<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Estimation of Water Flow Rate Q Using Average Cross-section</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smallhydro.com/200912/small-micro-hydro/estimation-of-water-flow-rate-q-using-average-cross-section/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smallhydro.com/200912/small-micro-hydro/estimation-of-water-flow-rate-q-using-average-cross-section/</link>
	<description>Your Online Small Hydroelectric Power Resource!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:36:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kyle</title>
		<link>http://smallhydro.com/200912/small-micro-hydro/estimation-of-water-flow-rate-q-using-average-cross-section/comment-page-1/#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smallhydro.com/?p=2496#comment-231</guid>
		<description>How do you get 80% friction factor?  I have read numerous articles on this and have seen this number range from 60% to 90% - all without much explanation.  Can you make this more clear?

I&#039;m measuring an open-top concrete channel (average cross-sectional dimension of flow 0.9m x 0.5m, height x width) and though it has some sediment at the bottom I tend to doubt your FF will work.  The tight dimensions make me think the FF should be increased, but the fact that it is concrete (relatively smooth) tells me the opposite.  Right now my best estimate is 60%.  What do you think?  My result is putting the flow at 66 Liters/second which I think is high.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you get 80% friction factor?  I have read numerous articles on this and have seen this number range from 60% to 90% &#8211; all without much explanation.  Can you make this more clear?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m measuring an open-top concrete channel (average cross-sectional dimension of flow 0.9m x 0.5m, height x width) and though it has some sediment at the bottom I tend to doubt your FF will work.  The tight dimensions make me think the FF should be increased, but the fact that it is concrete (relatively smooth) tells me the opposite.  Right now my best estimate is 60%.  What do you think?  My result is putting the flow at 66 Liters/second which I think is high.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denis Brady</title>
		<link>http://smallhydro.com/200912/small-micro-hydro/estimation-of-water-flow-rate-q-using-average-cross-section/comment-page-1/#comment-182</link>
		<dc:creator>Denis Brady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smallhydro.com/?p=2496#comment-182</guid>
		<description>CAN YOU PROVIDED ME WITH THE PRODUCTION KILWATT FOR THE PELTON WHEEL?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CAN YOU PROVIDED ME WITH THE PRODUCTION KILWATT FOR THE PELTON WHEEL?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jivan shrestha</title>
		<link>http://smallhydro.com/200912/small-micro-hydro/estimation-of-water-flow-rate-q-using-average-cross-section/comment-page-1/#comment-175</link>
		<dc:creator>Jivan shrestha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smallhydro.com/?p=2496#comment-175</guid>
		<description>I am much influenced by lts logic and desings. keep us informing..Thanx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am much influenced by lts logic and desings. keep us informing..Thanx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
