The Effect of Tesla Valves on the Flow Rate of Water

Red Encabo / Mikolaj Pal

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

AP Physics

Section 12C

Mr. McMillan / Mr. Supal / Mr. Acre / Mrs. Dewey

6 December 2016
 The Effect of Tesla Valves on the Flow Rate of Water

The purpose of this research was to determine whether Tesla valves had a

significant effect on the water’s flow rate. Diagnosing the Tesla valve’s impact on the

flow of a fluid would provide supplementary information on its optimization and

potential in real-world functions. The researchers predicted that a one-segment Tesla

valve would reduce its flow rate the least, and a three-segment valve would reduce its

flow rate the greatest. To verify whether the hypothesis was true, the researchers wanted

to acquire the flow rates before and after the utilization of the valve and use those values

to analyze the change in flow. To calculate the flow rate, the researchers measured the

amount of water that filled a container in the measured time interval. They subsequently

accounted the bin’s length and width and multiplied the dimensions by the measured

height. Descriptive statistics established the correlation between the number of valve

segments and the flow rate. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to determine the

significance in the differences between the average flow rates in valves of one, two, and

three segments. It was discovered that the three average flow rates before connecting the

valves to the hose were 33.4 cm3/s, 32.0 cm3/s, and 33.1 cm3/s, respectively. After

applying the valves, the flow rates dropped to 29.9 cm3/s, 26.4 cm3/s, and 22.6 cm3/s,

respectively. The flow rate on average expelled the least in a one-segment valve and

expelled the greatest in a three-segment valve. There was significant evidence of a

negative correlation between the number of segments and the flow rate. Tesla valves

could reduce overall costs while maintaining or improving efficiency in many of a

valve’s general uses including pipelines for oil and natural gas production, sewage

systems for private households, and engines and hydraulic cylinders for motor vehicles.
 Table of Contents

Introduction

Review of Literature

Problem Statement

Experimental Design

Data and Observations

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Appendix A: Statistical Equations and Sample Calculations

Appendix B: Professional Contact

Works Cited
 Introduction

Figure 1. Tesla Valve

The Tesla valve (figure 1) bears a striking resemblance with the veins of the

human legs, which, like one-way valves, let fluid flow in one direction and prevent fluid

flowing the opposite direction. A fluid’s flow and direction, in general, is controlled in

any valve, but with diverse designs, types, and models, valves are pertinent in numerous

industrial applications. Valves, for instance, control the flow of oil under extreme

temperatures and pressures to prevent oil erosion in offshore or onshore drilling. In

another example, valves control fluid flow in a ship’s pipe system to efficiently generate

power, manage wastewater, and control heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

Figure 2. Check Valve

 As previously stated, there are different types of valves; most check valves have

moving parts that rely on the fluid to open or close the passage. Traditional check valves,

as seen in figure 2, rely on discs inside them to allow flow to pass forward. Opening the

disc allows fluid to flow forward, while closing it causes the fluid to flow in a reverse

direction.

Figure 3. Swing Valve

Swing valves, as seen in figure 3, are check valves that contain attached movable

discs on the arm which block reverse flow and push back to enable forward flow. Since

Tesla valves, like check valves, allow fluid to flow in only one direction, they are a type

of one-way check valve. However, since Tesla valves do not use moving parts, they are

often advantageous in efficiency and reliability. Instead of relying on moving parts, flow

control is dependent on the geometry of the valve’s design: according to the diagram in

figure 1, the loops of the valve are notably shaped to control the fluid’s flow. The loops

make it in order that the fluid itself becomes the force restricting it to flow at a rate

nearly-equal or equal to the flow rate before the application of the valve. Many
conventional valves moreover use moving parts which are prone to depreciation; given

that Tesla valves do not use moving parts, they mostly do not experience this issue.

Knowing the features of Tesla valves is essential: they have the potential to

reduce maintenance costs, improve efficiency, and boost productivity. Unfortunately,

only a few number of scientific literatures have discussed the Tesla valve’s optimization,

hindering the valve’s utilization. The purpose of this research was to experiment with

Tesla valves of different sizes and demonstrate the significant impact they had on the

fluid’s flow rate. The researchers intended to create a generalization about Tesla valves

for any real-world application. Discovering their impact on the fluid’s flow is

fundamental to shaping the scientific community’s beliefs in the efficiency and

performance of the Tesla valve. Take the hydraulic system as an example, which utilizes

fluid to power machines. The most vital part of the hydraulic system is the valve, which

directs the flow of a liquid through the hydraulic system. If the research’s data, in one

case, suggests that resistance in the blocking direction is ten times greater than the

unimpeded direction in a Tesla valve, then scientists can use that information and

implement the design of Tesla valves onto future hydraulic systems that could better

prevent ruptures and accidents while effectively controlling the fluid’s flow. In a more

general standpoint, they can improve the maintenance and reliability of nearly any

system.

To determine the significance the Tesla valve had on the fluid’s flow rate, the

researchers initially observed the growth of the fluid level in a bin. With the faucet turned

on halfway, the researchers allowed the fluid to exit through the hose (and valve) and into

the bin for sixty seconds. Using a meter stick, the height of the fluid was measured and
afterwards multiplied by the bin’s length and width to calculate the volume of fluid that

filled the container during a time interval; after calculating the volume, the flow rate was

computed. The trials were performed thirty times--ten times each for a Tesla valve of

one, two, and three segments. Each trial additionally required preparation before the

Tesla valve was applied. The researchers calculated the flow rates before and after the

utilization of the Tesla valve to perform a descriptive test which visually depicted and

compared the changes in the distribution of values.

This research was applicable to future research. For instance, doctors, nurses, and

those of the medical field can take account the features of the Tesla valve to design a

proficient tool that extracts blood and poison while preventing fluids from returning back.

Applying the Tesla valve’s features to a tool in this instance can save millions of lives

and improve the medical methods doctors use to transfer blood from one individual to

another individual or substance. Tesla valves are potentially capable of advancing the

medical field. Researchers can furthermore use the information discovered from this

experiment to develop auxiliary tests. For example, provided that the number of valve

segments and flow rate simultaneously change, scientists can take the research further by

conducting an experiment that takes account of the connections between two objects and

determines their impact on the fluid’s flow rate. Being knowledgeable of Tesla valves is

not only imperative for present work, but also vital for practical and relevant applications

and future research.

 Review of Literature

Check valves are one-way valves that allow a fluid to flow in one direction

without creating backflow. The prevention of backflow ultimately eliminates any source

of water hammer, a knocking noise in a water that occurs when a tap is turned off briskly,

in check valves. This is important because water hammers are signs of air exiting a pipe

or connection. (“Check Valve Installation and Benefits”). Allowing flow in one direction,

they are self-actuated, meaning they do not require assistance to open and close.

Figure 4. Check Valve

Regarding the operation of check valves (figure 4), they rely on the fluid to open

and close. The discs inside the valves allow flow to pass forward, opening the valve; then

the discs close the valve as the flow of the fluid decreases (or the reverse direction of the

flow of the fluid increases). How this applies is dependent on the design of the check

valve. Additionally, the disc and seat ring of the check valve relies on fluid back-

pressure, allowing for a greater seat leakage rate. Properly sized check valves for specific
applications do the operation the best; this includes the condition in which the disc is

stable (Shorts).

