Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
MECH 3504 Thermofluids Laboratory
Air Compressors
Page 1 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction, Background & Objectives ......................................................................................... 4
Experimental Apparatus & Method ................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Experimental Apparatus ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Experimental Method ............................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Experimental Uncertainties ................................................................................................... 6
Results & Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 7
4. Summary & Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 10
References ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Results Tables ........................................................................................................................... 12
Results for Rotary Vane Compressor at n=1500 RPM ......................................................... 12
Results for Rotary Vane Compressor at n=2300 RPM ......................................................... 12
Results for Piston Compressor at 1000 RPM ........................................................................ 13
Results for Piston Compressor at 1500 RPM ........................................................................ 13
Sample Calculations .................................................................................................................. 14
Uncertainty Calculations: .......................................................................................................... 15
Page 2 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Abstract
Air compressors provide a useful conversion of low-pressure air to high pressure. They can be
used in many industrial uses, such as pneumatic machinery, or industrial air systems. This report
analyzes the characteristics of two types of positive displacement air compressors: The Piston
and the Rotary Vane compressor, at various speeds, and flow rates. We found that efficiency
tends to be higher in both compressors at higher pressure differentials across the pumps, whilst
piston compressors will always be more efficient than vane compressors. Additionally, we found
that for higher flow rates the Vane compressor is much more useful and performs far better. This
helps in determining use cases for both compressor types as we can determine that vane
compressors are more applicable in high flow rate applications such as industrial air ventilation.
Piston compressors are more applicable in high pressure differential uses such as pneumatic
machinery. We can use finding from this report to justify specific use cases for compressors, as
well as identifying ideal use conditions for required efficiency or flow rate.
Page 3 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Introduction, Background & Objectives
Air compressors are devices used in various industries: Automotive, manufacturing,
construction, agriculture etc. Due to their varied use cases, there are many different types of
compressors. To make identification easier, air compressors are usually placed into 2 categories.
Positive Displacement (working with a constant flow) and Dynamic (working with constant
pressure). For the purposes of this report, we will be discussing 2 positive displacement air
compressors: A Piston compressor and a Rotary Vane Compressor. Piston compressors can be
used in the automotive industry for spraying paint or powering pneumatic tools. Rotary vane
compressors can be used in vacuum pumps allowing manufacturers to vacuum seal and vacuum
dry food.
Positive displacements work by moving a piston up and down in a cylinder, compressing air as it
moves. By reducing the cylinder volume, then exhausting the compressed air. A rotary Vane
compressor works much in the same way, but instead of a piston moving up and down a
cylinder, the compression is done by moving a rotor with small gaps past a stator to compress air
in the tiny gaps, then discharge it through an outlet port. Both variations provide power at
differing rates and can be used for different results. Thus understanding peak efficiencies, best
practices and the characteristics of Positive Displacement air compressors is key to ensuring we
can effectively operate compressors. The efficiency of a pump is calculated by finding the
hydraulic power output of the compressed air and dividing it by the electrical power input to the
compressor. The objectives for this experiment are:
1. To compare the performance of rotary vane and piston compressors in terms of
efficiency, pressure ratio, and airflow rate.
2. To investigate the effect of different operating parameters, such as speed, and pressure,
on the performance of rotary vane and piston compressors.
3. To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of rotary vane and piston compressors and
their suitability for different applications.
We can analyze the efficiencies of air compressors by finding the Hydraulic power output of
each compressor at various flow rates and speeds. The governing equations we used are:
𝑝
𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 = 𝑝𝑠 𝑉𝑠 ln 𝑝𝑑
𝑠
Where:
 Phyd = Hydraulic power in Watts
 Ps = Suction-side pressure in N/m2 or P3 from measurements
 Pd = Pressure-side pressure in N/m2 or P4 from measurements.
 Vs= Suction flow in m3/s
𝑃
And:
𝜂 = 𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑 ∙ 100%
𝑒𝑙
Page 4 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Experimental Apparatus & Method
2.1 Experimental Apparatus
The Experimental apparatus consists of either a Rotary vane, or piston compressor (16), attached
to a mounting rail (1). A drive motor (2) is also attached to the mounting rails along side 2
centrifugal pumps (4,5). There were also 2 control valves (6, 12) to control flow input from the
compressed air tank (11) and the measuring tank (7). The control cabinet (8) was connected to all
sensors in the apparatus, allowing us to record and see live properties in the pipes, particularly
pressures, temperatures, and motor speed and output. A stabilization tank (9) and compressed air
tank(11) are also used to allow for somewhere to store compressed air and to regulate pressure
throughout the experiment. A venturi nozzle (10) is also used to measure the flow rate through
the pumps/compressors. Compressors were connected to the drive motor with controllable input.
