RESULTS (STUDENT 3)

Analysis
The graph between actual force and theoretical force for different flow rates organized from highest to
lowest right to left, is shown in figure 4. The graph is plotted for all four target plates by using data
obtained from the experiment.
5
4
3
Exp. Force

30
2

90
120

180

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Theoratical Force

Figure 4 Actual Force Vs. Theoretical Force

Table 1 combines question 2 and 3 on the right and side it has the percent error between the actual
force exerted on the plate and the calculated force that the water jet should exert. In the first trial using
a plate with an angle of 30 degrees the actual force is significantly less than the calculated force
resulting in large percentage of error. With low deflection angles there is slipping between the
impacting jet and the surface of the plate resulting in a lower momentum change. The calculation does
not account for these low impact angles and breaks down.
Mass Flow
Rate
30 Degrees
0.600330182
0.591715976
0.597282365
0.558815312
0.55463117
0.545702592
0.409626216
0.406132602
0.403877221
0.270087779
0.266595575

Actual
Force
1.1772
1.1772
1.1772
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.4905
0.4905
0.4905
0.1962
0.1962

Theoratical
Force
0.960578712
0.933209588
0.950849946
0.832317826
0.819900494
0.793715086
0.447227076
0.439631001
0.434761743
0.194429638
0.189434237

% Error
22.55112316
26.1452963
23.80502357
17.8636297
19.64866558
23.59598772
9.675828265
11.57083992
12.82041449
0.91054134
3.571562917

0.267665953
90 Dgrees
0.242208946
0.230131942
0.224081267
0.326317507
0.327868852
0.325044694
0.383553237
0.391420072
0.39258794
0.443786982
0.444905828
0.445235975
120 Degrees
0.188040617
0.188205772
0.185873606
0.255362615
0.253871541
0.256937307
0.310559006
0.309453814
0.311429461
0.345781466
0.349993
0.348286431
180 Degrees
0.17395338
0.171781951
0.171428571
0.238748955
0.238977178
0.240297969
0.295420975
0.292954446
0.293470286
0.327696946
0.335931201
0.328860826

0.1962

0.190958444

2.744867569

0.981
0.981
0.981
1.962
1.962
1.962
2.943
2.943
2.943
3.924
3.924
3.924

1.16710654
1.053619866
0.998944239
2.11841427
2.138604449
2.101920596
2.926721849
3.048009594
3.066225228
3.918133796
3.937914974
3.94376148

15.94597697
6.892416137
1.796320408
7.383554403
8.25792956
6.656797439
0.556190572
3.445185812
4.018792444
0.149719326
0.353358915
0.50108203

0.981
0.981
0.981
1.962
1.962
1.962
2.943
2.943
2.943
3.924
3.924
3.924

1.055175594
1.057029916
1.030995696
1.945969537
1.923310675
1.970043158
2.878125056
2.85767663
2.894281659
3.567999842
3.65544388
3.619882828

7.029692014
7.192787567
4.849263329
0.823777676
2.011600388
0.408273211
2.254069675
2.985760148
1.683261903
9.977583348
7.346744442
8.40129879

0.981
0.981
0.981
1.962
1.962
1.962
2.943
2.943
2.943
3.924
3.924
3.924

1.203998335
1.174127349
1.169301623
2.268000264
2.272338339
2.297525511
3.472504317
3.414761104
3.426797263
4.272724863
4.49014976
4.303129609

18.52148199
16.44858622
16.10376819
13.49207356
13.65722408
14.60377739
15.24848548
13.81534724
14.11805909
8.161650338
12.60870551
8.810555192

Table 1- Actual Force, Calculated Force, and % Error

Figure 5 shows relationship between velocity and force. It is evident form the graph that velocity is
directly proportional to the force.
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
Actual Force (N)

30

90

1.5

120

180

0.5
0
2

10

12

14

Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5 Actual and Force on Flat Plate VS. Velocity