The significance of check valves is shown industrially and domestically.

Industrially, check valves are commonly used in chemical and power plants for feed

water control, dump lines, nitrogen monitoring, and sampling. They are moreover applied

to fuels and oxidizers to keep gas cylinders from becoming prone to flammability

(“Nuclear Check Valves & Excess Flow Check Valves”). Domestically, check valves are

used agriculturally, as they are commonly found in irrigation sprinklers and drip

irrigation sprinklers to prevent drainage when the system is shut off. Some rainwater

harvesting systems use check valves to avoid contamination of rainwater supply. In short,

check valves are common in various fluid-centered situations such as pumping, industrial

processing, and domestic use. There are various types of check valves with such

applications, including swing, wafer, and lift valves.

Figure 5. Swing Check Valve

 A type of check valve, swing check valves contain attached movable disks on the

arm to block reverse flow and enable forward flow. The design of this valve (figure 5) is

advantageous in minimizing pressure loss and simplifying fluid flow, while it creates a

sense of flexibility for horizontal or vertical layouts. The configuration of the open

position is required for the valve to close when necessary.

Figure 6. Wafer Check Valve

An advantage with the wafer check valve design (figure 6) is its portability: wafer

valves tend to be lighter and thinner than conventional check valves, including swing

check valves. At the same time, its design simplifies the ability to close and increases its

multi-functionality in high-performance water hammer absorption (“Valve Types &

Configurations”).
Figure 7. Lift Check Valve

As a fluid flows through a lift check valve, pressure builds up against the disk,

causing it to rise off of the body (figure 7). This allows the fluid to flow through the

entire valve. When the fluid flows reversely, the lift check valve design allows the fluid

to quickly close the disk. In addition, lift check valves offer a more effective seal

compared to other types of check valves. Similar to the swing valve, lift check valves can

be configured vertically and horizontally (“Lift Check Valves”).

Although check valves are self-actuated, it is difficult to determine their open-

close status and assess the condition of internal parts, since the moving parts in check

valves are enclosed. Valve discs are prone to sticking in open position. When configuring

check valves, they have their own limitations, so an individual is required to understand

what is essential to installing any check valve (Chugh). (For instance, the designs of the

swing and lift valves unintentionally impede fluid flow.)

Figure 8. Tesla Valve

The Tesla valve (figure 8) is a special one-way check valve that allows fluid to

flow in one direction while blocking it in the other without using moving parts. This

gives it an advantage compared to other check valves, since moving parts are prone to

wear over time. In the forward direction, it allows fluid to flow with almost no resistance,

while fluid is directed into a segmented series of loops in the reverse direction. Since the

fluid goes through a series of loops, pressure is built up against the flow of the fluid and

ultimately blocks the flow (West). However, a disadvantage of the valve is its potential to

allow some liquid to flow in reverse: there is no physical blocking device that disallows

the reverse flow of fluid.

If the fluid flowed through the valve from the right to the left side, it would flow

through a nearly-straight path. The fluid experiences the least resistance from the right

side to the left side, so the fluid flows through the valve with little to no change. From the

left to the right, however, the segments restrict the airflow through the valve by forcing

the fluid to go left or right of each loop. As a result, the fluid moving right returns against

the flow, and the fluid moving left interacts with the fluid returning against the flow.

Generally, the fluid itself becomes the force that restricts it to flow at a rate nearly-equal

or equal to the flow rate.

Figure 9. Flow Developed in Unimpeded (Left) and Blocking (Right) Direction

According to other research, researchers have discovered that a valve’s design

primarily determines the regulation of fluid flow (figure 9). They demonstrate this in an

experiment where micro valves are simulated through a calculation liquid framework that

utilizes laminar stream (flow regime characterized by high momentum diffusion and low

momentum convection) and basic calculation. They took account of each valve’s

diameter, length, position, and density. Testing the larger valves, less pressure was

emitted in the water flow. The lack of pressure applied to the direction of the flow

deregulated the fluid flow and increased the flow rate of the fluid.

Figure 10. Reverse Flow Velocity Based on Diameter

 It was furthermore discovered that valves designed without inlet and outlet flow

channels had a higher overall diodicity (or higher flow rate when losses are linear or

quadratic in both directions). The top flow channel, seen in figure 10, experiences lower

flow rate ranging between 0-2.65 m/s compared to the original channel, which ranges

between 2.98-6.61 m/s. In the end, the research moreover came to the conclusion that

wider, less dense valves experience less flow pressure, resulting in higher flow rate

(Nobakht, Shahsavan, and Paykami).

In determining what design best suited the regulation of fluid flow, Truong and

Nguyen’s study optimized the design of the tesla valve with different construction

methods and configuration according on different flow rates. Geometry construction

methods and design optimization parameters were proposed along with varied design

parameters used to form different valve configurations. Two-dimensional steady flow

models of these different valves was made using an “ANSYS FLOTRAN” numerical

software. The study determined what the three best valves designs were by taking

account of its diodicity.

Figure 11. Diodicity vs. Radius (R/W)

The research found that diodicity was inversely proportional to the valve’s radius,

meaning the larger the radius, the smaller the diodicity (figure 11). Large angles reduce

the amount of flow entering the curve section in forward flow direction, dropping the

pressure of the fluid flow. It also helps the flow in the curve section block the flow in the

straight section while in reverse. This is important since there are different potential

applications that require Tesla valves to use different flow rates, configurations, and

different sizes (Truong and Nguyen). Given that the diodicity decreases as the radius of a

valve increases, it can be assumed that valves of greater length and diameter decrease the

flow rate of a fluid more proficiently than smaller valves.

Overall, the purpose of our research is to determine if the tesla valve regulates

fluid flow more effectively than conventional one-way valves. Research has shown that

the designs of each valve affect the performance of regulating the fluid flow and

preventing backflow: valves with a greater radius and lower density experience fluid flow

at higher rates compared to valves with a lower radius and higher density. Tesla valves
have many potential applications such as dishwashing and maintenance for irrigation, and

it can be less costly to maintain compared to traditional one-way valves.

 Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine the effect that the Tesla valve at different lengths (one segment, two

segments, and three segments) has on the flow rate of a fluid (cm3/s).

Hypothesis:

The Tesla valve of three segments experiences the lowest flow rate; the Tesla

valve of one segment experiences the highest flow rate.

Data Measured:

The dependent variable--flow rate as it exits the valve (cm3/s)--is determined by

taking into account (the independent variable) the length of the Tesla valve (in segments).

Segments are combined to create three Tesla valves composing of one segment, two

segments, and three segments. The height of the fluid is multiplied by the bin’s length

(54.5 cm) and width (8.5 cm) to calculate the volume of the fluid (cm3) that filled the

container during a time interval. The flow rate is calculated by dividing the volume by the

time interval (sixty seconds). An ANOVA test and descriptive test are conducted to

determine whether the means of the flow rate are significantly different using the sample

size and sample means of the flow rate before and after the application of the Tesla valve.
 Experimental Design

Materials:

(3) Tesla Valve Segments Dell Latitude 13 Education Series (3340)

10.0 m Standard [Non-Pocket] Hose TI-Nspire CX Handheld Calculator
(with 0.02 m Diameter) Sharpie Permanent Marker
54.5 x 8.5 cm Plastic Bin Gorilla Duct Tape
Aven 40-Watt Soldering Iron (with Meter Stick
Fine Tip)

Procedure:

Experimental Setup

1. Work in a location where a standard or non-pocket hose with a 2.0 cm diameter (and
a minimum length of 1000.0 cm) can be applied to a water spigot of the same
diameter. Screw one end of the hose onto the water spigot as tightly as possible.

