Estimation and validation of water pressure at nozzle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating and validating water pressure at a nozzle, revealing that the validation measurements are consistently twice the estimation. The estimation uses the dynamic pressure equation, while validation involves measuring jet force with a gauge. The discrepancy arises because the pressure from the jet is distributed over a larger area than the nozzle, leading to a higher force measurement. A macroscopic momentum balance approach clarifies that the force exerted by the jet on the wall is double the stagnation flow estimate. Understanding this momentum balance resolves the issue and aligns the validation with observed values.
Tomtom123
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
ρ

I am trying to estimate and validate the pressure of water exiting a nozzle. For an unknown reason, the validation is consistently twice as high as the estimation.

Here the approach:
Estimation:
I am using the dynamic pressure equation for the estimation:
q = 1/2 * ρ * u2

where,
q = dynamic pressure
ρ = density of water (997 kg/m3)
u = liquid velocity
The velocity is calculated based on the known nozzle diameter and the flow rate (u = flow rate / nozzle area)

Validation:
The measurement is performed by simply measuring the jet force with a force gauge in horizontal orientation and in short distance (<1cm) - see the schematic. The assumption is that the jet diameter is the same as the nozzle.
q_val = jet force / nozzle area.

As mentioned before, in varying measurements the validation is close to being twice of the estimation data.
Is there anything I'm missing here?
 

Attachments

  • Setup.JPG
    Setup.JPG
    17.9 KB · Views: 533
Physics news on Phys.org
You are not approaching this correctly. Your experimental result is exactly what would be expected. Are you familiar with the Macroscopic Momentum Balance equation?
 
Hi Chestermiller,

Unfortunately, not. Can you please help me understand where my estimation methodology is incorrect?

Thanks
 
Tomtom123 said:
Hi Chestermiller,

Unfortunately, not. Can you please help me understand where my estimation methodology is incorrect?

Thanks
You probably have the correct answer for the pressure only at the very center of the jet striking the wall. But the axial flow velocity is not stopped completely over an area equal to the jet coming out of the nozzle. The pressure from the jet hitting the wall is distributed over a much larger area. The way to get the force that the jet exerts on the wall is to perform a momentum balance on the jet. For this system, the macroscopic momentum balance on the jet in the axial direction reduces to $$F=0-\dot{m}v$$where F is the axial force that the wall exerts on the fluid in the positive x direction, ##\dot{m}=\rho v A## is the mass flow rate of the jet, A is its cross section area, and the right hand side of the equation represents the rate of change of axial momentum of the jet. So the force that the wall exerts on the jet is: $$F=-\rho v^2A$$. And the force that the jet exerts on the wall is ##+\rho v^2A##. This is twice your stagnation flow estimate, but is consistent with your observed value of the force.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top