The depths on the weir, taken in the manner just described, February 20th, 1851, were as follows.
| Depths on the westerly bay of the weir.
Inches. |
Depths on the easterly bay of the weir.
Inches. |
| 0.37 | 0.36 |
| 0.36 | 0.36 |
| 0.37 | 0.36 |
| 0.37 | 0.36 |
| Means 0.3675 | 0.36 |
| Or in feet 0.0306 | 0.0300 |
While the heights given in the preceding table were being measured, the depth by the hook gauge was constantly 0.0318 feet; consequently, by this comparison, the zero of the hook gauge was 0.0012 feet below the mean height of the top of the weir, in the westerly bay, and 0.0018 feet below the mean height in the easterly bay, or 0.0015 feet below the mean height in both bays. A similar comparison was made February 22d, 1851, when the zero of the hook gauge was found to be 0.0024 feet below the mean height of the weir. The mean of the two comparisons, or 0.0020 was adopted as the correction to be subtracted from the reading of the hook gauge, to give the mean depth upon the weir.
53. During the experiments, the levels of the water in the upper and lower canals, were maintained nearly uniform. The height of the lower canal, at the place where the water, passing the weir, fell into it, varied a little, depending upon the quantity of water discharged by the wheel. It was highest when the wheel was running with the regulating gate fully raised, and the brake removed; under these circumstances the surface of the water was from 0.3 feet to 0.4 feet below the top of the weir. In the other experiments with the regulating gate fully raised, the fall from the top of the weir to the surface of the water in the lower canal, was from 0.4 feet to 0.6 feet. The brackets N and the planks O, figure 2, plate V., were not put on until after the turbine experiments were concluded, so that the water passing the weir, met with no obstruction until it struck the water in the lower canal.
It will be seen by the experiments on the weir, (art. 127,) that the obstruction, caused by the planks, was scarcely appreciable, which renders it certain that the effect of the lower canal, in obstructing the flow over the weir, must have been entirely inappreciable.