2. Create a hole with a diameter equivalent to the diameter of the hose on one short side
of the bin using a 40-watt soldering iron. (A soldering iron with a fine tip is better at
creating precise holes.) After creating the hole, attach the opposite end of the hose in
the hole and secure it using gorilla duct tape. This will reduce the movement of the
hose.

3. Position the tank 50.0 cm away from the sink. Repeat this step daily to achieve
accurate results in fluid velocity.

Conducting the Experiment

4. Turn on the spigot halfway to its maximum level. Using an alarm software installed
on a computer, begin timing (seconds), and stop timing when the timer reaches sixty
seconds. Additionally, mark the halfway position with a marker for future reference
to ensure data accuracy.

5. Measure the height of the water (cm) using a meter stick.

6. Calculate the volume (cm3) by multiplying the bin’s length (cm), its width (cm), and
the measured height.

7. Divide the volume found on step 6 by the time interval the water filled the container
(sixty seconds) to calculate the flow rate (cm3/s). Record the flow rate (without the
 Tesla valve) on table 2.

8. Apply one segment of the Tesla valve. After the Tesla valve is stabilized to the open
end of the hose, repeat steps 4-7.

9. Perform steps 4-8 until ten randomized trials, using one segment of the Tesla valve,
have been conducted. Record the flow rates on table 2.

10. Calculate the average flow rates (cm3/s) before and after the application of a one-
segment valve by dividing the sum of the flow rates found on steps 4-8 by the number
of trials (ten trials).

11. Perform steps 4-8 until ten randomized trials, using two segments of the Tesla valve
have been conducted. Record the flow rates on table 3.

12. Calculate the average flow rates (cm3/s) before and after the application of a two-
segment valve by dividing the sum of the flow rates found on steps 4-8 by the number
of trials (ten trials).

13. Perform steps 4-8 until ten randomized trials using three segments of the Tesla valve
have been conducted. Record the flow rates on table 4.

14. Calculate the average flow rates (cm3/s) before and after the application of a three-
segment valve by dividing the sum of the flow rates found on steps 4-8 by the number
of trials (ten trials).

Performing the Analysis

15. Conduct the ANOVA test provided in Appendix A. The test determines whether the
means of the flow rate are significantly inequivalent using the sample size and sample
means of the flow rate found in steps 9-14.
Diagram:

Figure 12. Experimental Setup

Figure 12 visually depicts the experimental setup. Three segments of the Tesla

valve were applied on the open end of the hose; they were attached to the hole of the

rectangular bin and the water spigot located on the top of the sink. With the faucet turned

on halfway, the researchers allowed the fluid to exit through the hose (and valve) and into

the bin for sixty seconds. By measuring the height of the fluid in the given time interval,

the researchers multiplied the found height by the bin’s dimensions to calculate the

volume. The volume was then divided by the time interval, sixty seconds, to find the flow

rate. This setup determined the fluid velocity before and after the Tesla valve is applied.
 Data and Observations

Table 1
Bin Length and Width
Length Width
(cm) (cm)

54.5 8.5

Table 1 provides the given bin length (cm) and width (cm), which is respectively

at 54.5 cm and 8.5 cm. The length is multiplied by the width, and the product of these

values are multiplied by the water level (or height) after sixty seconds to calculate the

volume (cm3) before or after the application of the Tesla valve.

𝑉 𝑙𝑤ℎ
𝑄= =
𝑡 60

Figure 13. Flow Rate Equation

To calculate the flow rate (Q) of the fluid, as shown in figure 13, multiply the

length of the bin, and width of the bin, and the height of the water. Divide the product by

the time, which is sixty seconds for all trials.

Table 2
Trials with One Tesla Valve Segment
Volume Volume Flow Rate Flow Rate
Time
# Before After Before After
(s)
(cm3) (cm3) (cm3/s) (cm3/s)

1 1,853.0 1,667.7 30.9 27.8

2 2,084.6 1,714.0 34.7 28.6

3 2,038.3 1,945.7 34.0 32.4

4 1,806.7 1,853.0 30.1 30.9

5 1,992.0 1,575.1 33.2 26.3

60.0
6 2,038.3 1,992.0 34.0 33.2

7 2,038.3 1,945.7 34.0 32.4

8 1,992.0 1,575.1 33.2 26.3

9 2,223.6 1,621.4 37.1 27.0

10 1,992.0 2,038.3 33.2 34.0

Average Flow Rate (cm3/s) 33.4 29.9

Table 2 shows the recorded volumes (cm3) before and after one segment (10.0

cm) of the Tesla valve was applied to the hose. It also provides the fluid’s flow rate

(cm3/s) before and after one segment of the Tesla valve is applied. Before the Tesla valve

was applied, the average flow rate of the fluid is 33.4 cm3/s; the average flow rate of the

fluid is 29.9 cm3/s with the Tesla valve.

Table 3
Trials with Two Tesla Valve Segments
Volume Volume Flow Rate Flow Rate
Time
# Before After Before After
(s)
(cm3) (cm3) (cm3/s) (cm3/s)

1 1,806.7 1,667.7 30.1 27.8

2 1,853.0 1,436.1 30.8 23.9

3 2,177.3 1,621.4 36.3 27.0

4 1,992.0 1,806.7 33.2 30.1

5 1,806.7 1,621.4 30.1 27.0

60.0
6 1,945.7 1,482.4 32.4 24.7

7 1,899.3 1,436.1 31.7 23.9

8 2,084.6 1,760.4 34.7 29.3

9 1,899.3 1,528.7 31.7 25.5

10 1,760.3 1,482.4 29.3 24.7

Average Flow Rate (cm3/s) 32.0 26.4

Table 3 shows the recorded volumes (cm3) before and after two segments of the

Tesla valve was applied to the hose. It also provides the flow rate (cm3/s) before and after

two segments of the Tesla valve was applied. Before the Tesla valve was applied, the

average flow rate of the fluid is 32.0 cm3/s; the average flow rate of the fluid is 26.4

cm3/s with the Tesla valve. Based on the table 3’s findings, the mean fluid flow rate with

two Tesla valve segments is 3.5 cm3/s less than the mean fluid flow rate with one Tesla
valve segment. This information is important, as the mean fluid flow rates (regardless of

the number of segments) could be or not be significantly equal.

