McCloskey-Williams

Introduction

Imagine your childhood, watching saturday morning cartoons when the Jetsons

comes on. Your childhood self watches excitedly as the shows theme song plays with

George Jetson and the family huddle in their hover car on their way to their daily

activities. But what is that trailing behind the flying car? Why those little rings trailing

behind are vortices. Even back in 1962, when the show first aired, vortices were

considered an idea for propulsion.

An air vortex is created by a powerful blast of air that the vortex forms around.

The air needs to move fast enough to cause a vacuum to be formed that in turn forms the

vortex. The vortex itself is a self propelling ring of air that moves at half the speed of the

center ring of air, but has momentum to keep it moving. The ring is also more buoyant

due to the vacuum it creates, which allows the vortex to have more force on solid objects.

Vortices have long been a theoretical method for propulsion. What was once

science fiction in a cartoon could be used as a real life method for travel. Vortices could

also be used for fighting fires. A vortex formed with ionized air could be shot down a

hallway full of smoke can dissipate the toxic fumes. Using this idea, some large scale

vortex propulsion units have been made to supposedly clear/dissipate incoming storms.

The research on how to create a more accurate and powerful vortex could surmount these

uses.

The vortex propulsion unit used a barrel to create the air vortex. The barrel

controls the air being propelled to allow it to either be more or less concentrated and

dense. The barrel also controls the size of the vortex depending on how wide the barrel is,

which could affect the precision of the vortex. If the pressure inside the vortex propulsion
McCloskey-Williams

unit is consistent, then the barrel depending on if it is a closing or opening cone will

distribute that pressure over a smaller or larger area respectively.

This experiment tested different types and lengths of barrels on the force and

precision in a vortex propulsion unit. The lengths of the barrels used were two inches,

three inches, and four inches. The type of barrels used were opening barrel, straight

barrel, and closing barrel. The force for these factors was tested by firing them at a 10 N

force sensor in order to determine the force of each vortex. The precision was recorded

by filming a trial where the vortex was fired at a soft surface in order to see the vortex

ring. The film was then uploaded to the Logger Pro software and the center of the vortex

was found.
McCloskey-Williams

Review of Literature

When someone hears the word vortex, they think of a mass of swirling air or

water, spiraling through space, destroying everything in its path. While a large-scale

vortex can be capable of destruction, there are many smaller scale vortices everywhere

around us. Smoke rings, energy vortices, and water spouts are more common and known

vortices. Some people such as Curtis Graber, Robert Thorne, and Hermann Viets have

issued patents on devices used to create vortices. With these machines came a question

though: how does someone create the most powerful gust or vortex?
McCloskey-Williams

A vortex is a spiralling mass, usually air, that surrounds some sort of vacuum

which creates the inward spiralling motion.

Figure 1. Vortex Ring (Science)

Figure 1 shows the vortex ring that is created by the core of the air movement

through a straight opening. The actual ring itself has a translation separate from the core
McCloskey-Williams

that is slower but also has a slower acceleration, which means it will maintain its

velocity for a longer amount of time.

When discussing vortices, two common topics are air displacement and pressure.

On the bounds of the experiment, the air pressure is the amount of pressure acting on the

air while it is inside the vortex propulsion devices. The different devices will have

varying air pressures. The air displacement is simply the amount of air moved by firing

the vortex propulsion unit (Muller). As air builds up inside the chamber of the

propulsion unit, the air pressure increases and when the ball valve is opened all the

pressured air expels/displaces out to the surrounding area in the form of a vortex.

People such as Graber and Thorne have their own patents on different vortex

generators. Grabers generator relied on a controlled detonation, expelling air from a

specific area so quickly that it essentially purges gases from a chamber inside the device

(Graber) while Thornes took a safer and less powerful approach, using elastic to propel

the air. These experiments not only used different propulsion methods but different

barrels too with Grabers having a conical barrel that was opening, which lowered the

pressure of the vortex, and Thornes used a barrel that was mostly straight, but closed

slightly at the end to increase the pressure of the vortex.

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 2. Thorne Air Gun Design (Thorne)

In Figure 2, the vortex being created by this barrel can be seen, as well as the

barrel design that Thorne used. Graber and Thornes barrel shapes were adapted to this

research, and Grabers quick release method was adapted to be used in this experiment.

Unlike Graber and Thorne, Viets used a straight barrel, similar to the standard of

the experiment. Viets also used pressure with different temperature air to create the

vortex rather using the barrel, but the barrel allowed for the direction of the vortex to be

controlled (Viets). Another research performed by microsoft showed no use of a barrel,

but only displaced a small amount of air from a proportionally much larger volume.

Many types of propulsion were tested such as elastic and pressure and it was found that

the amount of air displaced was directly related to the distance the vortex traveled

without a barrel (Yu).

Barrels are an important part of any type of vortex propulsion device. The Art and

Science of Barrel Making (Spotti) held some interesting information on barrels. Barrels

are, in the most basic terms, a tube, usually at the end of a gun, that focuses anything

that can be propulsed out from the device. Barrels use a circling groove inside the barrel

to spin whatever is being propelled. These grooves spin the projectile, essentially
McCloskey-Williams

creating a vortex within the barrel itself. Longer barrels are known for making the effect

more profound by giving whatever is being propelled more time to spin.

