I am analyzing and solving an engineering problem. Both the first and second part of the problem require me to objectively observe the system and understand what information is needed to solve the problem. I am applying techniques and skills that I have been taught in the lectures and textbook. Both the first and second problem are concepts that were taught and that I did in the homeworks. However, I did not fully understand how a monometer operated before studying for the test.

My solution follows the rubric in its entirety. Each section of the rubric has a corresponding section in my answer sheet. The first mistake that I see while reviewing the test solution is that friction factor does not have enough significant figures. This results in a larger value for the HLpipe which resulted in an additional five feet in the result of HA. I made this mistake because I believes that three significant figures was enough. To prevent this in the future, I will use a friction factor calculator in addition to the moody chart. The second mistake is that I did not account for the pipe entrance while calculating for the minor losses. However, I did account for the exit while the solutions do not. These two values are very similar to each other. Therefore the HLtotal will be the same. The third mistake that I see is that I did not convert  to Horse power correctly. I made this mistake because I rushed though the end of the calculation and did not think critically about my units. To prevent this in the future, I will think critical about my final answer and do a “sanity check”.  The fourth mistake that I see is that I did not provide enough intervals between 0 and 4. I made this mistake because I thought that 0.5 intervals would be small enough. However after reviewing the solution, I know that I should have used 0.2 intervals. Using smaller interval would not have been difficult because I had already set up all the calculations to be done in excel. To prevent this from happening next time, I will think critically about how small my intervals should be. The next mistake that I see is not a mistake but rather a difference in the graph. The problem statement says “ make a plot of the required pump power vs flow rate”. The test solution shows that the manometer reading is included on the secondary Y axis of the plot. I see that this is done to make it easier to find the manometer reading at a certain pump power.

I believe that I followed the writing rubric to its full extent. 10/10 for the rubric score I believe that my solution for part A is almost correct, the final answer is in is HP but in  . 8/10 for part A score. I believe that my solution for part B is correct. The small difference in value can be attributed to rounding error. 9/10 for part B score. I believe that my table and graph fulfill the problem statement. However, the correctness for the monometer reading is low. 7.5/10 for part C score. The strength of my test was calculating the major and minor head losses. The weakness of my test was the presentation of the results of part C.

The biggest issue that I encountered on the test was part B. I understood how to get two equations from the given information and I thought that I needed another equation to solve for all the variables. After trying various different methods to get another equation, I emailed professor Ayala and he told me to trust that two equations was enough. I started with part A and did all the small parts. I then moved onto part B and then to C. By moving in this order, I was able to gather the information that I needed to complete each new part. I would not change the order of how I did the problem, that would have been disastrous. I did not learn any new concepts during the test. I did learn to trust the process. Nothing was hidden from me, despite what I was thinking at the time (in part B). A designer that is designing a new system will investigate the head loss due to pipe length, pipe entrance, fittings, valves, and exit. A designer would also provide the customer data on how the flow will interact with the valve via manometer reading. The application of all concepts that have been discussed would be in the design field rather than the maintenance field. The presentation of results is important in my professional career. When I compare how I presented my results to how the results were presented in the test solutions, the solution results were much more professionally presented. I would use the concepts taught in this class while creating a design or improving a design. I have not directly used the concepts taught in this course in another course. However, I can see that I might use them in connection with thermodynamic applications. In that course I am told the energy losses in pipes rather than being told to compute them. I was most successful in calculating the energy losses, both major and minor, in the piping system. This is also the area that I improved in the most. A few weeks ago, I did not understand that concept. I do not see this course directly intersecting with my career directly. However, I work with mechanical engineers who do a lot of work on a steam plant and I know that they use these same concepts. I spent about 8 hours on the test. Before the test, I allowed 2 hours for each part. The two extra hours came from doing the pre-test and from being stuck on part B. I would allow more time to plan for the test next time. If I had allowed an extra 1 on the pre-test, I don’t think that I would have gotten stuck on part B

MET330_JohnMiles_Test1