Figure 1- Image of experimental setup and apparatus with all parts numbered for reference, courtesy of MECH 3504 at
Lassonde School of Engineering, York University (Harris)
2.2 Experimental Method
We first installed the piston compressor and connected it to the drive motor. After connecting all
appropriate valves, we first fully closed control valve V22(12) to prevent air flowing through the
compressor, we then started the drive motor, setting its speed to 1000 RPM as our first testing
group. Next, we slowly opened the valve a few turns at a time and took measurements at steady
state. The measurements taken were for the pressure side pressure(P4), and the pressure for the
Page 5 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
suction side (P3), as well as values for dP(P4-P3) , Temperature, and RPM of the motor. After
collecting data at this point the team then opened the valve again, and repeated procedure, each
time ensuring to compensate for any changes in RPM due to the valve changes. The procedure
was continued until the control valve had been turned from fully closed position to a fully open
position. Then the setup was powered down and reset by closing the control valve. For piston
compressors the experiment was completed at n=1000 RPM and n= 1500 RPM. The exact same
procedure was used for the Rotary Vane compressor however the rpm values were set to be
n=1500 RPM and n= 2300 RPM as the two compressors have different rpm tolerances.
2.3 Experimental Uncertainties
Systematic Errors for this experiment included:
 Measuring at incorrect times when data was not steady state.
 Instruments being difficult to precisely stick to correct RPM requirements.
 Fluctuation in readings, leading to some ballpark measurements.
Random errors for this experiment included:
 Vibrations in the experimental setup
 Hydraulic Energy lost as sound/heat energy.
As manufacturer specifications were not available at time of reporting. The estimation is that of
95% confidence rate. Every measured value will therefore be considered to have uncertainty
level of ±5%.
Next, we found aggregate uncertainties for all major calculated values using the Root Sum
Square Method:
𝑛
𝜕𝑍
𝑈 ]2
𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑖
𝑈𝑧 = √∑[
𝑖=1
Worked examples for an uncertainty calculation for Hydraulic Power will be shown in the
appendices. But note that for all measured properties, we take a 5% uncertainty level.
Page 6 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Results & Discussion
We collected 4 sets of results, 2 each for both types of compressors. For the Piston compressor
values were taken at drive train rpms of n=1000 RPM and n=1500 RPM. For the Rotary Vane
compressors, values were measured at n=1500 RPM and n= 2300 RPM.
0,0014
Volumetric Flow Rate (m3/s)
0,0012
0,001
0,0008
0,0006
0,0004
0,0002
0
42000
37000
17000
14000
12000
6000
10
860
790
Pressure Difference (Pa)
Vane n1500
Vane n2300
Rotary n1000
Rotary n1500
Figure 2: Volumetric Flow Rate vs P4-P3, demonstrating change in volumetric flow rate as the difference between Suction Side
and Pressure-Side pressures. Results are shown for both compressors at both RPM’s.
First looking at Figure 2 we can see a plot of the performance of each compressor at various
speeds in terms of comparing the Volumetric flow rate and the pressure difference on both sides
of the compressors.
Generally, we can see that as the pressure difference for each compressor gets lower the
volumetric flow rate is slowly increasing. This effect is seen most clearly when considering the
Vane compressor at 2300 RPM, we can see that at lower pressure differences of 860 Pa the
volumetric flow rate is closer to 0.0012 m3/s but at higher pressure differentials of 42000 Pa, the
volumetric flow rate is less than 0.0008m3/s. We can also see that as a general trend the Vane
compressors have higher flow rates at higher pressure differentials, but the Piston compressors
have negligible change to flow rate as the pressure differential is altered. This indicates that as
the pressure difference across the rotary vane compressor is decreased. The vane compressor can
put in less work to compress the air as the internal flow of the Rotary Vane compressor is much
more stable. Hence their will be lower friction and turbulence in the compressor, meaning it will
be able to compressor larger volumes of air much easier as the pressure differential is lowered.
We might say that we can see from this graph that Rotary Vane compressors are more effective
at lower pressure differentials, which helps us determine industrial uses for Rotary Vane
Page 7 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
compressors. Particularly in areas that require high efficiency such as air systems or automotive
engines. We can also see that for both types of compressors, greater RPM leads to a higher flow
rate processed at all pressure differentials. Which tells us that for both compressors we can
operate them at higher RPM, all within operating limits of the compressor.