This experiment tested the effects of barrel type and length on the force and

precision of a vortex. The types of barrels that were used were opening cone barrel,

straight barrel, and closing cone. The opening and closing barrels were commonly found

in other vortex propulsion units such as Grabers and Thornes respectively, and the

straight barrel was used as a good way to see the effects that the other barrels had on the

vortices being created. The different lengths used were two inches, three inches, and four

inches. These numbers were used due to the limitations of the 3D printer used, but

different lengths were used to allow for more or less momentum of the vortex being

created But the difference in the distance also meant more contact time with the vortex. .
McCloskey-Williams

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine which combination of barrel type (closing cone, straight barrel, or opening

cone) and barrel length (2 inches, 3 inches, or 4 inches) will create the most powerful and precise

air vortices.

Hypothesis:

The use of the closing cone barrel and the longest barrel length will create a vortex that is

the most precise and has the most force.

Data Measured:

The independent variables of this experiment were the barrel type (closing cone, straight

barrel, or opening cone) and barrel length (2 inches, 3 inches, or 4 inches). The dependent

variables were the force in newtons and the standard deviation of the distance from the center of

a target. Two two-factor DOEs were used to analyze the significance of the barrel type and

length in the force and precision of an air vortex.

McCloskey-Williams

Experimental Design

Materials:

3D Printer ABS Filament

Mesh Jacket 1.5 PVC Cap
1.5 Ball Valve (3) 8x11 construction paper
24 x 1.5 PVC Vernier Force Sensor
Ti-nspire Calculator Pressure Valve
Air Compressor (100 psi) Digital Video Camera
Vernier Labquest Logger Pro Software
(2) 10 in of 1.5 square inch aluminum Masking Tape
(2) 5x4x2 Blocks of Wood (stand) Laptop
Meter Stick

Procedure:

Setup

1. Randomize your trials, see Appendix A

2. Construct the vortex propulsion unit by attaching the 1,5 PVC Cap to one end of the
24 x 1.5 PVC and the 1.5 Ball Valve to the other. Then, attach the pressure valve to
the PVC.

3. Secure the propulsion unit using Appendix B to set up for force trials and use

Appendix C to set up for precision trials.

4. Fit the corresponding barrel, based on the trial, onto the end of the blaster.

5. Fill the compressor with air until the pressure gauge reads 100 psi.

6. Connect the air hose to the compressor and the Bike Tire nozzle to fill the vortex
propulsion unit to approximately 96 psi (the max pressure that can be gotten with the
compressor varied 1)
Data Collection (Force)

7. Turn the pipe valve to launch the vortex at the force sensor.

8. Analyze the graph on the Logger Pro software to find the greatest force.

9. Repeat to 4-8 for each trial.

McCloskey-Williams

Data Collection (Precision)

7. Start recording the trial on the camera.

8.Turn the pipe valve to launch the vortex at the mesh jacket.

9. Upload the video to the Logger Pro software and find the precision of the vortex, see

Appendix D.

10. Repeat steps 4-9 for each trial.

Diagrams:

Figure 3. Materials

Figure 3 shows the materials used in this research though the Ti-nspire, 3D

printer, and ABS filament are not pictured.

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 4. Vortex Propulsion Unit

Figure 4 shows the assembled vortex propulsion unit prepared to run a standard

trial.

Figure 5. Precision Trial Setup

Figure 5 shows the setup for a standard precision trial. The data from this trial was

not one used in the DOE as it was a test trial.

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 6. Force Trial Setup

Figure 6 shows the setup of a standard trial to measure the force. The data from
this trial was not used as it was a test trial.
McCloskey-Williams

Data and Observations

Table 1
Propulsion Unit Force Data (in Newtons)
DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Trial Type DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average
Trials Trials Trials (Force) (Force) (Force) (Force)

1 1 1 Standard 2.015 1.738 1.513 1.877

2 6 2 (+ +) 0.366 0.156 0.611 0.498

5 3 5 (+ -) 1.250 1.085 0.904 1.080

4 4 4 Standard 1.693 2.075 2.097 1.877

6 2 3 (- +) 6.393 6.655 6.492 6.513

3 5 6 (- -) 8.224 6.863 7.514 7.534

7 7 7 Standard 2.015 1.607 2.143 1.877

Table 1 demonstrates the force of the vortex found for each trial of each DOE (see

Appendix F). They were found by shooting a vortex from the propulsion unit at a force

sensor. Under trial type, the first variable is barrel type (closing cone as the low, straight

barrel as the standard, opening cone as the high) and the second is the barrel length (2, 3,

4 in). Under the average column, the average of the three values of each trial type for the

DOEs was calculated and recorded.

Table 2
Propulsion Unit Precision Data (Inches from Average)
DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Trial Type DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average
Trials Trials Trials (Inches (Inches (Inches (Inches
From From From From
Avg.) Avg.) Avg.) Avg.)

