...
The procedure is identical for the two experimental models. The ADV was positioned at the top of the pipe. A 30 second velocity measurement was taken here. The ADV was then repositioned to be 1 cm lower than the previous location, and a 30 second velocity measurement was taken. The procedure was repeated until we got to the bottom of the pump.
Results and discussion
The results for the first experimental model (connected) can be seen below in figure 4.
Figure 4. Measured flow rate for the experimental model where the pump is connected to the manifold.
You can see that the velocity has a unique, unexpected profile in this set up. There are two positive peaks and one large negative peak. The reason for this is hypothesized to be due to the fact that the connected pump actually physically moves the PVC pipe back and forth. This would contribute to the negative velocity measured at 5.5 inches.
The results for the second experimental model (vacuum) can be seen below in figure 5.
Figure 5. Measured flo rate for the experimental model where the pump is not connected to the manifold.
Here you can see that the velocity follows a more standard profile. There is a distinct peak and a symmetrical pattern. By summing the velocities, we found the flow rate to be ____
insert method for flow rate
Conclusions
From analyzing the set up where the pump is actually connected to the pipe, we can see that the velocity is not reliable. This may change if the manifold has more mass or is better stabilized. However, as it stands, the connected pump can likely not be reliably used to measure flow rates. The vacuum pump, however, shows a good velocity profile and a corresponding flow rate of ___. This flow rate is what the pump advertised, and is what we assumed in our theoretical analysis of the inlet manifold. This helps to make the conclusions drawn from other experiments more reliable.