Archive for November, 2025
Response surface methods hit the spot for optimizing projectile hurling siege engines
Posted by mark in design of experiments, physics on November 12, 2025
A few weeks ago, Professor Ernst Ferg, Associate Professor – Physical Chemistry at South Africa’s Nelson Mandela University bounced (pun intended) some questions off me about deploying response surface methods (methods) on a catapult operated for education purposes by three of his students. I built up power and developed insights on relative performance of the artillerists by rebuilding his results into a fully replicated blocked design.
Now, aided by Stat-Ease software for DOE, you can see surprisingly close agreement on the central composite design’s center-point set-up (red dots) for the catapult (the reason for this soon to be revealed).

Pooling all the results into one model produced a very impressive 3D graph of distance as a function of the two biggest factors—release angle (A) and cup elevation (B).

Being impressed by Ernst’s initiative to teach his students RSM, I asked him to send me pictures of them operating the catapult. Ernst replied, “LoL, I am approaching this very much in the digital way of things: I made them use Virtual Catapult© from SigmaZone.”
It turns out that Ernst learned about the Virtual Catapult (free!) from Tom Keenan—one of four DOE educators who shared their experiences Teaching Design of Experiments in Higher Education. Tom said that “I love the way that it shoots the ball but doesn’t give you the measurement. It comes to rest next to a tape measure that the students have to read.”
Tom also likes the way that the Sigma Zone simulation incorporates some variability, thus every student gets slightly differing results. He collects the results in blocks and does an analysis similar to what I did for Ernst—being watchful of students who deviate from the others.
Fun!
PS: After gaining possession of a South Dakota Mines trebuchet from Professor Dave Dixon (one of the four panelists), I enlisted my son Hank to run an RSM optimization on this more efficient counterweight-driven cousin of the catapult (powered by torsion). We ran a Box-Behnken design, which simplified the operation to only 3 levels of each factor (versus 5 levels required for a central composite design). Ultimately, we worked out a set up that would shoot a salt-weighted raquetball over our backyard bush into a bucket on the upper level of our play fort. Empowering! For all the details on our trebuchet experiment (and pictures), see Messing With Medieval Missile Machines (Part 2).
Fresh-made mac and cheese—the ultimate comfort food
Posted by mark in food science, Uncategorized on November 5, 2025
The New York Times Wirecutter team came out with a report in early September that rated Kraft Mac & Cheese Original their favorite out of the 19 boxed options tested, saying that its “buttery and silky-smooth sauce clings to each soft noodle.” If that doesn’t make your mouth water for a fresh hot bowl of gooey orange pasta, nothing will. But as writer Ciara Murray Jordan reveals in her video recap of the Wirecutter test, even a comfort food like mac and cheese becomes nauseating when binged.
Two decades ago, I ran statistically design of experiment (DOE) on Kraft Mac & Cheese Original versus their recently released Easy Mac—a more convenient, single-serve microwavable variation on their traditional stovetop, boxed brand. My goal was to see how two experimental recipes for canned mac and cheese from a Stat-Ease client (confidential) performed against King Kraft.
My wife Karen cooked up the four competing foods and presented them in random order for blind taste testing by me, my three daughters—Emily (age 21 at the time), Carrie (16), Katie (14) and three of her friends—seven in all. We rated the mac and cheese on a scale of 1 to 5—higher the better.
As you can see from the one-factor plot produced by Stat-Ease software, my client made great improvements via application of DOE on the recipe and processing of their canned product. (The numbers by some points indicate multiple results at that rating.)

Unfortunately, as you can see by the least-significant-difference bars (essentially a 95% confidence interval), this project failed to meet its goal—a canned mac and cheese just cannot best a fresh made one. As seen in the scatter plot by taster, Kraft (in one form or the other–the red and blue points) consistently came out on top.

So it goes for researchers and process developers—you win some and lose some (more of the latter). However, I did feel good seeing the original recipe (green points) rated so low by all the tasters and their far greater liking for the DOE-enhanced product.
By the way, I am now quite hungry for mac and cheese.
You too?