1 1 1 Standard 0.757 0.295 2.030 2.390

2 6 2 (+ +) 1.767 13.062 0.934 5.254

McCloskey-Williams

Table 2
Propulsion Unit Precision Data (Inches from Average)
DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Trial Type DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average
Trials Trials Trials (Inches (Inches (Inches (Inches
From From From From
Avg.) Avg.) Avg.) Avg.)

5 3 5 (+ -) 5.790 6.130 4.271 5.397

4 4 4 Standard 0.801 3.506 4.143 2.390

6 2 3 (- +) 0.763 0.597 9.885 3.892

3 5 6 (- -) 7.303 0.788 6.764 4.591

7 7 7 Standard 0.542 3.351 4.419 2.390

Above, table 2 demonstrates the precision of the vortices from each trial of each

DOE (see Appendix G). The trials were conducted by filming the corresponding vortex at

a soft material that the vortex would leave an impression on. The video would then be

uploaded to the Logger Pro software, where using the programs video analysis tools, the

center of the vortex was found. The first part of the precision of the vortex would then be

calculated by how far away the center was from the origin of the target. Since the test was

for precision, not accuracy, the average for each type of trial was then calculated. The

value under precision was derived from how far from this average the center of the vortex

was. Under trial type, the first variable is barrel type (closing cone, straight barrel,

opening cone) and the second is the barrel length (2, 3, 4 in). Under average, the average

of the three values of each trial type for the DOEs was calculated and recorded.

Table 3
Propulsion Unit Observations
McCloskey-Williams

Material Type Observations

Closing cone Not only created the most powerful vortex, but was the easiest
(-) to work with for finding precision.

Straight Barrel The vortex shot as expec, it was not as powerful as the closing
Standard cones, but was on average more powerful than the opening
cone.

Opening Cone The force of the opening cone was extremely low, and when
(+) the precision ww bin found, it was extremely difficult to even
see the vortex impact in videos.

Table 3 above shows the observations found by the researchers during their

experimentation. The variables for barrel type are as follows: closing cone for smallest

exit diameter (low), straight barrel for an average exit diameter (standard), which is also

the same diameter as the PVC used for the propulsion units tank, and opening cone for

largest exit diameter (high). The smaller the size of the exit diameter also seemed to affect

how easy it was to observe the impression left by the vortex on the impression material,

which in turn made it easier to find the how precise the propulsion unit was on Logger

Pro.
McCloskey-Williams

Data Analysis and Interpretation

This experiment was meant to test the the force and precision of a vortex based on

two separate differences in the barrel. These factors were the barrel type (closing cone,

straight barrel, and opening cone) and barrel length (2, 3, and 4 inches). A 10 newton

force sensor was attached to a target and was shot by the vortex propulsion unit. After

being shot by the vortex, the force sensor transferred data through a labQuest to a laptop

with Logger Pro software. On the Logger Pro program, the force of the vortex could be

seen and then recorded. Simultaneously, each trial was captured on camera. These videos

were transferred to another computer with the Logger Pro software. The video was

inserted onto a Logger Pro page and using the video analysis program built into Logger

Pro, the variance of where each vortex impacted the target was processed and then

recorded. There was enough time to complete three two-factor design of experiments

(DOEs). A DOE was appropriate for this particular type of research because multiple

factors were tested in a controlled environment in order to test a hypothesis. The

experiment was replicated three times (21 trials) in order to minimize the experimental

error (noise) which would allow the researchers to distinguish if the observed differences

in the data collected were real or just noise. Trial order for each DOE was

randomized using the randomize function on a TI Nspire calculator in order to minimize

potential uncontrollable biases. The results of the three DOEs were then averaged to
McCloskey-Williams

minimize the effects of any extraneous factors. A DOE has also been used in order to

evaluate which process inputs have a significant impact on the process output.

Table 4
Factors used in Experiment
Barrel Type Barrel Length

(-) Standard (+) (-) Standard (+)

Closing Cone Straight Barrel Opening Cone 2 in 3 in 4 in

Table 4 above shows the factors that were chosen in order to create the different

barrels for the vortex propulsion unit. The two factors of this experiment were barrel type

and barrel length. The table also reveals the highs, lows, and standards for each factor.

For barrel type, a closing cone shape was the low, a straight barrel was the standard, and

an opening cone shape was the high. The closing cone barrel was considered the low

barrel type because it had the smallest end diameter of the three barrels and the opening

cone was the high because it had the widest end diameter. The factors for barrel length

were as follows: 2 inches for the low, 3 inches for the standard, and 4 inches for the high.

These lengths were chosen because they had to be 3D printed and the 4 inch barrel

reached the limitations of the 3D printer.

