Research Report 2

[IanCullings]

Hey @juanchon998 our research report is linked below, thanks again for editing it. One area that would be great for you to look over is the functions (do they make sense, should we add more).

Here it is

Also a random fluids question, but the minor loss coefficient for a straight pipe is just 1, right?

[juanchon998]

I will grade it today! Technically there is no minor loss for a straight pipe. If you use the head loss trick, then yes the minor loss coefficient for a straight pipe becomes 1!

[juanchon998]

Your report was good! Buuuuuut I have some (ok a lot) of comments.

While reading this report, I kept coming back to the same idea: Your audience is AguaClarians who have never been on the UASB team before. They need to be able to look back at what you guys are doing through this report and understand perfectly and what you guys did and why you did it. If you leave the UASB team after one semester, one year, or two years, all of your work will be lost unless you document it well and perfectly clearly. I know that documenting isn't very exciting, but I also know that unless you document as you go, there is a 0% chance you'll look back on your work 2 months ago and say: "Hey, I really want to retroactively document what I did then!"

So respect your own time and use some of it to write great reports! I know it's hard to get out of your own head when writing, so have your STEM friends who don't know anything about your work read it and tell you where they get confused. Most importantly, spend the time that you need to write an amazing report. It is always worth it.

Also: Your python code does not print to GitHub, I recommend writing what your answer should be in a comment at the end of your code block!

Also also: I think you will find this function in aide_design helpful, it returns a circle's area given its diameter.

Also also also: Your headings are not very well organized. Everything seems rather thrown together as it's needed. I would consider reorganizing/using a table of contents.

Here we go. Because my comments are based on line numbers, it's best to edit them in-situ and check off all the ones that don't require adding additional lines first. Then, work your way up from the bottom. If you're planning on restructuring the document, I would first implement any of my changes that you would like and then restructuring, so that the line numbers are not lost. Finally, check off boxes for finished items as you go!

• [x] Line number 31: "and that the addition of an entrance tank required only one tipping bucket" this phrase is not quite clear. I think you mean that using a tipping bucket system only requires adding an entrance tank, but I don't think that is communicated as well as it could be. Touch it up, add some detail!
• [x] Line number 47: "Minimum velocity needed to scour settling particles" in where? Add "in reactor"
• [x] Line number 50: "Roughly equal to height of reactor plus half of diameter (see influent pipe geometry)" What diameter are you referring to? Make that clear to the reader! Also "see influent pipe geometry" should link to something or should be control-f able, otherwise I don't know where to look
• [x] Line number 52: Why should "the dump volume should also be a relatively small fraction of the total reactor volume?"
• [x] Line number 52: Head loss is two words. I know, my mine was blown too! I messed this up in a few pages of the textbook before changing them :P
• [x] Line number 63: This figure can still be cropped more (or perhaps taken in a more flattering orientation?). The tub below the tipping bucket takes up 3/4 of a whole page length in my window. I suggest cropping the tub on the bottom, cropping most of the sides, and a bit on top as well.
• [x] Line number 73: "The bucket needs to be designed so that it will not rest completely tipped down" and why is that?
• [x] Line number 79: Yes labels are so much better! In this image you say "influent tank" but before, you've said "entrance tank." Throughout most of the document both "influent tank" and "entrance tank" are used. You should pick one and stick to it to avoid reader confusion!
• [x] Line number 83: Sorry to nitpick here, but a 5 gallon bucket is actually 19 liters not 20, which you mentioned in the table above!
• [x] Line number 91: I don't have a good idea of where the hose clamp goes or how it provides flexibility. Can you include and label it in one of your diagrams?
• [ ] Line number 98: I can sort of tell why the off-centered pivots are a problem. Can you make it easier for me by showing what is actually a top view of the bucket or over-exaggerating the problem?
• [ ] Line number 115: It seems like this system is difficult to understand with words and images alone. Could you make and link a youtube video explaining how to adjust the system's parameters?
• [x] Line number 122: Why is splashing in quotes?
• [x] Line number 142: I think this image should placed just before you start talking about the tipping bucket design, so that the reader knows what you guys are going for.
• [ ] Lines 149-160: Hang on, you still haven't said why a specific head gain is required in this report. You also made the bucket volume 15 L, which is different from what you mentioned above. Finally, the reader can't see your solution on GitHub! You should write it in as a python comment.
• [x] Line number 165: Good image! Can you make it such that its background is not checkered please? :D
• [x] Line 180-244: This code block is way better than before! Is there any way you guys can make new lines so that the text does not scroll off the page in the markdown view?
• [x] Line number 266: This is my bad, but I don't think that "head loss trick" should be included in any report. It is usually called "exit loss," and I believe that is what you should call it! I made a note to include that in the textbook.
• [x] Line number 290: should be using the lowest temp in Honduras at which the water will be most viscous
• [x] Line number 333: Why did you guys decide to use tapioca??
• [x] Lines 343-345: What is your goal with these tests? Also finished sentences are more effective at conveying information than unfinished ones :D
• [x] Line number 430: Link to the fabrication manual! Link whenever possible!