Table 4
Trials with Three Tesla Valve Segments
Volume Volume Flow Rate Flow Rate
Time
# Before After Before After
(s)
(cm3) (cm3) (cm3/s) (cm3/s)

1 2,177.3 1,436.1 36.3 23.9

2 1,945.7 1,343.4 32.4 22.4

3 1,945.7 1,343.4 32.4 22.4

4 1,806.7 1,482.4 30.1 24.7

5 1,899.3 1,297.1 31.7 21.6

60.0
6 2,038.3 1,389.8 34.0 23.2

7 1,806.7 1,250.8 30.1 20.8

8 2,084.6 1,343.4 34.7 22.4

9 2,038.3 1,389.8 34.0 23.2

10 2,084.3 1,297.1 34.8 21.6

Average Flow Rate (cm3/s) 33.1 22.6

Table 4 shows the recorded volumes (cm3) before and after three segments of the

Tesla valve was applied to the hose. It also provides the flow rate (cm3/s) before and after

three segments of the Tesla valve was applied. Before the Tesla valve was applied, the

average flow rate of the fluid was 33.1 cm3/s; the average flow rate of the fluid is 22.6
cm3/s with the Tesla valve. Based on the table 4’s findings, the mean fluid flow rate with

three Tesla valve segments is 3.8 cm3/s less than the mean fluid flow rate with two Tesla

valve segments. The mean fluid flow rate with three Tesla valve segments is 7.3 cm3/s

less than the mean fluid flow rate with one Tesla valve segment. This information is

important, as the mean fluid flow rates (regardless of the number of segments) could or

could not be significantly equal. Note: the fluid flow rate for each trial was calculated

using the flow rate equation and the bin’s given length (cm) and width (cm) in Appendix

A.

Figure 14. Two Tesla Valve Segments

 Figure 14 shows two three-dimensional printed segments of the Tesla valve. Each

segment of the valve contains two “loops” connected to a main tube, which reverse the

flow of the fluid and direct it back into the main tube; this process resultantly slows down

the fluid going through the main tube. Initially, it was found that the Tesla valve segment

on the left was printed incorrectly, because it partially missed a loop. Testing the Tesla

valve segments with missing elements showed that any fluid could leak out of the valve

and skew the fluid’s flow rate. This was solved by subsequently printing and gluing the

element onto the segment; this helped us not only do the experiment properly, but it also

reduced the time consumed in printing the parts.

Figure 15. Positioning the Tesla Valve

 One of the essential steps of setting up the experiment is making the Tesla valve

parallel to the ground, as shown in figure 15. The purpose of positioning the Tesla valve

horizontally was to increase the accuracy and consistency of the data. Before beginning

the first few trials of the experiment, it was found that the valve’s position played an

important role in determining the water level: positioning the valve at an angle below the

imaginary horizontal axis would increase the fluid flow rate, while positioning the valve

at an angle above the imaginary horizontal axis would decrease the fluid flow rate. The

experiment had to be restarted because of this. Hence, the trials were re-conducted with

the valve positioned horizontally in order that none of the data collected in the process is

skewed.

Figure 16. Measuring the Water Level

 Before calculating the fluid’s flow rate, the water level was measured, as shown

in figure 16. Appendix A provides the length and width of the bin in cm, which are 54.5

cm and 8.5 cm, respectively. Going into the trials, it was observed that as the number of

Tesla valve segments increased, the average water level decreased. Using the flow rate

equation provided in Appendix A, it was discovered that the lower average water level

resulted in a lower average fluid flow rate.

 Data Analysis and Interpretation

To collect reliable data on the fluid’s flow rate (cm3/s), the experiment took

account of the control, randomization, and replication of the trials. Considering the

lurking variables, it was assumed that [lurking variables] pressure (atm) and temperature

(°C) would have significant effects on the fluid’s flow rate.

During the conduction of the preliminary trials, a pocket hose was used, whose

elasticity allows it to compress or stretch. The elasticity of the pocket hose, given that it

compresses or stretches, would exert more or less pressure on the fluid going through the

hose, ultimately changing its flow rate. To prevent pressure from being a lurking variable,

a pocket hose was initially replaced with a regular 10.0 m hose for the final experimental

design. Fluid leakage from the connections between the hose and the Tesla valve

segments were blocked with gorilla duct tape, which was cut into lengths of 5.0 cm.

Last but not least, a simple random sample (SRS) on the order the trials were

conducted was done to randomize the experiment. Using a TI-Nspire calculator, the

numbers 1-10 were graphed added onto a spreadsheet; a pre-installed randomization

feature was used to order the trials without repeating the numbers. This was performed

three times to give the experiment three sets of randomized trials from 1-10. Ten trials

were conducted for one segment, two segments, and three segments of the Tesla valves

(thirty trials overall) to meet the sampling requirement for the analysis of variance

(ANOVA) test; this was to moreover provide information about the reliability of the

conclusions the data would draw.

Figure 17. Box Plots of Flow Rates (cm3/s) for One Segment

Figure 18. Box Plots of Flow Rates (cm3/s) for Two Segments

Figure 19. Box Plots of Flow Rates (cm3/s) for Three Segments
 The box plots of the fluid’s flow rates before (blue; labeled as “flowbefore”) and

after (orange; labeled as “flowafter”) one Tesla valve segment is applied to the hose show

important differences in the minimum (min), maximum (max), first quartile (Q1), third

quartile (Q3), mean, and median values. Figure 17 shows that the first quartile and third

quartile of the orange dot plot is 27.0 cm3/s and 32.4 cm3/s, respectively. This means that

half of the flow rates after the application of the Tesla valve is between 27.0 cm3/s and

32.4 cm3/s. The range of the flow rates after the valve, given the minimum (26.3 cm3/s)

and the maximum (34.0 cm3/s), is 7.7 cm3/s. On average, the flow rate of the fluid after

the valve is 29.9 cm3/s; the median flow rate is 29.8 cm3/s, 0.1 cm3/s less than the mean.

The first quartile and third quartile of the blue dot plot is 33.2 cm3/s and 34.0 cm3/s

(respectively), meaning that half of the flow rates before the application of the Tesla

valve is between 33.2 cm3/s and 34.0 cm3/s. The range of the flow rates after the valve,

given the minimum (30.1 cm3/s) and the maximum (37.1 cm3/s), is 7.0 cm3/s. On

average, the flow rate of the fluid after the valve is 33.6 cm3/s; the median flow rate is

33.6 cm3/s, 0.2 cm3/s greater than the mean.

There are various elements in figure 17 worth noting: for instance, over

approximately seventy-five percent of the data for the flow rate with the valve is less than

the minimum/first quartile of the flow rate (33.2 cm3/s) without the valve. Moreover,

three outliers of 30.1 cm3/s (minimum), 30.9 cm3/s, and 37.1 cm3/s (maximum) were

moreover found when conducting the experiment before the Tesla valve was applied;

these values deviate remarkably from the remainder of the fluid’s flow rates. Without

these outliers, the range of the flow rates before the valve would be significantly smaller,
and the mean and median of the data would be more precise. Outliers probably occurred

E the experiment due to the various pressures the spigot exerted into the hose.

Figure 18 shows that the first quartile and third quartile of the orange dot plot is

24.7 cm3/s and 27.8 cm3/s, respectively. This means that half of the flow rates after the

application of the Tesla valve is between 24.7 cm3/s and 27.8 cm3/s. The range of the

flow rates after the valve, given the minimum (23.9 cm3/s) and the maximum (30.1

cm3/s), is 6.2 cm3/s; this is 1.5 cm3/s less than the range calculated with the information

(after the valve) from figure 17. On average, the flow rate of the fluid after the valve is

26.4 cm3/s; the median flow rate is 26.3 cm3/s, 0.1 cm3/s less than the mean.