Table 5
Averages of Two Experimental DOEs (Force)
McCloskey-Williams

DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 DOE Average

Trials
Force Force Force Force
(Newtons) (Newtons) (Newtons) (Newtons)
Standard 2.015 1.738 1.513 1.877
(+,+) 0.366 0.516 0.611 0.498
(+,-) 1.250 1.085 0.904 1.080
Standard 1.693 2.075 2.097 1.877
(-,+) 6.393 6.655 6.492 6.513
(-, -) 8.224 6.863 7.514 7.534
Standard 2.015 1.607 2.143 1.877
Grand Avg. 3.906

Table 5 shows the results of the experiment for the force section. The results for

all three of the DOEs were shown along with the average of all three combined. The

averages will be used to carry out the analysis of the data. The grand average of the trials

was 3.906. The grand average was used for the parsimonious prediction equation.

Table 6
Results of Standards (Force)
Standards (Newtons)

2.015 1.693 2.015 1.738 2.075 1.607 1.513 2.097 2.143

Table 6 shows the standards from all three of the DOEs. Nine total standards were

run with three in each DOE. Standards were typically used to show the validity of the

test. The standards were fairly close which shows that the data values were fairly accurate

and had minimal outside factors affecting the data.

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 7. Plot of Standards (Force)

Above in Figure 7, the standards were graphed together. There was no clear

pattern in the points of data, so biases can be assumed to be minimal. Each point appears

to have little or no effect from any obvious biases. The lowest recorded standard was

standard 7 (or trial 1 for DOE #3) at 1.513 N, and the highest recorded standard was

standard 9 (or trial 3 for DOE #3) at 2.143 N. The range from the highest to lowest

standard was 0.63. Doubling the range of standards would yield 1.26 newtons. Since the

even double the range of standards does not hold all of the data from the trials, there will

be at least one significant factor in the experiment.

Table 7
Effect of Barrel Type (Force)
(-) Closing Cone (+) Opening Cone
6.393 0.366
McCloskey-Williams

8.224 1.250
6.655 0.516
6.863 1.085
6.492 0.611
7.514 0.904
Avg = 7.024 Avg = 0.789

Table 7 shows the recorded values from each DOE and their ultimate averages to

see the effect that barrel type has the force of the vortex that was propelled from the

propulsion unit.

Figure 8. Effect of Barrel Type (Force)

In Figure 8, barrel type has a slope of -3.118. In order to find the effect of barrel

type, the average of when barrel type was held low, for force, must be subtracted from the

average of when barrel type was held high - (+,-) and (+,+). The effect of barrel type was

-6.235. When testing how barrel type affects the force of a vortex, it was the most

significant factor.

Table 8
McCloskey-Williams

Effect of Barrel Length (Force)

(-) 2 in (+) 4 in
1.250 0.366
8.224 6.393
1.085 0.516
6.863 6.655
0.904 0.611
7.514 6.492
Avg =4.307 Avg =3.506

Table 8 shows the recorded values from each DOE and their ultimate averages to

see the effect that barrel length has the force of the vortex that was propelled from the

propulsion unit.

Figure 9. Effect of Barrel Length (Force)

Figure 9 shows the effect of the barrel length on the force of the vortex. When

graphed, the effect of barrel length has a slope of 0.401. From this information we can
McCloskey-Williams

find the effect of barrel length which was -0.801. Barrel length had a much less effect on

the force than barrel type.

Table 9
Interaction Effect of Barrel Type and Barrel Length (Force)
(-) Type (+) Type
Solid Segment (Length) (+) 6.513 0.498
Dotted Segment (Length) (-) 7.534 1.08

Table 9 shows the interaction effect between barrel type and barrel length.

Figure 10. Interaction Effect of Barrel Type Type and Barrel Length

Figure 10 above shows the interaction effect between barrel type and barrel length

as they relate to the average forces recorded during the experiment. Between the two

variables, the positive barrel length and negative barrel length seem to have extremely

similar slopes. The slope of the positive barrel length segment (solid line), -3.008, minus

the slope of the negative barrel length segment (dotted line), -3.137, gives the effect of

barrel type vs barrel length, which was 0.219. Because of the similarity of the slopes of
McCloskey-Williams

the lines, there does not seem to be a significant interaction between barrel type and

barrel length.

It should be noted that even in the interaction effect, the force of the vortex when

barrel type was low was significantly higher than when type was held high. The effect

when barrel type was held low was nearly eight times more powerful than when it was

held high.

Figure 11. Effects with Double the Range of Standards (Force)

Figure 11 shows the effect of barrel type, barrel length, and the interaction

between type and length. The range of standards was 1.260, so lines can be found at either

end at -1.260 and 1.260 respectively. Any effects outside double the range of standards

were considered significant. The lone effect to be considered significant in this part of the

experiment was barrel type. Both the effects of length and the interaction between type

and length were deemed insignificant due to the fact that they reside within double the

range of standards.

Table 10
McCloskey-Williams

Averages of Two Experimental DOEs (Precision)

DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3
Trials DOE Average
Inches from Inches From Inches From
Avg Avg Avg Inches From Avg
Standard 0757 0.295 3.702 2.390
(+,+) 1.767 13.062 0.934 5.254
(+,-) 5.790 6.130 4.271 5.397
Standard 0.801 3.506 4.143 2.390
(-,+) 0.763 0.597 9.885 3.748
(-, -) 7.303 0.788 6.764 4.951
Standard 0.542 3.351 4.419 2.390
Grand Avg. 4.838

Table 10 shows the results of the experiment for precision. The results for all three

of the DOEs were shown along with the average of all three combined. The averages will

be used to carry out the analysis of the data. The grand average of the precision trials was

4.838 in. This was used in the parsimonious prediction equation.

