Impact of Temperature on Viscosity of Liquid

Impact of Temperature on Viscosity of LiquidINTRODUCTION Hydrodynamics, as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is the address of physics that deals with the motion of fluents, and the military forces playing on stiff bodies immersed in unruffleds and in motion relative to them (2017). The study of fluids originated in superannuated Greece, was coupled with the works of Persian philosophers in Medieval condemnations, and eventu totallyy, with many contributions make by scientists such as Archimedes, Leonardo Da Vinci and Isaac Newton, was developed into the branch of fluid dynamics that exists today (WiseGeek, 2017).Any substance offer be classed as a fluidif it changes shape uniformly in response to orthogonal forces. Many characteristics of such a substance include pressure, temperature, mass, density and viscousness (Washington.edu, 2017). The term viscousness is defined as a fluids resistance to combine in relation to its inner molecular structure, and is la rgely affected by temperature (Viscopedia, 2017). As the temperature of a fluid increases, so does the thermal/kinetic push of its liquid molecules, which results in increased amounts of inclinement as the particles begin to move faster. Due to this increased amount of movement, the attractive binding energy of the fluid is reduced, consequently decreasing the fluids resistance to flow (Azom, 2013). This principle is demonstrated in the following theoretical figures, which depict the relation channelise betwixt the temperatures and viscosities of various fluids From victimisation the known viscosities of fluids at various temperatures, and developing functions that model these relation charges in programs such as Microsoft Excel or on a graphics calculator, the fierce viscosity of a liquid at any temperature can be found by substituting set for temperature into the relevant formula. An example of this offset is seen belowAs seen in Figure 1, the equation that models the rel ationship between temperature and viscosity of water is y = 1.5396e-0.018x. If the temperature of the water was 4C.y = 1.5396e-0.018xy = 1.5396e-0.018 x 4y = 1.433 mPasTherefore, the viscosity of the water at 4C is 1.433 mPas.Viscosity is also what causes an object to slow as it travels finished a fluid, and is iodineness component in the phenomenon of comforter force, the retarding force that acts opposite to the direction of motion of a clay or object. The imbibe force of any object is dependent on the viscosity of the fluid it travels with, fastness of the object, case study of the object, and the heave coefficient.The following formula can be used to calculate the total pull back force acting upon an object (Wikipedia, 2017)Where = Drag force (N), = fix density of fluid (mPas), = scat speed of object relative to fluid (ms-1), = Drag coefficient (no units), A = quality area (m2) A worked example of this calculation with assumed and exact set is modelled belowAss ume that for a flat surfaced mass locomotion through water at 4C. mPas = 0.3ms-10.82A = 2.5 x 10-4The determine are wherefore substituted into the pull back force formulaTherefore the drag force of the mass travelling through water at 4C is approximately 4.6125 x 10-5N.One component of this force, as represented by in the drag force equation, is a drag coefficient (The degage Dictionary, 2017). As stated in The Physics of Sailing by Ryan M. Wilson (2010), intuitively, the drag should depend linearly on the density of the fluid in which the dust is immersed (because force depends linearly on mass) and linearly on the area of the body that is exposed to the flow because the volume of fluid that must be displaced as the body moves through it is proportional to this area. A range of calculated drag coefficients for various shapes can be seen in Figure 3. It can and indeed be concluded that the commence the drag coefficient of an object, the lower the amount of drag force that occurs as it travels through a fluid (Brock University, 2017).As seen in Figure 2, the drag coefficient of an object is reliant on its shape. It can be concluded that a mass with a flat compose area testament travel almost two times slower than that with a spheric reference area. A conical reference area will cause an object to fall slightly slower than a spherical mass, but faster than one with a flat reference area. Theoretically, as deducted from Figure 2, it is concluded that a mass with a spherical reference area will travel faster than one with either a conical and flat surfaced reference area, the latter of these theoretically having the slowest time of fall through a liquid out of the three.Although many antithetical fields of study incorporate cognition of drag forces and viscosity, arguably one of the most important applications is found within the engineering of ships and the design of the hulls, specifically in relation to sailing competitions such as the Americas Cu p. As one of the largest sailing unravels in the world, this competition has strict guidelines for ship design, consequently substance that vessel engineers must run into the best combinations (of measurements) to create the fastest ship possible (Krepal, 2014). When building, engineers must be familiar with the environmental sailing conditions of the race in order to build the most suitable hull with the least amount of drag this is determined in regards to the temperature of the sea and its viscosity. As work out viscosity is a complex procedure, ship engineers often refer to entropy such as seen in Figure 2 to determine aspects of ship design.In regards to the speed of the ship, it can be concluded from previous knowledge on drag force that the lower the drag coefficient of a vessel, the easier it is for it to secernate through the water, overcoming shear force and resulting in a faster travelling time (Krepal, 2014). When unknown, the drag force formula can be rearranged to find the drag coefficient however, often these values are computed from graphical designs of the ship as the phenomenon of drag force is dependent on many variables. Testing on model ships is also performed to determine how vessels will travel under contrastive conditions (Mecaflux, 2013).HYPOTHESISBased on the previous research, the supposition for this experiment is thatIf a body is falling in a liquid, then i) the lower the viscosity of the liquid, which decreases as temperature increases, the faster will be the rate of fall of the object, and ii) the lower the drag coefficient of the body, the smaller its drag force will be, as