Experiment 1

Results
a) Case 14 in the
upstream

Volume of water collected - V (m^3) = Time to collect water -

1L = 0.001m^3 t (s) = 8.78
Flow rate - Q (m^3/s) =
1.14E-04

Dista Area Stat Velocti Dynamic Total

SI nce of the ic y Head head
into duct hea
duct d
x (m) A h V (m)=V^ H
(m^2) (m) (m/s)= 2/2g (m)=h+V
Q/A ^2/2g
h1 0 0.0004 0.26 2.32E- 0.002743 0.2687436
909 6 01 632
h2 0.060 0.0001 0.23 7.51E- 2.87E-02 2.66E-01
3 517 7 01
h3 0.068 0.0001 0.20 1.04E+ 0.055243 0.2642430
7 094 9 00 002
h4 0.072 0.0000 0.15 1.27E+ 0.081807 0.2368074
6 899 5 00 389
h5 0.081 0.0000 0.12 1.45E+ 0.107293 0.2272933
1 785 0 00 3
h6 0.141 0.0004 0.17 2.32E- 0.002743 0.1767436
5 909 4 01 632

b) Case 21 in the
upstream

Volume of water collected - V (m^3) = Time to collect water -

1L = 0.001m^3 t (s) = 9.63s
Flow rate - Q (m^3/s) =
1.04E-04

Dista Area Stat Velocti Dynamic Total

SI nce of the ic y Head head
into duct hea
duct d
x (m) A h V (m)=V^ H
(m^2) (m) (m/s)= 2/2g (m)=h+V
Q/A ^2/2g
h1 0 0.0004 0.24 2.12E- 2.28E-03 2.77E-03
909 1 01
h2 0.060 0.0000 0.13 1.32E+ 0.089188 0.2191885
3 785 00 534 34
h3 0.068 0.0000 0.13 1.16E+ 0.068003 0.207
7 899 9 00 138
h4 0.072 0.0001 0.14 9.49E- 0.045921 0.1859212
6 094 01 249 49
h5 0.081 0.0001 0.17 6.85E- 0.023882 0.196
1 517 2 01 357
h6 0.141 0.0004 0.19 2.12E- 0.002280 0.1972806
5 909 5 01 669 69

Case 14 in the upstreamTotal Head vs Distance

0.29
0.27
0.25
0.23
Total head (m) 0.21

0.19
0.17
0.15
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Distance into duct (m)

Case 21 in the upstreamTotal Head vs Distance

0.25
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
Total Head (m) 0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Distance into duct (m)

Discussion
Bernoullis equation makes two assumptions: that the liquid is incompressible
and that friction is not present. Whilst, assuming the water is incompressible
does not affect the results of the experiment due its extremely low
compressibility rate, ignoring friction does have significantly more consequence.
The results do indicate the realistic nature of the theoretical equation however,
as during convergence, velocity increases as area of the duct decreases resulting
in an increase in head. It should be noted that in Case 14 in the upstream, total
head decreased between h4, the duct with the area of 89.9*10^(-6)m^2 and h5,
the duct with the area of 78.5*10^(-6)m^2. According to Bernoullis equation,
the head for the duct with the area of 78.5*10^(-6)m^2 should be higher as the
velocity would push the water up further. This deviance from theoretical
understanding could be explained by the energy loss due to friction as h5 is
further from the starting point of the flow as compared to h4. As the total
amount of energy cannot change, the energy loss due to friction means that the
velocity declines despite the duct narrowing.
This becomes more likely the reason for the lower head by looking at Case 21 in
the upstream where Bernoullis apparutus is rotated 180 so that the flow of
water is coming from the opposite direction. In this case h4 (89.9*10^(-6)m^2)
becomes h3 and h5 (78.5*10^(-6)m^2) becomes h2. Hence h2 is closer to the
starting point of the flow than h3 and h2 has a higher head than h3. Thus, it can
be assumed that the loss in head in the prior test was as a result of a loss in
energy potentially explained by friction.
Studying the above results table also indicates the presence of friction. If friction
were not present, the total head would remain constant according to Bernoullis
equation. Case14 for example: h1 has a total head of 0.269m, this should
remain the same, however, by h6 it has declined to 0.177m which signifies that
there is energy loss happening between these two points.
Conclusions
It can be concluded that while Bernoullis equation is somewhat valid, in real life
scenarios where ideal conditions dont allow for friction to be ignored, results will
be effected as compared to theoretical values.
Experiment 2