually
crashing against the walls. To avoid this happening the wind
0 .4
tunnel was operated at lower speeds than it is capable of.
Coefficient of drag

0 .3 5
This said some reasonable conclusions can still be made
0 .3 from the data.
0 .2 5

0 .2
Firstly it seams fairly conclusive that the coefficient of drag
is lower for badoit bottle rockets than it is for coke bottle
0 .15
rockets. This is going to be a key reason why badoit rockets
0 .1
consistently outperform coke rockets in altitude tests. In
0 .0 5 general Cd appears to be invariant of air speed (within
0 experimental uncertainty). In most cases adding a nose cone
15 20 25 30 35
appears to have had a positive effect on reducing drag. One
Air speed (ms -1) problem with the data is that it appears that the badoit bottle
with nose cone and fins (i.e. the complete badoit rocket) has
No f ins No cone Fins No cone a Cd value that increases with air speed, contradicting
earlier assumptions. However I do not believe my data to be
No f ins cone Fins cone
entirely accurate due so the experimental problems
discussed earlier and would still agree with Finney [1] that
“For moderate speeds Cd is independent of the size of the
Figure 19 A graph showing the coefficient of drag for
object and the speed of the airflow”.
various configurations of badoit bottles at different air
speeds From the data collected it would be hard to ascertain a
reliable Cd value for either rocket, but in saying that a
typical value [9] for a streamlined strut similar to the badoit
Coefficient of drag against air speed for coke
bottle is 0.12 and for a more cylindrical shape such as the
bottles
coke bottle, about 1. Within experimental error (and a bit of
imagination) our results do fit this. I do believe better results
1.6
could be obtained using a more appropriately sized wind
1.4 tunnel. Also it would be interesting to test at much greater
air speeds more akin to those experienced by the rocket at
1.2
launch.
Coefficient of drag

A4. Notes on uncertainties.

0 .8

0 .6 Although slightly dissatisfied with the drag experiment as a

whole it is still important to handle the experimental
0 .4
uncertainty in the proper analytical way. To calculate the
0 .2 drag coefficient the quantities measured were the static
pressure, the Pitot tube pressure, the mass balance readings,
0
15 20 25 30 35
and the area of the body normal to the air flow, all of which
have an uncertainty associated with them.
Air speed (ms -1)
The pressure readings were taken using an electronic
No f ins No cone Fins No cone manometer accurate to ± 0.005mbar, however, when
No f ins cone Fins cone conducting the experiment the pressure fluctuated quite a lot
for each reading. Therefore it was decided to take the
approximate mid point as the true value and the upper and
Figure 20 - A graph showing the coefficient of drag for lower values as the uncertainty. For each air speed as
various configurations of coke bottles at different air calculated by equation 23 the uncertainty in wind speed was
speeds calculated as

2 (∆P2 ) 2 + (∆P1 ) 2
A3. Discussion of the drag results ∆U = (24)
ρ 2 P2 − P1
I am a little disappointed by the results from this
experiment. Unfortunately the wind tunnel was not ideally The drag force measured by the mass balance also
fluctuated, especially when the rocket began to shake. The
upper, lower and midpoint of the fluctuation were once
again taken for the value and uncertainty. The area of the
body normal to the flow was calculated as the diameter of
the test bottle at the widest point. This was calculated from
measuring the circumference accurate to 0.25cm. This made
the uncertainty in the diameter d, 0.08cm following a similar
argument to equation 16. The uncertainty in the coefficient
of drag can the be calculated as
2
 ∆C d 
2 2 2
∆F   ∆A   2∆V 
 = 
  +  +  (25)
 Cd   F   A   V 
The value of Cd was calculated for each air speed and the
error bars are shown on the graphs.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Having water in the rocket chamber does not appear to
hinder the pressure dropping, at least in tests up to 8 bar. For
further work it would be interesting to run some trials at
higher (but safe) pressures and also with more and less
water in the chamber, and even trials with just pressurised
air.
I conclude that the expansion of the gas in the chamber
should be treated as adiabatic, although in certain more
efficient bottle designs isothermal treatment is acceptable.
I believe the assumption that all water is expelled before air
can escape has been proved wrong, and that an “air-bubble”
type effect may be present. This can have a significant effect
on the model, and the magnitude of this effect is dependant
on bottle design and may be affected by initial pressure.
This could be a line of enquiry for further work to see if air
at a higher initial pressure can push past the water more
effectively. Also in the treatment of thrust it is necessary to
include the air water mix stage. Adding this to the
simulation may not be easy but would be worth while.
loan of the high speed camera, John Gwynn for his early
help with the direction of the project and offer of equipment.
http://waterocket.explorer.free.fr
and finally my proof readers Matt Waller and Callum
Gibson for spotting my mistakes.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] G. A. Finney, Analysis of a water-propelled rocket: A
problem in honours physics, Am. J. Phys 68 (3), 223-227
(2000)
[2] Joseph M. Prusa, Hydrodynamics of a Water Rocket,
SIAM Review Vol 42, No 4, pp. 719-726, (2000)
[3]Richard Fitzpatrick, Isothermal and adiabatic expansion,
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node52.ht
ml (2002)
[4] Paul A. Tipler, Physics for scientists and engineers, 4th
edition, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. p.589
[5] Martin Priest, Laboratory two: Drag on a sphere,
MECH 2270 handout, University of Leeds.
[6] Simple drag tests for water rockets,
www.seeds2learn.com © Seeds software (2001)
[7] Luke Timms, Be a rocket scientist, University of Leeds
physics department (2001)
[8] Andy Gibson, Computer modelling of water rockets,
University of Leeds physics department (2005)
[9] Munson, Young and Okiishi, Fundamentals of fluid
mechanics, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York

I conclude that badoit bottles produce a more efficient thrust

and have a lower coefficient of drag than coke bottles. This
allows them to achieve the higher altitudes seen in both
simulation and experiment, although it would be nice if a
more accurate experiment to measure the coefficient of drag
at higher air speed were devised.

VI. ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
Firstly I would like to thank my project partners Andy
Gibson, for writing a fantastic simulation and Jo Holloway
for helping with some of the experimental work. Thanks to
Rob Wolley, Andy Burton and the rest of the technical staff
of the thermodynamics lab in Mechanical Engineering for
all their help with the wind tunnel and pressure transducer.
This project would not have been possible without them. I
would like to thank Stuart Weston, for coming up with a
practical solution to every problem we threw at him, Ann
and Sue in the lab, for all their hard work and support, Dr J.
Knapp, for keeping the project on track and always being
there for advice, EPSRC engineering instrument pool for the
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS OF THE POSSIBLE AIR-BUBBLE EFFECT AT 8 BAR

BADOIT BOTTLE COKE BOTTLE

Notice very little

water left in the
badoit bottle
whilst coke
bottle apparently
has a significant
volume of water

Turbulent
flow just
starting to
occur