The first quartile and third quartile of the blue dot plot is 30.1 cm3/s and 33.2

cm3/s (respectively), meaning that half of the flow rates before the application of the

Tesla valve is between 30.1 cm3/s and 33.2 cm3/s. The range of the flow rates after the

valve, given the minimum (29.3 cm3/s) and the maximum (36.3 cm3/s), is 7.0 cm3/s; this

is equal to the range calculated with the information (before the valve) from figure 17. On

average, the flow rate of the fluid after the valve is 32.0 cm3/s; the median flow rate is

31.7 cm3/s, 0.3 cm3/s less than the mean.

All of the data for the flow rate with the valve is less than the first quartile of the

flow rate (30.1 cm3/s) without the valve. Unlike the data provided in figure 17, no outliers

were found. The average flow rate of the orange dot plot is 3.5 cm3/s less than the

average flow rate of the orange dot given in figure 17. The number of Tesla valve

segments, or the length of the Tesla valve, could have played a significant role in

determining the fluid’s flow rate.

 Figure 19 shows that the first quartile and third quartile of the orange dot plot is

21.6 cm3/s and 23.2 cm3/s, respectively. This means that half of the flow rates after the

application of the Tesla valve is between 21.6 cm3/s and 23.2 cm3/s. The range of the

flow rates after the valve, given the minimum (20.8 cm3/s) and the maximum (24.7

cm3/s), is 3.9 cm3/s; this is 3.8 cm3/s less than the range calculated with the information

(after the valve) from figure 17 and 2.3 cm3/s less than the range calculated with the

information (after the valve) from figure 18. On average, the flow rate of the fluid after

the valve is 22.6 cm3/s; the median flow rate is 22.4 cm3/s, 0.2 cm3/s less than the mean.

The first quartile and third quartile of the blue dot plot is 31.7 cm3/s and 34.7 cm3/s

(respectively), meaning that half of the flow rates before the application of the Tesla

valve is between 31.7 cm3/s and 34.7 cm3/s. The range of the flow rates after the valve,

given the minimum (30.1 cm3/s) and the maximum (36.3 cm3/s), is 6.2 cm3/s; this is 0.8

cm3/s less than the ranges calculated with the information (before the valve) from figure

17 and figure 18. On average, the flow rate of the fluid after the valve is 33.1 cm3/s; the

median flow rate is 33.2 cm3/s, 0.1 cm3/s greater than the mean.

All of the data for the flow rate with the valve is less than the minimum flow rate

(30.1 cm3/s) without the valve. Furthermore, no outliers were found. The average flow

rate of the orange dot plot, 22.6 cm3/s, is 3.8 cm3/s less than the average flow rate of the

orange dot given in figure 18 and 7.3 cm3/s less than the average flow rate of the orange

dot given in figure 17. Again, the number of Tesla valve segments, or the length of the

Tesla valve, could have played a significant role in determining the fluid’s flow rate.
Figure 20. F Distribution of Flow Rates (cm3/s) for One Segment

Figure 21. F Distribution of Flow Rates (cm3/s) for Two Segments

Figure 22. F Distribution of Flow Rates (cm3/s) for Three Segments

 F distribution histograms help show variance of the data; in this case, these

distributions help show the variance of the flow rates before (blue; labeled as

“flowbefore”) and after the valve (orange; labeled as “flowafter”), and whether they meet

the distribution requirement of the ANOVA test. Figure 20 shows that the distribution of

the flow rates, before and after the application of the Tesla valve, is normally distributed

[as shown by TI-Nspire’s probability density function (pdf) analysis]. The majority of the

found flow rates before the Tesla valve range between approximately 33.0 cm3/s and 34.0

cm3/s; the majority of the found flow rates after the Tesla valve are at approximately 26.0

cm3/s and 32.0 cm3/s. These distributions successfully meet the requirement of the

ANOVA test that they have to be normally distributed.

Figure 21 shows that the distribution of the flow rates, before and after the

application of the Tesla valve, is normally distributed [as shown by TI-Nspire’s

probability density function (pdf) analysis]. The majority of the flow rates before the

Tesla valve (blue histogram) are found at approximately 32.0 cm3/s; the majority of the

flow rates after the Tesla valve (orange histogram) are found at approximately 24.0

cm3/s, 25.0 cm3/s, and 27.0 cm3/s. These distributions successfully meet the requirement

of the ANOVA test that they have to be normally distributed.

Figure 22 shows that the distribution of the flow rates, before and after the

application of the Tesla valve, is normally distributed [as shown by TI-Nspire’s

probability density function (pdf) analysis]. The majority of the flow rates before the

Tesla valve (blue histogram) are found at approximately 32.0 cm3/s; the majority of the

flow rates after the Tesla valve (orange histogram) are found at approximately 22.0
cm3/s. These distributions successfully meet the requirement of the ANOVA test that

they have to be normally distributed.

To determine whether the differences in the fluid’s flow rate before and after

applying the Tesla valve onto the hose are significant, the ANOVA test was conducted.

The ANOVA test determines whether there are any statistically significant differences

between the average flow rates one segment of the Tesla valve is applied, two segments

of the Tesla are applied, and three segments of the Tesla valve are applied.

Before conducting the ANOVA test, the following required assumptions have to

be met. As mentioned previously, a simple random sample (SRS) was conducted to

randomize the experiment and reduce bias. In addition, there needs to be at least three

independent samples. The experiment meets this need, since the three given independent

samples are: a sample given one Tesla valve segment, a sample given two Tesla valve

segments, and a sample given three Tesla valve segments. Each population furthermore

must have a normal distribution. As seen in figures 20, 21, and 22, the distributions for

each data are fairly normally distributed; none of the collected data has resulted in

extreme skewness of the data’s distribution. It can be assumed that each data set was

pulled from a normal population. Since each population has a normal distribution, the

Central Limit Theorem verifies that the distribution of the populations makes conducting

the ANOVA test safer to do. Given that these values are only estimators of the true

population standard deviations, which remain unknown, the ANOVA test proceeded. All

of this criteria allows the validity of conducting an ANOVA test.

H0: μone segment = μtwo segment = μthree segment

Ha: Not all μone segment, μtwo segment, and μthree segment are equal.

Figure 23. ANOVA Test Hypothesis

A one-way ANOVA test determines if the average flow rate when one Tesla

valve segment is applied, the average flow rate when two Tesla valve segments are

applied, and the average flow rate when three Tesla valve segments are applied are

significantly not equal. According to figure 23, the null hypothesis states that regardless

of the number of Tesla valve segments, the means are equal (or the differences between

the means are insignificant). The alternate hypothesis implies that the number of Tesla

valve segments affect the means, meaning that not all means are equal.

"Title" "ANOVA"
"F" 25.925091157372
"PVal" 0.000000520684
"df" 2.
"SS" 264.386
"MS" 132.193
"dfError" 27.
"SSError" 137.674
"MSError" 5.09903703704
"sp" 2.25810474448
"CLowerList" "{28.424838281447,24.924838281447,21.154838281447}"
"CUpperList" "{31.355161718553,27.855161718553,24.085161718553}"
"List" "{29.89,26.39,22.62}"

Figure 24. ANOVA Test Statistics

Figure 24 shows the ANOVA test for the analysis of the significance of one, two,

and three segment tesla valves on the flow rate (cm3/s) from the TI-NSpire Student
Software. A total of thirty trials, the data was consistent and fairly normally distributed in

its collection. When performing the ANOVA test on the calculator, the value for F is

approximately the same, with a p-value of approximately 5.21 × 10−7 , which would be

lower than the default alpha level of five percent (0.05). To verify the accuracy of the

calculator’s results, the ANOVA test was re-conducted using the procedures in Appendix

A. The p-value using the steps in Appendix A was very similar to the p-value using the

calculator. Hence, the conclusion from the ANOVA test can still be upheld. Knowing that

the p-value is approximately 5.21 × 10−7 , which is lower than the alpha level of 0.05, the

test rejected the null hypothesis. There is significant evidence that the mean flow rates of

the one Tesla valve segment, two Tesla valve segments, and three Tesla valve segments

are not equal. There is approximately a zero percent chance of getting the means again by

chance alone if the null hypothesis was true.

 Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to determine the effect that the Tesla valve at

different lengths (one segment, two segments, and three segments) has on the flow rate of

a fluid (cm3/s). Prior to the experiment, the researchers predicted that the flow rate

(cm3/s) was the highest in a one-segment Tesla valve and the lowest in a three-segment

Tesla valve.

The flow rate was found by measuring the fluid level rise (cm) in sixty seconds,

multiplying it by the bin’s length (cm) and width (cm) [to find the volume (cm3)], and

dividing the volume by the time (sixty seconds). The average flow rates of the fluid in

valves of one, two, and three segments were 29.9 cm3/s, 26.4 cm3/s, and 22.6 cm3/s,

respectively. (The three average flow rates before applying the Tesla valve to the hose

were 33.4 cm3/s, 32.0 cm3/s, and 33.1 cm3/s, in respective to their sets.)

The flow rates from table 2, table 3, and table 4 showed that the average flow rate

decreased as the number of Tesla valve segments increased. This was initially interpreted

according to the differences between the flow rate before and after the valve was applied.

With one segment, the researchers found a 3.5 cm3/s difference between the flow rate

before and after the application of the valve; with two and three segments, they found a

respective 5.6 cm3/s and 10.5 cm3/s difference between the flow rate before and after the

application of the valve. The boxplots and histograms from the descriptive statistics

further contributed to the idea that the difference between the average flow rates before

and after the valve increased as the number of segments increased. As the number of

segments increased, the researchers saw the minimum and maximum flow rates after the

application of the valve decrease. For instance, box plots showed that when two valve
segments were applied to the hose, the minimum flow rate dropped from 26.3 cm3/s to

23.9 cm3/s.

To determine whether the differences between the average flow rates were

significant, a one-way ANOVA test was conducted. The ANOVA test calculated an F-

statistic of 25.9, which the researchers used to find a p-value of 5.21 * 10-7 . Since the p-

value was lower than the alpha level (0.05), it can be said that there was evidence that the

average flow rates in one-segment, two-segment, and three-segment Tesla valves were

significantly different. Going back to the average flow rates, the average flow rate was

the highest in a one-segment Tesla valve and the lowest in a three-segment Tesla valve:

the average flow rate in one segment was 29.9 cm3/s; the average flow rate in two

segments was 26.4 cm3/s; the average flow rate in three segments was 22.6 cm3/s. Given

this and the fact that the average flow rates were significantly different, the researchers

accepted the hypothesis.

Figure 25. Tesla Valve Design

Looking back at the Tesla valve’s design (as shown in figure 25), the Tesla

valve’s loops allowed fluid to flow through it preferentially in only one direction. If the

fluid flowed through the valve from the right to the left side, it would flow through a
nearly-straight path. The fluid experienced the least resistance from the right side to the

left side, so the fluid flowed through the valve with little to no change. Nonetheless, the

researchers tested the flow going from the left side to the right side. From the left side to

the right side, the segments restricted the airflow through the valve by forcing the fluid to

go left or right of each loop. Ultimately, the fluid that moved right would return against

the flow, and the fluid that moved left would interact with the fluid that returned against

the flow. Generally, the fluid itself became the force that restricted it to flow at a rate

nearly-equal or equal to the flow rate before the application of the valve; thus it explains

why the flow rate decreased as the number of segments increased: the fluid experienced

greater force of flow as it approached the end of the valve, resultantly creating a greater

resistance towards the flow and decreasing the flow rate.

The results of this research agreed with the current scientific work with valves. As

previously mentioned, the research’s data showed that adding the number of Tesla valve

segments increased the number of loops the fluid flowed through, eventually increasing

the force of flow and resistance the decreasing the flow rate. When taking account what

the scientific community can gather from this experiment, the tests proved the Tesla

valves’ effectiveness to reduce the fluid’s flow rate, making the Tesla valve an efficient

alternative to the one-way check valve. Scientists and engineers looking see the Tesla

valve’s utilization and optimization in oil production systems, motor vehicles, and

machines in private households have discovered that the Tesla valve’s use of less moving

parts made the valve more efficient. Regardless of the material, moving parts in several

conventional valves tend to wear out in a couple of years. Given that tesla valves do not

use moving parts, they can be better depending on what the application is due to the fact
that any moving part will wear over time no matter what the material used in it. The

scientific community can use the research’s information to improve efficiency in various

applications. These include, but are not limited to, regulating the flow of air into the

vehicle’s motors to keep the vehicle’s engine running efficiently at all speeds, shutting

off water going through pipes in dishwashers and sinks, and taking in air in fuel cells to

allow fuel in motor vehicles to be drawn out. Again, the average flow rates and

differences between the flow rates (before and after the valve’s utilization) show that the

Tesla valve significantly affected the flow rate.

On the weaknesses, fluid leakage occurred in the connection of parts, such as the

connection between the valve and the hose. Because of this, the researchers observed a

lower fluid level. Fluid leakage reduced the pressure exerted against the fluid’s flow,

increasing the flow rate of the fluid within the valve itself. Efforts were made to reduce

the leakage by sealing all connections with hot glue and gorilla tape. This procedure

helped prevent the fluid from exiting the hose and the valve, maintaining the consistency

of the flow rates throughout the experiment. Additionally, one of the valve segments

missed a part of one loop; the researchers discovered this issue when they found that

water exited from the back of the Tesla valve. The missing part was subsequently glued

back onto the segment, and the valve performed as normal.

Future research could be conducted to further determine the Tesla valve’s

effectiveness on the flow rate of a fluid. For instance, future research could emphasize the

performance of the Tesla valve with fluids of greater viscosity, including motor oil,

molasses, and vegetable glycerin; it could additionally emphasize the performance of the

Tesla valve with fluids of different temperatures, such as a low temperature of 10° C, a
standard temperature of 20° C, and a high temperature of 30° C. Determining the valve’s

effectiveness on fluids of various temperatures is imperative to the research, since

engineers, for example, have found that motor vehicle engines operate at very high

temperatures. It results in the new question of how Tesla valves fare in different

environments. Last but not least, Tesla valves with more loops could be tested, since the

experiment proved that the flow rate decreased as the number of segments increased. The

researchers could test a Tesla valve with an excessive number of loops to see whether the

valve would almost completely (if not entirely) halt the fluid. The conclusion made from

the experiment’s results was essential for future research.

 Acknowledgements

In the course of conducting the preliminary and final work of our experiment,

Mikolaj and I underwent issues with our general experimental design and have often

questioned its significance to the scientific community given that the procedures to the

experiment are incredibly basic. We received some backlash from our peers, who claimed

that the research we were doing was “too elementary” or “something a child could do.”