Table 11
Results of Standards (Precision)
Standards (Inches from the Average)

0.757 0.801 0.542 0.295 3.506 3.351 3.703 4.143 4.419

Table 11 shows the standards from all three of the DOEs. Nine total standards

were run with three in each DOE. Once again standards were used in a DOE to test the

significance of the factors of the experiment. The standards have a fair good amount of

distance between them. It was unknown why, but after the fourth standard trial, the output
McCloskey-Williams

values jump from being under one inch away to 3 or 4 inches. This could make the data

questionable.

Figure 12. Plot of Standards

Above in Figure 12, the standards were spaced together. The lowest recorded

standard was standard #4 (or standard 1 of DOE #2) at 0.295 inches from the average and

the highest recorded standard was standard #9 (or standard #3 of DOE 3) at 4.419 inches

from the average. The range of standards 4.124, double the range of standards would be

8.248. This will be used to test the significance of each effect.

Table 12
Effect of Barrel Type (Precision)
(-) Closing Cone (+) Opening Cone
0.763 1.767
0.5973 13.06
9.885 0.934
7.303 5.790
McCloskey-Williams

0.788 6.130
6.764 4.271
Avg = 4.422 Avg = 5.326

Table 12 shows the average values from all three DOEs and their ultimate

averages to see the effect that barrel type has on a precision of the vortex propulsion unit.

Figure 13. Effect of Barrel Type (Precision)

In Figure 13, the effect of barrel type was 0.904. This was found by subtracting

the value when barrel type was held low from the value when barrel type was held high.

When testing how barrel type affects the precision of a vortex, it was had an opposite

effect than barrel length.

Table 13
Effect of Barrel Length (Precision)
(-) 2 in (+) 3 in
5.790 1.767
7.303 0.7603
6.130 13.06
0.7880 0.5970
McCloskey-Williams

4.271 0.9340
6.764 9.885
Avg = 5.174 Avg = 4.573

Table 13 shows the average values from all three DOEs and their ultimate

averages to see the effect that barrel type has on a precision of the vortex propulsion unit.

Figure 14. Effect of Barrel Length (Precision)

In Figure 14, the effect of the barrel length on precision of the vortex propulsion

unit was -0.601. When testing how barrel length affects the precision of a vortex, it had

the opposite effect than barrel type.

Table 14
Interaction Effect of Barrel Type and Barrel Length (Precision)
(-) Type (+) Type
Solid Segment (Length) (+) 3.892 5.254
Dotted Segment (Length) (-) 4.951 5.397
McCloskey-Williams

Table 14 shows the interaction effect between barrel type and barrel length. The

solid segment was when length was held high while the dotted line was when length was

held low.

Figure 15. Interaction Effect of Barrel Type and Barrel Length

Figure 15 shows the interaction effect between barrel type and barrel length as

they relate to the average forces recorded during the experiment. Between the two

variables, the positive barrel length and negative barrel length seem to have extremely

similar slopes. The slope of the positive barrel length segment (solid line), 0.6.81, minus

the slope of the negative barrel length segment (dotted line), 0.223, gives the effect of

barrel type vs barrel length, which was 0.458.

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 16. Effects with Double the Range of Standards (Precision)

Figure 16 shows the effect of barrel type, barrel length, and the interaction

between type and length. The range of standards was 8.248, so lines can be found at

either end at -8.248 and 8.248 respectively. Any effects outside double the range of

standards were considered significant. Because none of the factors in the experiment

were outside double the range of standards, none of them were considered statistically

significant. Not a single effect makes it past even -1 to 1.

y = 3.906 + (type effect)(t)+ noise

Figure 17. Parsimonious Prediction Equation (Force)

Figure 17 shows the parsimonious prediction equation for the force of a

vortex propelled from the propulsion unit. Unlike the prediction equation, the

parsimonious prediction equation only uses the effects that were deemed

significant. The range of the standards multiplied by two was 1.26 N. The only
McCloskey-Williams

factor that was deemed significant was barrel type because it resided outside of

the range of -1.260 x 1.260.

y = 4.838 + noise
Figure 18. Parsimonious Prediction Equation (Precision)

Figure 18 shows the parsimonious prediction equation for the precision

of a vortex. The range of the standards multiplied by two was 8.428. Both of the

effects reside within double the range of standards: -8.428x8.428; therefore,

none of the effects were significant, and they were left out of the parsimonious

prediction equation.

The hypothesis failed to stand up for itself in both the force and precision test.

The barrel type was a significant factor for the force test, but the hypothesis was still

rejected. While the closing cone resulted in the most force, it was the 3 in cone (7.534 N)

instead of the 5 in cone (6.513 N) that pushed the force to further heights. The results

were not completely as anticipated, its true that the 5in trial (Avg of 3.748 in) with the

closing cone was the most precise trial type (other than the standards, which yielded an

average of only 2.390 in), but the variance in all the trial types and the fact that none of

the factors were significant causes the data to be questionable.

