# anyone please can paraphrase this document so whenever i put it on

safe assign it dose not shown the percentage of copying please paraphrase the whole thing thanks in advance .who can finish it by tonight before midnight plz

Results and discussion:
In the calculation part, we yielded the flow rate of water inside a pipe using two approaches. In
the first method we used the pressure drop, which is caused by orifice or venturi meters, readings to
calculate the flow rate. Secondly, we used the volume and time readings to obtain flow rates (Q
m
). The
values were compared utilizing the error percentage formula. It's noticed that the error range is
relatively wide (0.1 % - 32%) for both the venturi and orifice meters and the values are mostly low.
This can be referred to the uncertainties associated with measuring the volume, time, and pressure
drop.
A similar comparison was carried out but this time between flow rate reading s from a flow
meter (that gives a direct reading of the flow rate) and the flow rate calculated by measuring volume
and time. In this case, the error values were low and consistent.
Using the flow rate values, three graphs were plotted. In the first graph, Q
m
values are plotted
against flow rates measured by venturi meter (Q
v
) the main observation is that not all data fit linearly,
and this can be shown by the R
2
value (0.66)
which is not so close to 1. In the second graph (figure 5),
Q
m
values are plotted against flow rates measured by orifice meter (Q
o
). In this graph, the R
2
value is
closer to 1 (0.93) indicating a better fitting of plotted data. Figure 6 is representing a plot of
Q
m
versus
flow rate reading of the flow meter. Just like in figure 5, the R
2
value (0.93) indicates a good fitting of
the data; this result is expected due to the low error percent values.
The second part of analyzing our results involves plotting flow rate versus (P
1
– P
2
)
0.5
to
calculate the discharge coefficient (C
d
) for both venturi and orifice meters (see figure 7 and figure 8).
In both cases, linear regression was performed to find C
d
and after that the value was compared to the
theoretical value using error percentage equation. In case of venturi meter, C
d
is found to be equal 1.12
which is quite away from the true value (0.98). However, the C
d
value of orifice meter was found to be
closer to the true values. The experimental value is equal 0.67, while the true coefficient is equal to
0.60. The reason behind having different coefficients for each meter is related to the amount of
pressure lost after passing each meter. Specifically, the orifice meter will cause more pressure loss so
the actual flow rate is less than what is indicated by the manometer and a lower C
d
is considered. On
the other hand, the vernturi's shape helps in restoring some of the pressure losses, thus a larger C
d
is
considered.
The final part of our data analysis is interpreting our flow rate results in terms of Reynolds
number. For each meter, a graph of Re number against C
d
is plotted (figures 9 and 10). The orifice curve
shows almost no change of discharge coefficient when Re number changes. Figure 11 confirms this
observation since at the targeted Re range (more than 10
5
) the values of C
d
are constant. While from
the venturi curve (figure 10) it can be observed that as Re number increase the C
d
will increase. This
relation will hold until reaching a coefficient value of 1. This result is also shown in figure 12, at which
a similar behavior of C
d
values is exhibited at the same Re number range. Also, from figure 12 we can
see that the maximum C
d
value is one this contradicts with our obtained curve at which values above
one exist. Having values above one is not logical and resulted from errors involved in taking
measurements. A value above one indicates that the actual flow rate is higher than the measured value
and no pressure drops occurred at all.

2 pages