BvU said:
What do you mean by combination of k and v1 ?foo9008 said:
in the reservoirfoo9008 said:
well, the link gives the expressions. You can try to wiggle ##\ \foo9008 said:
I meant the one in post #1foo9008 said:
So , its not possible to change the to change the original formula of head loss due to expansion intoBvU said:
it doesn't state v = 0 , it just stated mean velocity in 165BvU said:
) . BvU said:Ah ! I was mistaken in post #3. In 165 there is no counterpart of the ##V_1## in 166 -- so I wanted to consider ##V_1## as zero in picture 165. But it plays no role in either case: the ##v## involved are ## V_c## and ##V_2## in both cases, so 165 and 166 say the same (as haru indicated and you Ok'd)
(we are now talking about pictures in another thread - never mind
In 166 you see a ## k_L = \left ( {\displaystyle A_2\over \displaystyle A_c} - 1\right )^2##.
In the current thread the idea is that there is no contraction at CD and that means ##V_1## plays the role of ##V_c## (and ##A_1## is ##A_c##).
##v_1## and ##v_2## are linked through continuity (##V_1 A_1 = V_2 A_2##) so -- analogous to 166 -- you get a ##k_L## for ##V_2## but you can also get a (different) ##k_L## for ##V_1##.
'Mean velocity in the pipe' may have caused confusion: what is meant is volume flow divided by area (i.e. the velocity averaged over the cross section -- so not lengthwise). In other words: there is no place for (V1 +V2 ) /2
sorry , pls ignore my several posts before this . do you mean the mean velocity is not suitable and should be replaced by v1(mean velocity at region 1 ) or v2( mean velocity at region 2 ) to avoid confusion ?BvU said:Ah ! I was mistaken in post #3. In 165 there is no counterpart of the ##V_1## in 166 -- so I wanted to consider ##V_1## as zero in picture 165. But it plays no role in either case: the ##v## involved are ## V_c## and ##V_2## in both cases, so 165 and 166 say the same (as haru indicated and you Ok'd)
(we are now talking about pictures in another thread - never mind
In 166 you see a ## k_L = \left ( {\displaystyle A_2\over \displaystyle A_c} - 1\right )^2##.
In the current thread the idea is that there is no contraction at CD and that means ##V_1## plays the role of ##V_c## (and ##A_1## is ##A_c##).
##v_1## and ##v_2## are linked through continuity (##V_1 A_1 = V_2 A_2##) so -- analogous to 166 -- you get a ##k_L## for ##V_2## but you can also get a (different) ##k_L## for ##V_1##.
'Mean velocity in the pipe' may have caused confusion: what is meant is volume flow divided by area (i.e. the velocity averaged over the cross section -- so not lengthwise). In other words: there is no place for (V1 +V2 ) /2
Minor loss due to expansion is the reduction in fluid pressure that occurs when a fluid flows through a pipe or channel with an increasing cross-sectional area.
Minor loss due to expansion is caused by the conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy as the fluid expands into a larger area. This results in a decrease in fluid pressure.
Minor loss due to expansion is calculated using the Bernoulli's equation, which takes into account the fluid velocity, density, and the change in cross-sectional area.
Some examples of minor loss due to expansion include the sudden expansion of a pipe, the entrance of a pipe into a larger tank, or the exit of a pipe from a smaller tank.
To minimize minor loss due to expansion, it is important to design pipes and channels with gradual transitions in cross-sectional area, rather than sudden changes. Additionally, using smooth and streamlined fittings can also help reduce minor loss due to expansion.