McCloskey-Williams

Conclusion

The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether or not a barrel's type

(closing cone, straight barrel, opening cone) and length (2, 3, 4 in) had an effect on the

force and precision of an air vortex created by the vortex propulsion unit. The data was

analyzed using a two-factor DOE (one for force and one for precision) due to each of the

factors having a low, standard, and high value. This allowed for not only testing of each

effect individually on the force and precision, but also the interaction between the two

factors.

The researchers hypothesis was that the four inch closing cone would have the

greatest force and precision. There is an extremely strong correlation between the

different cone types and the force produced from the vortex. When the barrel is a closing

cone it reads vortex forces nearly four times greater than the opening cone and standard

barrels. The hypothesis was rejected for the force section of the research because the two

inch closing cone produced 7.53 N while the four inch closing cone produced only 6.51

N. The hypothesis was rejected for the precision of the vortex . No factor was deemed

significant and overall the standards were deemed the most precise.

For this experiment, type and length of the barrels were the factors used in the

DOE. The types of barrel used were closing cone, straight barrel, and opening cone. For

each trial, the same volume and pressure of air was used which means the barrel type

only adjusted the rate and direction that the air was being expelled. It was hypothesised

that the closing cone would be the most powerful due to it having the smallest contact

area with the same amount of pressure as the other types. It was also hypothesised that

the closing cone would be the most precise because of its shape controlling the air
McCloskey-Williams

vortex more than either the straight or opening cone barrel. Only the force hypothesis

was accepted based on the data, with the closing cone producing an average of 7.02 N

and the center of the vortex only being an average of 4.42 inches from the center.

The other factor was the length of the barrel being either two inches, three inches,

or four inches. With a longer barrel, the air vortex has more time to build momentum

before being released from the control of the barrel causing it to move in a more straight

path. The longer barrel was hypothesised to be more powerful and precise than the

others due to this, though only with the closing cone. This hypothesis was rejected for

this as the length had no effect on both the power and the precision. The range of the

data points for both tests fell within the range of standards when length was changed,

therefore it couldnt be significant.

If the experiment were repeated, there would be some changes. For starters, a

larger a tank and higher pressure would be essential to experiment on a larger scale

version of the experiment. Which would be more practical for a real life use. Another

factor that would change would be the base used for the vortex propulsion unit and the

target are taped down or weighed down using weights. A more permanent setup for the

experiment would make the data a lot more accurate. Next, the way that the test for

precision would be changed. Hopefully, a more accurate program could be used to find

the center points of each vortex, their distance from the average, and therefore the

precision of the vortices. Finally, more trials could always be useful. The more trials

taken, the more accurate the data becomes. With the data being more accurate, the

findings of the experiment become more significant to the scientific community.

McCloskey-Williams

This vortex research has a few real life applications. One use for this experiment

is being able to shoot ionized air down a smoke filled hallway in order to clear a path for

fire fighter to get in there and help civilians escape. Another use would be to disrupt

storms. Some farmers already use this method to seemingly disrupt storm clouds in order

to save their crops. However, they just shoot the vortex into the air. With our research

they can help focus the vortex into a certain part of a cloud in order to disrupt it more

effectively.
McCloskey-Williams

Appendix A: Trials Randomization

How to Randomize Trials:

1. Open a calculator page on the TI-nspire calculator or software.

Figure 19. Empty Calculator Page

Figure 19 shows a basic empty TI-nspire calculator page.

2. Use the random integer program on the calculator: randInt(1,4).

Figure 20. Random Integer Program

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 20 shows the specific randInt program used to randomize the experiment.

The 1 is the lower boundary for the possible outcome of the program, while the 4 is the

greatest possible outcome.

3. Repeat using the program until 1-4 all appear for each DOE.

Figure 21. Complete Randomization Example

Figure 21 shows the results of the randomization. Each number corresponds to

when a trial will be done. Since the first value is 2, the (+, +) trial will be the second

nonstandard trial run. The (+, -) trial was run 3rd, the (-, +) trial was 1st and the (-, -) trial

was run 4th.

McCloskey-Williams

Appendix B: Force Trial Set-up

1. Secure the wooden stands to the table top with masking tape.

2. Attach the force sensor with a target, made on three pieces of

construction paper, to the two pieces of aluminum stock (stacked on top of one
another) in line with the wooden stands.

3. Place the propulsion unit in the stands facing the force sensor so
that the tip of the barrel is 40 cm away from the target.

4. Secure three pieces of construction paper to the front of the force

sensor.

5. Plug the force sensor into the labQuest and the Labquest in turn
connected to the laptop with the Logger Pro software open
McCloskey-Williams

Appendix C: Precision Trials Set-up

1. Secure the two wooden stands to the table so they

can hold the propulsion unit.

2. Set up a box connected securely to the table in line

with the wooden stands

3. Set the propulsion unit into the stands 40 cm from

the face of the box

4. Secure the mesh jacket to the box so that it cover

the entire face of the the side of the box facing the propulsion unit .