60
50
Efficiency (%)
40
30
20
10
0
7,39
7,06
Rotary Vane n=1500
6,77
5,67
5,03
3,98
Pressure Difference (bar)
Rotary Vane n=2300
3,16
Piston n=1000
1,92
1,18
Piston n=1500
Figure 3: Graph of Compressor efficiency against difference of suction-side and pressure-side pressures.
Next looking at Figure 3, we can see a distribution of each piston’s performance and how
efficiently they perform at various flow rates, the efficiency can be calculated by comparing the
initial input electrical power (shown on the control module for the experimental setup), against
the Hydraulic power output (calculated in appendix). We can see that the clear trend is that as we
decrease pressure difference across each of the compressors The efficiency for each compressor
also drops. Both compressors clearly trend downwards as the pressure difference is decreased.
Particularly, Piston compressors can be seen to have generally higher efficiencies at all RPMs,
and at all pressure differences than rotary vane compressors. This can be attributed to Air
leakage in the rotary vane compressors, as the design of the compressor allows air to escape from
the compression area, contrasted to piston compressors where the air canoe escape or leak in any
way. In addition, due to the adjustable stroke length in a piston compressor, the piston
compressor can effectively process higher pressure ratios, this is not possible with rotary vane
compressors, hence the efficiency of rotary vane compressors at any pressure ratio is much lower
than that of piston compressors.
Page 8 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
We can also look at the achievable pressure differences for the compressors. Note that in both
figure 2 and 3, graphs for both compressors achieve lower pressure difference with higher motor
RPM than at lower RPM. Telling us that in both piston and vane compressors, we can achieve
lower pressure differences by increasing RPM. This corroborates with previous theory, since it is
generally accepted that due to the increase in temperature during the compression process air will
expand and lower the pressure in the compressor. Since this pressure increases, the pressure drop
through the compressor is decreased, and this effect can get significant as the RPM is increased
even more. Hence higher RPM leads to allowable, lower pressure differences.
Generally, there were some forms of uncertainty, primarily, in that there was a lot of noise from
the setup at higher RPM’s for both compressors, meaning a certain amount of energy was lost
this way, just as well, guiding rails were not the most stable so the setup vibrated during the
experiment. Finally, the controllability of inputs was very difficult so managing the speed to be
exact values was not always possible.
Whilst results are not completely accurate, with some level of uncertainty they allow us to
characterize each pump type reasonable in terms of its usability in industry. We can clearly see
from Figure 2, that in general for higher flow rate applications the Rotary vane compressor is
more useful as it outperforms the piston compressor in every scenario. We also know that if we
want the highest volumetric flow rate we must encourage a smaller pressure drop across the
compressor. We can also determine that working at higher RPM’s is better when we need to
work with smaller pressure drops. Figure 3 tells us that for processes requiring high efficiency
from the compressor, the best choice is always a piston compressor, as they outperformed the
rotary vane compressor at all pressure drops and RPM’s. We also learn that for all compressors
the way to increase efficiency is to have a higher pressure drop across the compressor.
Page 9 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
4. Summary & Conclusions
Air compressors are devices used in various industries, and are divided into two categories:
Positive Displacement (working with a constant flow) and Dynamic (working with constant
pressure). This report compares the performance of rotary vane and piston compressors in terms
of efficiency, pressure ratio, and airflow rate. It also investigates the effect of different operating
parameters, such as speed, and pressure, on the performance. Finally, it analyzes the efficiencies
of air compressors by finding the hydraulic power output of each compressor at various flow
rates and speeds. This experiment used two control valves to control flow input from the
compressed air tank and the measuring tank.
A control cabinet was connected to all sensors in the apparatus, allowing us to record and see
live properties in the pipes. Compressors were connected to the drive motor with controllable
input, and the experiment was completed at n=1000 RPM and n= 1500 RPM. Systematic errors
included measuring at incorrect times when data was not steady state, instruments being difficult
to precisely stick to correct RPM requirements, and random errors such as vibrations in the
experimental setup. We collected 4 sets of results for both types of compressors, with values
taken at drive train rpms of n=1000 RPM and n=1500 RPM. Figure 2 shows the performance of
each compressor at various speeds in terms of comparing the Volumetric flow rate and the
pressure difference on both sides of the compressors.
The Vane compressors have higher flow rates at higher pressure differentials, but the Piston
compressors have negligible change to flow rate as the pressure differential is altered. This
indicates that the vane compressor can put in less work to compress the air as the internal flow of
the Rotary Vane compressor is much more stable, meaning it will be able to compress larger
volumes of air much easier.