Table 2 shows the ascertained hypothetical speed required to confer the required power around each
plate, and in addition the real speed measured starting with those volumetric stream rate Also their rate
Contrast. As done table one the biggest discrepancies happen for velocities Previously, trial particular
case for those 30 level plate. Should figure those hypothetical speed those qualities starting with
addendum An were utilized within calculations and assessed to every plate.
Theoretical Velocity
3.935
4.303
4.135
4.551
4.665
4.682
1.455
5.119
5.128
5.603
5.627
5.574
6.151
2.206
2.740
3.523

Velocity
4.291
4.536
4.715
4.947
5.020
5.206
5.358
5.497
5.703
5.922
6.001
6.121
6.346
7.069
9.960
11.068

Percentage Difference
8.64
5.28
13.11
8.35
7.32
10.60
114.56
7.13
10.62
5.54
6.44
9.35
3.13
104.85
113.69
103.42

Table 2-Theoretical Velocity, Velocity, and Percentage Difference

Results for linear momentum and velocity are plotted as shown in figure 6,,7 and For 90 degree plate
there is close relationship between these two quantities. This is because the entire or nearly the entirety
of the linear momentum is translating into force from the jet onto the plate. This would be true with the
plate at 30 degrees but there is too much slip for the force to be close to the linear momentum that was
calculated and displayed in appendix B.
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Force (N) 0.6

Actual Force
Theoratical Force

0.4
0.2
0
1

Linear Momentum (Kg.m/s

Figure 6 Linear Momentum Vs. Forces Plate 30

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
Force (N)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Linear Momentum (Kg.m/s
Figure 7 Linear Momentum Vs. Forces Plate 90

Actual Force
Theortical foce

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
Force (N)

Actual Force

1.5

Theoratical Force

1
0.5
0
0.5

1.5

2.5

Linear Momentum (Kg.m/s)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3

Force (N)

2.5
2
1.5

Actual Force
Theoratical Force

1
0.5
0
0.5

1.5

2.5

Linear Momentum (Kg.m/s

DISCUSSION
In this experiment, when the measured increased, the time needed for the level in the volumetric tank
to rise from 20 to 30 litres decrease. This results in a decrease in the flow rate. When comparing the
three types of deflectors, the flow rate for the hemisphere is found to be the lowest.
The percentage of error ranged from around 0.5% to around 22%. Some of the percentages of error are
large due to several errors made during the experiment. One of the errors may be the error made during
setting the pointer; the pointer may not precisely set to zero due to parallax error. Another possible
error is the error made when recording the time

In this experiment the relationship between actual force and theoretical force, and actual velocity and
theoretical velocity is observed. The assumption made in theoretical calculations were not accounted in
the experimental setup, which causes difference in experimental and theoretical calculations. Since the
measurements were close enough to the calculated values the assumptions held true, the not accounted
for variables were the main impact on the measured results. The first assumption in the experiment is
that the flow is held in a steady state, to impart a constant force on the selected plate. With the pumps
provided for this experiment a constant jet flow rate is possible with little variation. A variable not
accounted in the experiment was the friction between the pole attached to the selected plate and the
walls of the container. This friction should was minimal but could affect results at low flow rates.
The velocity does not decrease in the jet stream after leaving the nozzle. This assumption holds true
only when the the height change or the potential energy change is significantly less than the velocity
head. This assumption would fail according to Bernoullis equation in low flow rates or if the plate was
placed too far away the exit of the nozzle. In low flow rates the velocity head would not be able to
overcome the work it requires to lift the water to a higher relative height. In the experiment the plate
was placed close to the jet to minimize the effects of head loss. The velocities of the flow rates for each
trial were quick enough that gravitational deceleration was minimal and could be neglected for the
experiment. This assumption does not account for the velocity after impact on the plate. The
calculations assume that the flow stay next to the surface after it impacts and flows off of the plate.
This assumption may not be fully justified but the result of the assumption does not vary the outcome
of the experiment substantially.
Possible factors influencing the results of experiment:
a) The factor which influenced the result is that the water flow velocity, where if the velocity is high
when the rate of flow was rapid.
b) Besides that, weight of load also effects to the result because if the weight of load is high, the
distance between of nozzle and conical plate will be near and the rate of water flow hence will be
high.
c) Readjustments were not properly made for the datum each time weight is added to the device, hence
increasing errors to the data.
CONCLUSIONS
As a conclusion, the calculated force is correlated with the measured force. Both of the forces
will have directly proportional relation. Theoretically, the calculated force should be the same as the
measured force. However, this cannot be achieved experimentally due to the errors made during the
experiment. This experiment also conducted in order to understand correctly how a turbine (a Pelton
wheel for example) works, where students need to understand how jet deflection produces a
force on turbine vanes. It is also understood how this force affects the rate of momentum flow in the jet
based on the experiment.

