Analysis and Discussion for Experiment 1

Based on graph 1, the velocity of fluid (air flow) actually should have
increased from 0mm to 30mm and reaches maximum of 40mm and then decrease
as the transverse position increase to 80mm. This is due to the air flow having shear
stress near the wall, thus produces lowest velocity at 0mm and 80mm transverse
position. At 40mm transverse position which is at centre of the pipe, the air flow
velocity reaches its maximum. Downstream flow of pipe shown full developed
velocity profiles where the flow is turbulent whereas downstream flow of pipe
exhibited a noticeable uniform velocity. The final readings recorded in this
experiment is 60mm transverse position. What we can justify that the concept
assumed above is slightly not true might be have some biggest error during conduct
the experiment according to graph 1. As shown in Graph 1, at Pitot tube at 2534mm
only has connection with the concept above but still different reading of velocity at
40mm is not highest and for 0mm is right that lowest value due to assumed concept
above. For the rest the value is constant.
There were several complication occurred while conducting the experiment. It
was impractical to alter the direction of pitot tube L-shape face exactly towards
incoming flow when inserted into the pipe. Parallax error was another error as the
reading taken from the manometer misaligned from the eye and the readings
yielded was slightly-differs. The fluid readings in manometer is unstable and
fluctuates while readings were taken making it impossible to obtain a precise
reading.

Analysis and Discussion for Experiment 2

As air flow through the orifice, there was significant pressure drop measured
with the manometer. This is due to the smaller effective area of the orifice. The
directional flow of the air of the fluid changed resulting in maximum possible in the
experimental set up. This can be explained by the equation of flow rate, Q = AV,
where the velocity of moving fluid is inversely proportional to the surface area.
Based on the calculated data, graph discharge coefficient against Reynolds Number
for standard and small nozzle are plotted shown that the pattern graph of standard
nozzle is being increase meanwhile for small nozzle being decrease. But if based on
the value the small nozzle is bigger than standard.
This can be explained by understanding the possible energy losses due to the
type of exits. Fluid passes through a smaller opening experiences, a large losses
due to the turbulence and frictional energy. The experimental valves indicate
indicates the reduction of discharge coefficient as the size of opening changes. This
changes proves that the value of discharge coefficient changes with various
variables such as flow rate and velocity of moving fluid.
Same human error such as parallax error occurred while taking the reading
due to the misalignment of eye and manometer reading. The experimental data is
not that precise as the reading of manometer fluctuate from time to time.

Based on the experimental data, it can be concluded that any interference

along the pipe can cause a sudden pressure drop despite the increase in reading in
mm of kerosene. This is due to the jet flow velocity was lower compared to the jet
flow after the orifice plate, the orifice plate acting as a second nozzle inside the
pipe. The pressure drops temporarily as air passed through the orifice then the
velocity increase. This situation results in the reading of kerosene in mm to increase
in particular region.