Piston compressors have higher efficiencies at all RPMs and at all pressure differences than
rotary vane compressors, due to air leakage and adjustable stroke length. Both compressors can
achieve lower pressure differences with higher motor RPM than at lower RPM. The most
important details are that the rotary vane compressor outperforms the piston compressor for
higher flow rate applications, and that working at higher RPM's is better when working with
smaller pressure drops. The best choice is always a piston compressor for processes requiring
high efficiency, and the way to increase efficiency is to have a higher pressure drop across the
compressor.
Page 10 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
References
[1] Harris, Jeffrey. “York University - MECH-3504-Air Compressors.” Eclass.yorku.ca,
eclass.yorku.ca/course/view.php?id=63964§ion=17#tab9. Accessed 19 Mar. 2023.
Page 11 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Appendix
Results Tables
Results for Rotary Vane Compressor at n=1500 RPM
Tem
p (C)
(n1)
RPM
P3
(bar
)
21.7
1500
0.97
21.9
1500
0.97
22.1
1500
0.97
22.5
1500
0.97
22.4
1500
0.97
22.4
1500
0.97
22.4
1500
0.97
P3
(Pa)
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
P4
(bar
)
0.97
1.39
1.34
1.14
1.11
1.09
1.03
P4
(Pa)
970
00
139
000
134
000
114
000
111
000
109
000
103
000
P4P3(ba
r)
P4-P3
(Pa)
dp
(mBar
)
dp
(Pa)
0
0
3.4
340
1.197698
0.42
42000
1.3
130
1.196886
0.37
37000
1.9
190
1.196075
0.17
17000
2.5
250
1.194456
0.14
14000
2.7
270
1.19486
0.12
12000
3
300
1.19486
0.06
6000
3.2
320
1.19486
density
(kg/m^3)
Flow rate
(m^3/s)
0.0007906
01
0.0004890
31
0.0005914
1
0.0006788
54
0.0007053
66
0.0007435
21
0.0007679
06
P_el
(W)
120
148
145
130
127
126
125
P_hyd
(W)
η_total
(%)
0
17.065
72894
18.536
87158
10.633
76153
9.2244
03381
8.4120
37393
4.4705
52133
0
11.530
89793
12.784
04937
8.1798
16561
7.2633
09748
6.6762
20153
3.5764
41706
P_hyd
(W)
1.20727
167
45.7732
3676
44.3847
6254
41.0710
9599
37.9059
3047
32.9845
0036
24.6132
1179
19.2667
1279
12.1635
2716
η_total
(%)
0.74985
818
17.7415
6464
17.8252
0584
18.3353
1071
17.7962
1149
16.7434
012
13.3767
4554
11.0728
2344
7.28354
9196
Results for Rotary Vane Compressor at n=2300 RPM
Temp
(C)
(n1)
RPM
22.1
2300
22.3
2300
22.5
2300
22.1
2300
22.1
2300
22.1
2300
22.2
2300
22
2300
22.2
2300
P3
0.
96
0.
97
0.
97
0.
97
0.
97
0.
97
0.
97
0.
97
0.
97
Page 12 of 16
P3(
Pa)
960
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
P4
0.
97
1.
83
1.
76
1.
57
1.
47
1.
36
1.
23
1.
16
1.
08
P4(P
a)
9700
0
1830
00
1760
00
1570
00
1470
00
1360
00
1230
00
1160
00
1080
00
P4P3
0.0
1
0.8
6
0.7
9
P4P3(Pa)
dp
(mBar
)
10
8
800
1.196075
860
3
300
1.195265
790
3.2
320
1.194456
0.6
600
4.2
420
1.196075
0.5
0.3
9
0.2
6
0.1
9
0.1
1
500
4.8
480
1.196075
390
5.5
550
1.196075
260
6.2
620
1.19567
190
6.7
670
1.19648
110
7.4
740
1.19567
dp
(Pa)
density
(kg/m^3)
Flow rate
(m^3/s)
0.00121354
9
0.00074339
6
0.00076803
6
0.0008793
0.00094001
1
0.00100622
1
0.00106851
7
0.00111039
1
0.00116735
1
P_el
(W)
161
258
249
224
213
197
184
174
167
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Results for Piston Compressor at 1000 RPM
Tem
p (C)
(n1)
RPM
P3
(bar)
21.7
1000
0.97
21.7
1000
0.97
22
1000
0.97
21.4
1000
0.97
21.4
1000
0.97