5. Tape a cross in the center of the mesh jacket.

McCloskey-Williams

Appendix D: Calculating Precision

Finding Precision

1. Upload video to Logger Pro Software.

McCloskey-Williams

2. Press the 3 dot button in the bottom right corner of the screen.

Figure 22 Video Analysis Setup

McCloskey-Williams

Figure 22 shows the video analysis taskbar for Logger Pro. The taskbar includes

four required points for the experiment: an add a point feature (adds a blue dot at a

specific spot and shows the coordinates of said spot), a set origin feature (sets the origin

on the video in order to receive accurate data for the add point feature), a scale feature

(uses something in the image of a known length to establish the distance of everything

seen in the video), and a measure distance feature (finds the distance between two chosen

objects based on the scale in the video).

3. Click the button third from the top on the taskbar and set the origin to the center
of the tape.
4. Click the button 4th from the top on the taskbar and set the scale to 1 in between 2
of the dash marks on the vertical tape.

Figure 23. Set Origin and Set Scale

Figure 23 shows the origin and scale being set in the video. The lines crossing

each other at right angles are the origin. After pressing the third button from the top on
McCloskey-Williams

the video analysis taskbar (set origin), the origin is set wherever the user clicks on the

video. In the experiment, the origin was set where the two pieces of tape cross each other.

Using the marks drawn on the vertical piece of tape the scale can be set by using the set

scale button (fourth button from the top of the video analysis task bar). After drawing a

line from one line to the other, the scale can be set to 1 in to create an accurate scale in

the video.

5. Click the second button from the top and mark the top and bottom of the initial
vortex impact

Figure 24. Coordinates of the Set Points

Figure 24 shows the points set at the top and bottom of the top of the initial

vortex. Using the midpoint of these two coordinates, the distance from the center of the

vortex and the origin was derived by using pythagoras theorem.

6. Use the data to find the midpoint of the vortex and then use pythagorean theorem
to find the distance away from the origin of the graph.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 for each trial.
8. Once this process has been done for each of the trial of the same type ((+, +), (-,
-), etc.) find the average distance away for said trial type.
9. Find the distance from the average of the same trial type to the point of the
original trial to find the precision.
McCloskey-Williams

Appendix E: Prediction Equation

y = grand average + (type effect)(t) + (length effect)(l)+ (interaction

effect type-length)(t)(l) + noise
Figure 25. Prediction Equation

Figure 25 shows the prediction equation. The prediction equation can be used to

make an estimate of the result of a trial. The prediction equation consists of, in this case,

five parts: the grand total (total of all trials except for the standards), half of the type

effect, half of the length effect, half of the interaction effect of type and length, and noise.

Noise was any variable that cannot be controlled by the experimenters.

y = 3.906 + (-6.235)(1) + (-0.801)(1) + (0.219)(1)(1) + noise

y = 0.498
Figure 26. Checked Prediction Equation (Force)

Figure 26 shows the checked prediction equation which tests and verifies an

accurate representation of what the result of a trial could be. In order to make sure the

prediction equation was accurate it must be tested. We know this prediction equation was

accurate because when tested for a (+, +) trial, the answer to the equation was equivalent

to the (+, +) average.

y = 3.906 + 1/2(0.904)(1) + 1/2(-0.601)(1) + 1/2(0.458)(1)(1) + noise

y = 5.254
Figure 27. Checked Prediction Equation (Force)
McCloskey-Williams

Figure 27 shows the checked prediction equation which verifies the test. The

value of y was calculated to be 5.254. This was equivalent to the average (+, +) value.

Therefore the prediction equation and the effects of the factors were accurate.

Appendix F: Force Collected Data

Table 15
Data Collected from Three Force DOEs
Trial Type Trial # Force (Newtons)
1 Standard 2.015
McCloskey-Williams

2 (+ +) 0.366
3 (- -) 8.224
4 Standard 1.693
DOE 1
5 (+ -) 1.250
6 (- +) 6.393
7 Standard 2.015
1 Standard 1.738
2 (- +) 6.655
3 (+ -) 1.085
DOE 2 4 Standard 2.075
5 (- -) 6.863
6 (+ +) 0.516
7 Standard 1.607
1 Standard 1.513
2 (+ +) 0.611
3 (- +) 6.492
DOE 3 4 Standard 2.097
5 (+ -) 0.904
6 (- -) 7.514
7 Standard 2.143

Table 15 above depicts the order in which each trial of the experiment was

conducted for the three separate DOEs. The propulsion unit launched a vortex at a 10

newton force sensor, which was connected to a labQuest and laptop. The force sensor then

recorded the force of the vortex and and transferred it to the labQuest, which in turn

transferred the data to the laptop where we used Logger Pro Software to analyze and

determine the force.