REFERENCES
[1]. Ciocanel, C. BERNOULLIS THEOREM DEMONSTRATION lab handout, Northern Arizona
University, pp. 1-6, 2014.
[2] Frank M. White K Equation, Fluid Mechanics, 6th Edition

APPENDIX
Appendix A
30 Nozzle
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
20
20
flow Rate
Time
(L/s)
(s)
0.276

72.57

0.267
74.8
0.265 75.55
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
40
25
flow Rate
Time
(L/s)
(s)

90 Nozzle
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
100
15
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)
0.226

66.25

120 Nozzle
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
150
15
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)
0.216

180 Nozzle
Wieght used
(g)
200
flow Rate
(L/s)

69.58

0.236

0.229
65.45
0.217
69.28
0.229 .65.62
0.214
69.95
Wieght used
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
(g)
Liters
120
20
200
20
flow Rate
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)
(L/s)
Time (s)

0.233
0.242
Wieght used
(g)
250
flow Rate
(L/s)

0.35

71.37

0.254

78.88

0.249

80.43

0.262

0.36

69.53

0.254

78.63

0.25

79.85

0.262

0.247
80.95
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
250
20
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)

0.261
Wieght used
(g)
300
flow Rate
(L/s)

0.356 70.18
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
70
30
flow Rate
Time
(L/s)
(s)

0.249
80.33
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
170
20
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)

0.504

59.48

0.296

67.6

0.28

71.52

0.286

0.497

60.4

0.297

67.23

0.277

72.22

0.287

0.272
75.62
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
300
20
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)
0.302
66.25

0.287
Wieght used
(g)
350
flow Rate
(L/s)
0.31

0.501 59.92
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
100
35
flow Rate
Time
(L/s)
(s)
0.558 62.77

0.3
66.69
Wieght used
(g)
Liters
200
25
flow Rate
(L/s)
Time (s)
0.314
77.6

0.557

62.87

0.323

77.43

0.3

66.65

0.307

0.554

63.23

0.32

78.05

0.303

66

0.306

Liter
s
15
Time
(s)
63.5
7
64.3
2
62.1
Liter
s
20
Time
(s)
76.2
7
76.3
5
76.6
2
Liter
s
20
Time
(s)
69.9
7
69.7
5
69.5
8
Liter
s
20
Time
(s)
64.5
65.0
5
65.3
4

Appendix B
Linear Momentum Flux(N)
Plate 30

Plate 90

Plate 120

Plate 180

7.169857

1.167107

0.703450396

0.601999167

6.965571

1.05362

0.704686611

0.587063675

7.097241

0.998944

0.687330464

0.584650811

6.212505

2.118414

1.297313025

1.134000132

6.119821

2.138604

1.282207117

1.136169169

5.92437

2.101921

1.313362106

1.148762756

3.338148

2.926722

1.918750037

1.736252158

3.28145

3.04801

1.905117753

1.707380552

3.245106

3.066225

1.929521106

1.713398631

1.451243

3.918134

2.378666561

2.136362432

1.413956

3.937915

2.436962587

2.24507488

3.943761

2.413255219

2.151564805

1.425333