21.4
1000
0.97
21.3
1000
0.97
P3(
Pa)
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
P4(
bar)
0.97
8.7
5.08
4.92
1.86
2.48
1.87
P4(
Pa)
970
00
870
000
508
000
492
000
186
000
248
000
187
000
P4-P3
(bar)
0
7.73
4.11
3.95
3.54
1.51
0.9
P4P3(Pa
)
dp
(mBar
)
dp
(Pa)
0
7730
00
4110
00
3950
00
3540
00
1510
00
9000
0
1.5
150
1.197698
1.5
150
1.197698
1.6
160
1.19648
1.1
110
1.198919
1.4
140
1.198919
1.6
160
1.198919
1.6
160
1.199326
P4P3(Pa
)
dp
(mBar
)
dp
(Pa)
1000
7390
00
7060
00
6770
00
5670
00
5030
00
3980
00
3160
00
1920
00
1180
00
2.6
260
1.192438
2.1
210
1.194456
2.1
210
1.194456
2.2
220
1.194052
2.2
220
1.193648
2.2
220
1.192922
2.3
230
1.192841
2.4
240
1.192841
2.5
250
1.192438
2.5
250
1.192841
density
(kg/m^3)
Flow rate
(m^3/s)
0.0005251
26
0.0005251
26
0.0005426
24
0.0004494
62
0.0005070
61
0.0005420
71
0.0005419
79
P_el
(W)
Flow rate
(m^3/s)
0.0006928
83
0.0006221
8
0.0006221
8
0.0006369
29
0.0006370
37
0.0006372
31
0.0006515
74
0.0006655
88
0.0006794
28
0.0006793
13
P_el
(W)
97
225
187
185
165
141
126
P_hyd
(W)
η_total
(%)
0
111.74
51163
87.150
61806
70.792
70274
32.021
16003
49.358
64987
34.508
13367
0
49.664
49613
46.604
60859
38.266
3258
19.406
76365
35.006
13466
27.387
40768
P_hyd
(W)
0.6893
3616
129.99
20586
127.56
14703
128.31
28951
118.86
24292
112.63
38628
103.01
07431
93.533
43397
71.948
99949
52.446
3285
η_total
(%)
0.4657
67676
41.136
7274
40.885
08662
41.795
73129
40.292
34888
39.659
81084
38.580
80265
37.264
31632
32.409
45923
26.223
16425
Results for Piston Compressor at 1500 RPM
Tem
p (C)
(n1)
RPM
P3
(bar)
23
1500
0.97
22.5
1500
0.97
22.5
1500
0.97
22.6
1500
0.97
22.7
1500
0.97
22.88
1500
0.97
22.9
1500
0.97
22.9
1500
0.97
23
1500
0.97
22.9
1500
0.97
Page 13 of 16
P3(
Pa)
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
970
00
P4(
bar)
0.98
8.36
8.03
7.74
6.64
6
4.95
4.13
2.89
2.15
P4(
Pa)
980
00
836
000
803
000
774
000
664
000
600
000
495
000
413
000
289
000
215
000
P4-P3
(bar)
0.01
7.39
7.06
6.77
5.67
5.03
3.98
3.16
1.92
1.18
density
(kg/m^3)
148
316
312
307
295
284
267
251
222
200
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Sample Calculations
Density example calculation:
𝜌=
100 ∙ 𝜌0
100(1013)
=
= 1.192438 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑅𝑎 ∙ (𝑇 + 273) 287 ∙ (23 + 273)
Flow rate example calculation:
𝑉̇ = 𝐴𝑑 ∙ √
2 ∙ 𝑑𝑝
2 ∙ (260)
= (3.318 × 10−5 ) ∙ √
= 0.000692883(𝑚3 /𝑠)
𝜌
1.192438
Hydraulic Power example calculation:
𝑝
98000
𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 = 𝑝𝑠 𝑉𝑠 ln 𝑝𝑑 = 97000 ∙ 0.000692883 ∙ ln (97000) = 0.68933616(𝑊)
𝑠
Efficiency example calculation:
𝜂=
Page 14 of 16
𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑
129.992W
∙ 100% = (
) ∙ 100% = 41.1367274
𝑃𝑒𝑙
316
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Uncertainty Calculations:
Page 15 of 16
Jay Kamath (216059461)
MECH 3504 Group 3ii
Experiment Performed: 2023-02-13.
Report Submitted: 2023-03-19.
Summarizing Uncertainties:
𝑼𝝆 = ±𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟖 𝒌𝒈/𝒎𝟑
\
𝑼𝑽̇ = ±𝟑. 𝟕 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟑 𝒎𝟑 /𝒔
𝑼𝑷𝒉𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒄 = ±𝟒. 𝟑𝟕 𝑾
𝑼𝜼 = ±𝟓%
Uncertainty Values are shown directly on graphs: Fig.2 and Fig.3
Page 16 of 16