Table 16
McCloskey-Williams

Averages of Two Experimental DOEs

Trial Type DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average

Newtons Newtons Newtons Newtons
Standard 2.105 1.738 1.513 1.877
(+ +) 0.366 0.516 0.611 0.498
(+ -) 1.250 1.805 0.904 1.080
Standard 1.693 2.075 2.097 1.877
(- +) 6.393 6.655 6.492 6.513
(- -) 8.224 6.863 7.514 7.534
Standard 2.015 1.607 2.143 1.877

Table 16 shows the results of the experiment. The results from all three of the

DOEs are shown along with the average of the all of the DOEs. The averages will be

used to carry out the analysis of the data.

( DOE 1)+(DOE 2)+(DOE 3)

Average of three DOEs (average g-force) =
3

To calculated the average force of each trial from the DOEs, add a value from

DOE 1 with the corresponding value from DOE 2 and then the corresponding value from

DOE 3 and divide that sum by three. Take the (+ +) trial for example, its DOE 1 value

(above in table 16) is 0.366. Add 0.366 to the corresponding DOE 2 value found in the

same row, 0.516, and then the corresponding DOE 3 value, 0.611. The sum of the three

DOEs is 1.493. To compute the (+ +) average, divide 1.493 by 3. The average force

between DOEs 1, 2, and 3 for the (+ +) trial is 0.498.

McCloskey-Williams

Appendix G: Precision Collected Data

Table 17. Data Collected from Three Precision DOEs

Trial Type Trial # Precision (Inches)
1 Standard 0.757
2 (+ +) 1.767
3 (- -) 7.303
DOE 1 4 Standard 0.801
5 (+ -) 5.790
6 (- +) 0.763
7 Standard 0.542
1 Standard 0.295
2 (- +) 0.597
3 (+ -) 6.130
DOE 2 4 Standard 3.506
5 (- -) 0.788
6 (+ +) 13.062
7 Standard 3.351
1 Standard 3.703
2 (+ +) 0.934
3 (- +) 9.885
DOE 3 4 Standard 4.143
5 (+ -) 4.271
6 (- -) 6.764
7 Standard 4.419

Table 17 depicts the order in which each trial of the experiment was conducted for

the three separate DOEs. The propulsion unit launched a vortex at an impression target,
McCloskey-Williams

which was being filmed. Then the video was uploaded to the Logger Pro software and

analyzed using the softwares video analysis program.

Table 18
Averages of Two Experimental DOEs

Trial Type DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average

Inches Inches Inches Inches
Standard 0.757 0.295 2.030 2.390
(+ +) 1.767 13.062 0.934 5.254
(+ -) 5.790 6.130 4.271 5.397
Standard 0.801 3.506 4.143 2.390
(- +) 0.763 0.597 9.885 3.892
(- -) 7.303 0.788 6.764 4.591
Standard 0.542 3.351 4.419 2.390

Table 18 shows the results of the experiment. The results from all three of the

DOEs are shown along with the average of the all three DOEs. The averages will be used

to carry out the analysis of the data. To calculated the average distance of each trial from

the DOEs, add a value from DOE 1 with the corresponding value from DOE 2 and then

the corresponding value from DOE 3 and divide that sum by three. Take the (+ +) trial for

example, its DOE 1 value (above in table 18) is 1.767. Add 1.767 to the corresponding

DOE 2 value found in the same row, 13.062, and then the corresponding DOE 3 value,

0934. The sum of the three DOEs is 15.763. To compute the (+ +) average, divide 15.763

by 3. The average distance between DOEs 1, 2, and 3 for the (+ +) precision trial is

5.254.
McCloskey-Williams

Works Cited

Graber, Curtis E. Vortex Cannon with Enhanced Ring Vortex Generation. Curtis Graber,

assignee. Patent 13/316,704. 22 Dec. 2015. Print.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=

%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=10&d=PTXT&S1=(vortex+AND+cannons)&OS=vo

rtex+and+cannons&RS=(vortex+AND+cannons).

Muller, Paul. "Basics of Air Velocity, Pressure and Flow." Validyne Engineering Blog.

Validyne Engineering, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

McCloskey-Williams

<http://validyne.com/blog/application-note-basics-of-air-velocity-pressure-and-

flow/>.

Science Behind Vortex Ring. Digital image. Fluids Engineering Division. N.p., 21 Jan.

2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2016. <http://www.jsme-fed.org/experiment-

e/2013_6/001.html>.

Spotti, Todd. "The Art and Science of Barrel Making." The Los Angeles Silhouette Club.

N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

<http://www.lasc.us/RangingShotBarrelMakingFeature.htm>.

Thorne, Robert E. "Accurate Air Toy Gun and Targets." N.p., 23 Dec. 2004. Web. 18

Nov. 2016. <https://www.google.com/patents/US20040255922>.

Viets, Hermann. Vortex Ring Generator. Hermann Viets, assignee. Patent US3940060 A.

23 Aug. 1974. Print. https://www.google.com/patents/US3940060

Yu, Jiang, Yasuyuki Yanagida, Sinjiro Kawato, and Nobuji Tetsutani. "Air Cannon Design

for Projection-Based Olfactory Display." (n.d.): n. pag.Air Cannon Design for

Projection-Based Olfactory Display. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <http://www.ic-

at.org/papers/2003/00981_00000.pdf>.