conclusion

CONCLUSIONS (Student 1)

This section should include a clear, concise statement of the significant findings of the work, generally in order of importance. The conclusions are taken from the major points of the discussion. Conclusions are frequently followed by recommendations for improving the experimental procedure or for future work, building on the results of the study. Recommendations should be specific and justified technically by the results and discussion of the experiment.

Results

Experimental Data

Degrees (°)	Experimental Force (N)	Theoretical Force (N)
30	0.1962	0.924902636
	0.3924	1.412770887
	0.4905	1.423435919
	0.6867	1.977924356
Degrees (°)	Experimental Force (N)	Theoretical Force (N)
90	0.981	1.060462653
	1.4715	1.506000853
	1.962	2.015315217
	2.4525	2.553169399
Degrees (°)	Experimental Force (N)	Theoretical Force (N)
120	0.981	1.170607577
	1.962	2.197839516
	2.943	3.307222968
	3.924	4.339266373
Degrees (°)	Experimental Force (N)	Theoretical Force (N)
180	1.4715	1.872858137
	2.943	3.656348377
	4.4145	5.342266189
	5.886	7.040724121

As shown below, the percent error for 30 degrees is significantly high. The percent error in the higher angles are relatively low. The more accurate angle is 90 degrees because it only has a percent error of 2.29%.

Degrees (°)	Percent Error (%)
30	-78.78695634
	-72.22479572
	-65.54112528
	-65.28178655
Degrees (°)	Percent Error (%)
90	-7.49320618
	-2.290892011
	-2.64550263
	-3.94291892
Degrees (°)	Percent Error (%)
120	-16.19736456
	-10.73051577
	-11.01295472
	-9.569967302
Degrees (°)	Percent Error (%)
180	-21.43024767
	-19.50985803
	-17.36652866
	-16.40064433

Analytical Data

                            Experimental Force vs Theoretical Force

                                            Experimental Force vs Jet Velocity

Discussion

The gravitational deceleration becomes significant when the water jet from the nozzle starts to decelerate because then the weight from the pan starts acting on the spring thus results in a change of velocity. We can neglect gravity when the velocity at the nozzle is high or when the weight on the weight pan is small; creating a small force due to gravity.

The assumptions made when calculating the theoretical force was incompressible, steady state and inviscid. But the most important assumption was incompressible flow because we were using water for the experiment. Also, we made an assumption that the mass flow rates were constant.

We assumed that the resolution for the volume was 1 litre.

The assumption that could not be justified was when we assumed the flow was inviscid. Realistically, there will be energy lost due to friction but we simply made that assumption just to make the calculation easier. Also, we assumed the velocity at the nozzle and the velocity at the target are the same. That may not be fully justified because we can’t measure the velocities at both places. It is also an assumption made to assist in calculations.

The highest source of error we think was from the calculations due to assumptions we made. We assumed that the velocity at the nozzle is the same as the velocity at the target. We couldn’t fully justify that assumption. In addition, there were errors when we measured the time from the sight-glass. Which assumably contributed to the errors made in our calculations.