The simplicity of the research kept it from being able to generate new questions about the

optimization of Tesla valves. This was important since the intention of this research is to

expand people’s beliefs on what a Tesla valve could be utilized and optimized to do.

Thankfully, our research has been improved, and parts of it have been justified by

our teachers. Without the assistance of our teachers from the Macomb Mathematics

Science and Technology Center, our research would not have reached a certain quality

we desired it to have.

We would like to initially thank Mr. McMillan for providing class time to conduct

our trials, allowing us to conduct our experiment using the clamps that were available in

his classroom, and simplifying our experimental design. Mikolaj and I initially had it in

order that we determined the flow rate of the fluid by finding the time it took for the

fluid’s height to increase from 10.0 cm to 50.0 cm. McMillan suggested that our

experiment could be made simpler by measuring the fluid’s height in a sixty-second time

interval. As a result, our trials were conducted more quickly, and we completed our

experiment faster than we expected. He additionally provided us an important lesson

about simplicity: research should not always emphasize its complexity. Too many

students had great ideas for their research but made their experimental designs more
complicated than they should be. It made us relieve over the thought that our experiment

was too simple. Generally, it was one idea about the experimental design that we were

doing correctly (and that most groups were doing incorrectly).

Speaking of being able to conduct our experiment, we are thankful for Mr. Supal

who allowed the students to use his computer lab during class periods. He permitted us to

use the lab sink, which was imperative to conducting the experiment. Without it, we

would have had to devise an alternative experimental design which could have been

incredibly expensive. (Fact: the cost of the bin alone was around thirty dollars.)

Furthermore, we greatly appreciate Mr. Acre’s assistance with the type of testing

that our research should conduct. We were stuck between doing a design of experiment, a

t-test, and an ANOVA test. At first, we believed a design of experiment would be the

most effective in determining the Tesla valve’s significance on the fluid’s flow rate.

However, Mr. Acre and several others have asserted that we were only complicating the

path to our goal by performing a design of experiment. He told us to conduct an ANOVA

test instead, because 1) our final experimental design used three populations and 2) we

were trying to determine whether the differences between the average flow rates were

significant.

Again, we would like to sincerely thank them for assisting us with our research.

Most importantly, however, we would like to give thanks to the entire MMSTC program.

The program in general has helped us to prepare for college by requiring us (since

freshmen year) to do the kind of research people would do there. More than ever, we feel

prepared and confident about doing the same type of work in college.
 Appendix A: Statistical Equations and Sample Calculations

A. Finding the Flow Rate (cm3/s):

Table 5
Bin Length and Width
Length Width
(cm) (cm)

54.5 8.5

Table 5 provides the given bin length (cm) and width (cm), which is respectively

at 54.5 cm and 8.5 cm. The length is multiplied by the width, and the product of these

values are multiplied by the water level (or height) after sixty seconds to calculate the

volume (cm3) before or after the application of the Tesla valve.

𝑉 𝑙𝑤ℎ
𝑄= =
𝑡 60

Figure 26. Flow Rate Equation

According to figure 26, to calculate the flow rate (Q) of the fluid multiply the

length of the bin, and width of the bin, and the height of the water. Divide the product by

the time, which is sixty seconds for all trials.

B. Conducting the ANOVA Test:

An ANOVA test is a statistical analysis tool that separates the variance found in

the set of data into random factors and systematic factors. Random factors have no

significant influence on the data; systematic factors have significant influence on the
data. An ANOVA test allows researchers to compare the means of three or more

populations and determine whether or not there are any significant differences.

Before conducting the ANOVA test, the following required assumptions have to

be met. As mentioned previously, a simple random sample (SRS) was conducted to

randomize the experiment and reduce bias. In addition, there needs to be at least three

independent samples. The experiment meets this need, since the three given independent

samples are: a sample given one Tesla valve segment, a sample given two Tesla valve

segments, and a sample given three Tesla valve segments. Each population furthermore

must have a normal distribution. As seen in figures 20, 21, and 22, the distributions for

each data are fairly normally distributed; none of the collected data has resulted in

extreme skewness of the data’s distribution. It can be assumed that each data set was

pulled from a normal population. Since each population has a normal distribution, the

Central Limit Theorem verifies that the distribution of the populations makes conducting

the ANOVA test safer to do. Given that these values are only estimators of the true

population standard deviations, which remain unknown, the ANOVA test proceeded. All

of this criteria allows the validity of conducting an ANOVA test.

Table 6
Sample Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations for Tesla Valve Segments
# of
ni x̅i si
Segments

1 10 29.9 3.01

2 10 26.4 2.21

3 10 22.6 1.16
 Table 6 provides the sample sizes ni, means x̅i, and standard deviations si for each

of the valves. The sample size is the number of trials completed; ten trials were

conducted for a Tesla valve with one segment, ten trials were conducted for a Tesla with

two segments, and ten trials were conducted for a Tesla valve with three segments.

According to the data from the experiment, the average fluid flow rates for a Tesla valve

with one, two, and three segments are 29.9 cm3/s, 26.4 cm3/s, and 22.6 cm3/s,

respectively. The standard deviation is a measure of how spread out the flow rates from

the trials are compared to the average flow rate. Given the data from the trials, the means

and standard deviations for each segment were calculated using one-variable statistics on

the TI-Nspire student software.

df = 𝑛 − 1
df = 3 − 1
df = 2

Figure 27. Calculating the Degrees of Freedom

Given the number of categories n, the degrees of freedom df can be calculated by

subtracting the number of categories by one. The number of categories n is three, since

there were three different valves used in the experiment. Using the steps seen in figure

27, the degrees of freedom are two.

 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
∑𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖 𝑥𝑖
X̅ = =
𝑁
(𝑛1 ∗ 𝑥̅1 ) + (𝑛2 ∗ 𝑥̅2 ) + (𝑛3 ∗ 𝑥̅3 )
𝑁
(10 ∗ 29.9) + (10 ∗ 26.4) + (10 ∗ 22.6)
X̅ = 30
X̅ = 26.3

Figure 28. Calculating the Grand Mean

Given the sample sizes n, means x̅, number of trials N, and standard deviations s

for Tesla valves of one segment, two segments, and three segments, the grand mean X̅

can be calculated by finding the sum of the sample sizes multiplied by their respective

means and dividing it by the number of trials. The population N is 30, since ten trials of

each material were conducted. Using the steps seen in figure 28, the grand mean is

approximately 26.3.

MSG = Mean Square Group

# 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
∑𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖 (𝑥𝑖 −𝑋)2
𝑀𝑆𝐺 = =
𝐼−1
𝑛1 (𝑥̅1 − 𝑋̅)2 + 𝑛2 (𝑥̅2 − 𝑋̅)2 + 𝑛3 (𝑥̅3 − 𝑋̅)2
𝑀𝑆𝐺 =
𝐼−1
10(29.9 − 26.3) + 10(26.4 − 26.3)2 + 10(22.4 − 26.3)2
2

3−1
129.6 + 0.1 + 152.1
𝑀𝑆𝐺 =
2
𝑀𝑆𝐺 = 140.9

Figure 29. Calculating Mean Square Group (𝑀𝑆𝐺)

 Given the sample sizes n, means x̅, number of populations I, and standard

deviations s for Tesla valves of one segment, two segments, and three segments, the

mean square group (𝑀𝑆𝐺) could be calculated by finding the sum of the sample sizes

multiplied by the squared difference between the means and the grand mean and dividing

by one less than the number of populations. Using the steps seen in figure 29, the mean

square group is approximately 140.9.