the velocity of an object as it travels through a fluid is inversely proportional to the amount of resistance it encounters.METHODThe supplies needed 1L glass measuring piston chamber, 2L water, 2kg love life, 2L canola oil, 3 x 53g cylindrical plenty with different reference areas of the same 0.9cm r (flat, spherical, streamlined/conical), a Th ermomix, thermometer, a logbook and pencil, and a exposure recording device. any measurements and data were to be collected and stored in a logbook and on the video recording device. A risk assessment form was completed ahead the commencement of the experiment, in order to recognise any potential hazards regarding the equipment that was to be used. It was identified that any device used to heat up the liquids, and the alive liquids themselves, had potential to burn the person completing the experiment, and it was possible for the glass cylinder to topple over and shatter as it was filled with each liquid. cover shoes were worn during the experimental procedures to protect the feet from any falling objects and glass, and trade was taken when using heating devices and handling hot liquids.As the hypothesis was written in two parts, there were two variables that remained constant depending on the experimental procedure (independent variables) the first was the temperature/viscosi ty of each liquid, and the second was the reference area of the masses travelling through each. The dependent variable in both was the velocity of the object.The equipment was set up for the experiment as envisioned in Figure 6. 1L of each liquid was placed in the fridge and cooled to 5C. 1L of the first liquid, water, was heated in the Thermomix to 37C and then poured into the glass cylinder. The flat ended mass was dropped from the 1L mark, and its fall was timed and enter on the video recording device. The object was then extracted from the bottom of the cylinder, and this process was repeated two more times. The flat ended mass was then removed, and the same procedure was performed again for both the spherical and conical molded masses. later on these tests were completed, the water was poured back into the Thermomix and was heated to 50C. Once at temperature, the water was again poured into the cylinder, and the antecedently stated processes were repeated for each mass. Aft er these tests were completed, the water was poured into the Thermomix. The chilled water from the fridge was then taken out, checked with a thermometer to be at 4C, and poured into the cylinder for examination. The previously stated processes for each mass were repeated. After all of the masses had been dropped into the water at all three temperatures, the water was disposed of, and the experimental space cleaned up to direct for the next round of testing. All results were recorded into various tables in the logbook, and later graphed for analysis.The second liquid, canola oil, was heated in the Thermomix to 35C and then poured into the glass cylinder. The previously stated procedures were repeated. All results were recorded into a table, and later graphed for analysis.The troika liquid, honey, was heated in the Thermomix to 35C and then poured into the glass cylinder. The previously stated procedure was repeated. All results were recorded into a table, and later graphed for anal ysis.In this experiment, it is noted that apart from that which were independent and dependant, all other variables were controlled, consequently message that every aspect of the testing remained consistent. These controlled variables included the positioning of the glass cylinder and video recording device, the dropping point of the masses, the weight of the small masses used, the radius of the masses, the distance each mass fell, the type of oil and honey used, etc. By controlling all other variables, the results recorded from the testing become more accurate.RESULTS(HYPOTHESIS PART 1)CALCULATED VALUES FOR VISCOSITYBy using the formulas generated from the Excel graphs in Figure 1, which model the relationships between the viscosity and temperature of each liquid, and substituting in the experimental temperatures for x (4, 37 and 50), the existential viscosities of each fluid at different temperatures were calculated. The tables and graphs of these results follow, with all calcu lations performed recorded in the logbooks.WATERTemperature (C)Viscosity (mPas)41.433370.791500.626y = 1.5396e-0.018xCANOLA fossil oily = 186.16e-0.049xTemperature (C)Viscosity (mPas)4153.0263730.3755016.064HONEYy = 138468e-0.117xTemperature (C)Viscosity (mPas)486716.073371825.10850398.774Water flat tire Surfaced MassTemperature of changeable (C) duration 1 (s) season 2 (s) eon 3 (s) second-rate eon of Fall (s)40.410.620.810.61370.620.500.500.54500.660.600.690.65 world(a) MassTemperature of Fluid (C) measure 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average Time of Fall (s)40.910.680.370.65370.530.590.550.56500.430.620.600.55Conical MassTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average Time of Fall (s)40.400.570.540.50370.780.500.620.63500.590.500.430.51Canola OilTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average Time of Fall (s)40.600.550.650.60370.620.690.580.63500.490.520.460.49Flat Surfaced Mass planetary MassTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average gait of Fall (s)40.630.590.690.636667370.560.560.530.55500.450.460.420.443333Conical MassTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average pace of Fall (s)40.670.530.430.543333370.460.490.380.443333500.360.450.390.4HoneyFlat Surfaced MassTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average Rate of Fall (s)420402257.22008.22101.837498.6489508.2498.6508491.295.490.2Spherical MassTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average Rate of Fall (s)414281537.21362.61442.637362.4370.2389.4374507270.873.872.2Conical MassTemperature of Fluid (C)Time 1 (s)Time 2 (s)Time 3 (s)Average Rate of Fall (s)411881135.213051209.437307.2305.4320.43115066.665.467.266.4HYPOTHESIS PART 2CALCULATED eviscerate FORCESWorked ExampleFlat surfaced mass travelling through water at 4CmPas = 0.2916 ms-10.82A = 2.545 x 10-4The values are then substituted into the drag force formulaWATERTEMPERATURE (C)DRAG FORCE (Nx10-5)Flat44.3600373.0830501.6840Spherical43.9480372.9358502.4084Con ical4132.37003746.02705055.5820CANOLA oilTEMPERATURE (C)DRAG FORCE (Nx10-5)Flat4483.0203786.9715076.033Spherical4434.85037116.8605096.567Conical412120.000373620.000502320.000HONEYTEMPERATURE (C)DRAG FORCE (Nx10-5)Flat40.0223060370.0083423500.0556950Spherical40.0485340370.0151850