I am very sorry for the extreme length of this document. Happy Monday and see you next week!

[isakaminsky]

GOD DAMMIT JUAN.

I'm jk thank you for spending so much time!

[isakaminsky]

• [ ] Line number 83: Sorry to nitpick here, but a 5 gallon bucket is actually 19 liters not 20, which you mentioned in the table above! A five gallon bucket can hold slightly more than 20 L because the 5 gallons doesn't refer to filling it all the way to the top. So maybe we need to include something about that?

[ananya-gangadhar]

Yo @juanchon998 Clare here. The "head loss trick" is confusing if thought of as an "exit loss" because that suggests a minor loss (at least to me). I think we need to call this something different still, because it's confusing. Why not say simplified energy equation or difference in elevation head. (I've also never heard of it called a trick so i'm totally down to change the verbiage in the book)

[juanchon998]

Yo @clare45 I don't think that "simplified energy equation" or "difference in elevation head" convey the same meaning. Perhaps when it first comes up, we could declare it convention to simply link to the textbook where the head loss trick is explained, and then take it as a given for the rest of the report? That's my initial though

[ananya-gangadhar]

So @juanchon998, do you suggest that we should refer to it in the report still as "head loss trick" but embed a link to the textbook?

[juanchon998]

As of now I would recommend referring to it once as "head loss trick," linking it to the textbook, and saying that it will be used throughout the rest of the document (then not mentioning it again). Basically I want it to be clear to the reader that we are using the head loss trick while also minimizing the uses of the the phrase "head loss trick." If you come up with another way of accomplishing that then definitely use that!

[IanCullings]

More edits before the end of the summer:

• [x] Add table of contents (with Doctoc?)
• [ ] Add introduction, lit review, and previous work sections to aid understanding for new members
• [ ] The biogas capture system should be updated following our meeting with Ed as to our plan for implementation there
• [ ] We should add figures of our proposed capture system (use google drawings!)
• [ ] There should at least be a mention of the type of biogas bag used
• [ ] Check all images work (both in this report and the Spring 2018 report) once the repo is reorganized
• [ ] This link shows off the first Fusion model for the UASB! It should be included in this manual prominently!
• [ ] We should add similar links for each component of the system (tipping bucket, biogas, tipping bucket)
• [ ] Finally, there should be a link to the UASB project on Fusion (an eventually OnShape) to keep everything truly open sourced!
• [ ] Add sections on effluent tube settler and sludge weir with brief explanations and saying they will be a future design project

[IanCullings]

More tasks:

• [ ] Add tapioca test video/image to report
• [ ] Add tipping bucket frame design video to report and fabrication manual

[ananya-gangadhar]

TASKS FOR FINAL SUMMER REPORT Ian

• [ ] Fill in the Biogas Lid Design sections
• [ ] Add info under Future Work--->Quantifying Biogas Production
• [ ] Add info under Future Work--->Effluent Line Geometry
• [ ] Make doctests (if possible)
• [ ] Check that all of Ed's important comments have been incorporated Ananya
• [x] Add info under Future Work--->Choosing Tank for Reactor
• [x] Add info under Future Work--->Removal of FOG
• [ ] Put comments with result values for every relevant code block
• [x] Do final review and fix image and table numbers
• [ ] Remake PDF for spring 2018 manual and fix broken links @IanCullings