MSE = Mean Square Error𝑀𝑆𝐸 =

∑#
𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝑖=1 (𝑛𝑖 −1)𝑠𝑖 2
=
𝑁
(𝑛1 − 1)𝑠1 + (𝑛2 − 1)𝑠22 + (𝑛3 − 1)𝑠32
2

𝑁−𝐼
(10−1)3.012 + (10−1)2.212 + (10−1)1.162
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 30−3
81.5409 + 43.9569+12.1104
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 27
𝑀𝑆𝐸 =5.1

Figure 30. Calculating Mean Square Error (𝑀𝑆𝐸)

Given the sample sizes n, number of trials N, number of populations I, and

standard deviations s for Tesla valves of one segment, two segments, and three segments,

the mean square error (𝑀𝑆𝐸) can be calculated by finding the sum of the squared

standard deviations multiplied by one less than the sample sizes and dividing it by the

difference between the number of trials and the number of populations. There are thirty

trials and three unique populations. Using the steps seen in figure 30, the mean square

error is approximately 5.1.

 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝑀𝑆𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 140.9
F= = = = 27.6
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 5.1

Figure 31. Calculating the F-Statistic

Given the values for the mean square group (figure 29) and the mean square error

(figure 30), F can be calculated by dividing the mean square group by the mean square

error, resulting in 27.6 as shown in figure 31.

 Appendix B: Professional Contact

Senior Research Professional Consultant Contact Form

Names: Red Encabo, Mikolaj Pal

Research Topic: The Effect of Tesla Valves on the Fluid Flow Rate

Professional Contact Information

Name: Ronald Louis Bardell

Title: Doctor of Philosophy

Organization: Microplumbers Microsciences LLC

Phone (Area Code and Extension): (612) 605-1574

Email: rbardell@gmail.com

Mailing Address: 5530 Canfield Pl N, Seattle, Washington

Dialogue Information

1. Contact Goal:

We wanted to learn how to experiment with Tesla valves and analyze their effect on the
flow rate of a fluid.

2. At least three potential questions to help reach your goal:

A. Given that you have done research at the University of Washington on valves and are
currently operating a business that emphasizes fluid viscosity (MicroPlumbers
Microsciences, LLC.), you have the proficient experience in testing the valves. What are
the three factors you would say are the most important in determining fluid viscosity?

B. How can we test Tesla valves and compare them with other conventional one-way
valves?

C. Part of your work also emphasizes simulation, design, and modeling; how can we
simulate, model, and design our experiment to make our analysis of the regulation of
flow within valves more vivid?

D. How does your analysis work (please explain with depth)?

3. Additional Information
Response:
“Hi Red and Mikolaj,

The Tesla valve differs from the other two valves. It doesn't stop flow. It could be
considered a "leaky" valve, because it simply slows the flow more in one direction
through the valve than flow in the other direction.

The Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity
has a very good discussion of viscosity.

The most detailed description of our use and modeling of Tesla valves is in my
dissertation. Please find it attached (Section 1.5 on page 15 describes what is contained
in each chapter). We used them as a component of micropumps, applying oscillatory flow
to create a net flow in one direction.

I hope the success of your studies reflects all your hard work and you have great
success.”
 Works Cited

Bardell, Ronald Louis. The Diodicity Mechanism of Tesla-Type No-Moving-Parts Valves.

Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, 2000. PDF.

"Check Valve Installation and Benefits." TLV - A Steam Specialist Company (USA). TLV

SteamWorld, n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2016. <http://www.tlv.com/global/US/steam-

theory/check-valve-installation-and-benefits.htm>.

Chugh, Ankit. "Check Valves Types, Construction, Applications and Advantages."

Piping Guide. Ankit Chugh, 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

<http://www.pipingguide.net/2013/10/check-valves-types-

construction.html>.

Gamboa, Adrian R., Christopher Morris J., and Fred Forster K. "Improvements in Fixed-

Valve Micropump Performance Through Shape Optimization of Valves." Journal

of Fluids Engineering J. Fluids Eng.127.2 (2005): 339. The American Society of

Mechanical Engineers. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

<http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=14

30143>.

Jeon, J., Q.-H. Nguyen, Y.-M. Han, and S.-B. Choi. "Design and Evaluation of a Direct

Drive Valve Actuated by Piezostack Actuator."Advances in Mechanical

Engineering 5.0 (2013): 986812. SAGE Journals. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

<http://ade.sagepub.com/content/5/986812.short>.

Hartmann-Bresgen, Petra, and Kathrin Kleophas. "Valves in Everyday Private and

Industrial Use." Valve World Expo. Messe Düsseldorf, 2012. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

<http://www.valveworldexpo.com/cipp/md_valve/custom/pub/content,oid,2199/la
 ng,2/ticket,g_u_e_s_t/~/Valves_in_Everyday_Private_and_Industrial_Use.html>.

Huang, Zejun, Shunhua Gao, and Shijun Wang. "The Core Pipeline Equipment

Localization Process and Application Prospects in China." Natural Gas Industry

B 1.2 (2014): 137-43. Directory of Open Access Journals. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

<https://doaj.org/article/07724af432a1491d8ba1a0800ffc8c04>.

"Hydraulic Valves." Damen Technical Agencies B.V. Damen Technical Agencies B.V.,

2015. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. <http://dta.eu/hydraulics/hydraulic-valves/>.

Nobakht, A.y., M. Shahsavan, and A. Paykani. "Numerical Study of Diodicity

Mechanism in Different Tesla-Type Microvalves." Journal of Applied Research

and Technology 11.6 (2013): 876-85. ScienceDirect. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665642313715943>.

"Nuclear Check Valves & Excess Flow Check Valves." Nuclear Check Valves – Excess

Flow Check Valves | Valcor Nuclear. Valcor Engineering Corporation, n.d. Web.

2 Oct. 2016. <http://www.valcor.com/nuclear-power/check-excess-flow-check-

valves/>.

Truong, T-Q, and N-T Nguyen. "Simulation and Optimization of Tesla Valves."

Technical Proceedings of the 2003 Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show,

Volume 1 1 (2003): 178-81. Nano Science and Technology Institute. Web. 20

Sept. 2016. <http://www.nsti.org/procs/Nanotech2003v1/9/M72.05>.

"Valve Applications." Engineering 360. IEEE GlobalSpec, 2016. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

<http://www.globalspec.com/pfdetail/valves/applications>.

Valves, Ladish. "Lift Check Valves | Automatic Operation | Houston, TX." Automatic

Operation | Houston, TX. Ladish Valves, 2013. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

 <http://www.ladishvalves.com/lift-check-valves-chlorine-clean>.

"Valve Types & Configurations." KITZ. KITZ Corporation, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

<https://www.kitz.co.jp/english2/type_checkvalve.html>.

West, Nathan. "Tesla's Valvular Conduit - Fluid Power Journal." Fluid Power Journal.

Innovative Designs & Publishing, Inc., 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

<http://fluidpowerjournal.com/2013/10/teslas-conduit/>.