Here are my comments for your second draft. I love that you guys seem to really be making progress. Keep up the enthusiasm for work, and I really look forward to seeing the work you will accomplish by the end of the semester. However, in the report, there seem to be a lot of embedded internal comments and formatting issues. Try to avoid leaving those in your submission drafts in the future. There are also a number of merge conflicts on this document, which are not ideal.
[ ] Line 26: UASB reactors are used in PRIMARY wastewater treatment, not preliminary
[ ] Line 26: UASB reactors are conventionally not gravity-powered as they use pumps to deliver wastewater. However, AguaClara’s UASB reactor does not use electricity.
[ ] Line 26: Maybe add an image of a conventional reactor to make the idea more clear to the unfamiliar audience
[ ] Line 26: Explain that UASB treatment is less energy intensive than aerobic treatments because of the high cost of keeping the wastewater oxygenated using rotors and aerations chambers
[ ] Line 28: “..that solely relies on gravity” to do what?
[ ] Line 34: The chia seeds, marbles and tapioca were never used together to simulate sludge, which is what the statement seems to imply
[ ] Line 42: Maybe go into more specifics and add that you will also be making a CAD model and a prototype
[ ] Line 53: Why is welding PVC or HDPE not feasible?
[ ] Line 60: What frame? You didn’t mention a frame before in your description of the tipping bucket. I would suggest adding an image from the design or fabrication manual of the setup.
[ ] Line 78: If the bucket is offset then the it will hang at an angle as it fills up with water. The volume of water then will not simply be area x height of the bucket since the actual volume is actually smaller than that
[ ] Line 92: Put the image of the holding tank right after this paragraph and reference it so that it can serve as a visual aid
[ ] Line 92: “It is also desirable for the flow dividing tank to empty out completely between each dump of the tipping bucket as a de-clogging mechanism.” Unclear what this means
[ ] Line 95: This paragraph is the same as Line 92. Please ensure that someone proofreads the report before turning it in to avoid formatting errors.
[ ] Line 122: I highly recommend creating a morph chart to document and summarize all your design choices. They are pretty easy to make and convey a lot of information to the reader Here is a great example.
[ ] Line 152: To the best of my knowledge, the bubble counter is not a substitute for the gas balloon. It is merely a way of quantifying the amount of methane being produced.
[ ] Line 160: For very low velocities, consider using units of cm/s or mm/s
[ ] Line 160: What research team? Clarify that.
[ ] Line 250: There seem to be some merge conflicts on this document. Maybe use Teletype next time to avoid this?
@ninablahut @Kanha-Matai @shaniafang @ezl5
Here are my comments for your second draft. I love that you guys seem to really be making progress. Keep up the enthusiasm for work, and I really look forward to seeing the work you will accomplish by the end of the semester. However, in the report, there seem to be a lot of embedded internal comments and formatting issues. Try to avoid leaving those in your submission drafts in the future. There are also a number of merge conflicts on this document, which are not ideal.