An investigation on the viscosity of a sugar solution using Poiseuille’s method

RQ: How does the change in volume of water and sugar solution coming from a straw in a bottle affect the
time taken to collect that particular volume given fixed radius and length of the pipe at 284K?

1. Introduction
My favorite dessert is Gulab Jamun, a Nepali sweet made of fried dough soaked in syrup. I especially loved
making the syrup, where sugar and water were mixed in a 1.5:1 ratio and heated with spices. Progressively
watching the solution get thicker was fascinating as a child, as the smooth, free-flowing water transformed
into a slow-moving liquid. Once the sugar dissolved, even pouring the solution into another glass was
noticeably slower than before. I had always wondered what caused this new slowness. Later, I learned that
a factor which affected this flow of the water was dynamic viscosity. The dynamic viscosity η of a fluid is
the “measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow”, with SI unit Pascal-seconds(Pas). Fluids with high viscosity
have higher resistance as its molecular makeup contributes to more internal friction, making it move slowly.
Similarly, fluids with low viscosity flow faster as its molecular makeup causes less internal friction as it
moves.

This meant viscosity had many practical applications. Medicine like cough syrup must have high viscosity
to travel slowly and properly coat the throat. The viscosity of vehicle lubricating oils must be controlled to
ensure internal friction, and hence heat is manageable. Owing to my memories of making gulab jamun, I
became interested in how the sugar concentration in its syrup impacted its viscosity and thus, decided to
experimentally find the viscosity of the sugar syrup(1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water). To investigate
this, I first had to find the relation between volume and time to get the viscosity’s value, leading to my
research question, “How does the change in volume of water and sugar solution coming from a pipe in a
bottle affect the time taken to collect that particular volume given fixed radius and length of the straw at
284K?”. To test the validity of my experiment and methods, I aimed to first experimentally find the
viscosity of water (0 SC) and then move on to finding the viscosity of the sugar syrup.

Viscosity can be obtained through Poiseuille’s method, which studies the flow of fluids in a capillary tube.
Through this, Poiseuille discovered that if a liquid with viscosity η was being passed steadily through a
horizontal tube of inside radius r and length l with fluid pressure p difference over the two ends of the
capillary, then the volume V of outflowing water within time t was given by:
4
π𝑝𝑟 𝑡
𝑉= 8𝑙η
4
π𝑝𝑟 𝑡
or, η = 8𝑙𝑉

Here, the difference in fluid pressure p would be denoted by𝑝 = ρ𝑔ℎ

Where, ρ= density of liquid, g = acceleration due to gravity, h = average height of water between the initial
and final height after water flowed from the tube

2. Experiment Design
2.1. Variables
Although sugar concentration was changed, the experiment was conducted 2 times, one with 0 sugar
concentration i.e. water and the other with 1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water. During the experiment, that
specific concentration was kept constant in order to calculate the viscosity at that particular level. The sugar
concentration value was chosen to be equal to that in Gulab Jamun’s syrup and was made sure that it was
well below 180gml-1 which is the maximum amount of sugar that can be dissolved i.e. its solubility level.
−5
A. Independent Variable: Volume (m3) of water/solution with 5 × 10 m3 intervals ranging from
−5 −4
5 × 10 m3 to 5 × 10 m3.
B. Dependent Variable: Time taken for chosen volume to be reached (s)
C. Control Variable:
Table 1: Controlled variables of the experiment

Control Reason for control How it was controlled

Variable

Inner radius of Viscosity is directly proportional to the

tube r (radius r)4. So even a small change in
radius will greatly impact the viscosity.
The same plastic straw was used
Length of tube As liquid flows through the plastic
throughout the experiment for data
l straw, the layer of water which touches
collection so that the radius and the
the tube is acted on by frictional forces
length remained constant.
which slows its mobility. Changing the
length of the straw would mean that the
liquid would have to travel more to
reach the beaker, encountering more
resistance and increasing the viscosity.

Temperature T Temperature affects viscosity as an Temperature of both liquids was

increase in temperature will also measured before the experiment to
increase the kinetic energy of molecules. ensure they were the same. The liquids
This causes molecules to be more mobile were kept in similar conditions and the
and decreases cohesive forces between experiment conducted in the same place
molecules, decreasing the viscosity and at similar time to reduce temperature
vice versa. fluctuations.

Sugar A change in sugar concentration would The solution with the same sugar
Concentration lead to a change in internal friction of concentration(including 0 sugar
(for that the solution and thus mobility of the concentration) was used throughout for
particular liquid which will also influence its one specific experiment. Once data was
experiment) viscosity. collected for that specific concentration
value, a new solution with new sugar
 concentration was used for another
experiment to collect data.

2.2 Apparatus

Materials needed: plastic bottle, hot glue gun,

plastic straw with length l and radius r, 500ml
beaker, laboratory balance, 1.5kg of sugar, water,
stopwatch, ruler, thermometer, vernier caliper

2.3 Method
i) The length and radius of the plastic straw was measured using a ruler and vernier caliper respectively.
ii) A hole was cut into the lower side of the plastic bottle and a plastic straw was inserted inside it. The gaps
in the hole were then sealed with a hot glue gun to prevent leakage and hold the straw in place.
iii) A calibrated beaker on top of a laboratory balance was placed near the opening of the plastic straw in
order to collect the outflowing water/sugar solution.
iv) The plastic bottle was filled with water (0 sugar concentration) and the water temperature was
measured.
v) The stopwatch was started as soon as water started to come out of the plastic straw. The time taken for
−5 −4 −5
volumes from 5 × 10 m3 to 5 × 10 m3 in5 × 10 m3 intervals to collect in the beaker was noted and
presented in Table 2. The initial and final mass of the outflowed volume as well as the height at the initial
and final positions of the water inside the plastic bottle were also noted.
vi) Steps iv and v were repeated 4 times.
vii) 0.001m3 of water and 1.5kg of sugar were mixed and heated together. The lid of the solution was left on
to prevent water vapour from escaping and changing the concentration level, although it was lifted from
time and again to stir the solution. The solution was then left to cool and brought to the same temperature as
the water used for the previous experiment.
viii) The water in the plastic bottle was replaced by the sugar solution and steps iv-vi were repeated again
and its raw data presented in Table 4.

3. Data Collection and Processing:

3.1 Raw Data Collection for water (0 sugar concentration)
Radius r of plastic straw = 0.0021m ±0.0001m
Length l of plastic straw = 0.186m ±0.001m
Temperature of both water and sugar solutions = 284K ±274K
Table 2: Raw Data Collection for water (0 sugar concentration)

Time t (s) ±0.01s

3
Volume V (m ) ±
t1 (s) t2 (s) t3 (s) t4 (s)
2.5×10-5 m3

0.00005 4.55 5.28 4.67 4.09

0.00010 9.34 9.38 9.18 9.48

0.00015 13.5 14.06 13.5 13.99

0.00020 19.38 19.5 18.46 19.54

0.00025 23.62 24.94 24.2 25.02

0.00030 30.71 30.36 29.84 30.59

0.00035 35.84 35.8 35.03 35.79

0.00040 42.11 40.63 40.48 41.46

0.00045 47.52 46.74 46.43 46.92

0.00050 54.08 53.19 52.92 53.66

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4

Initial height (m) 0.212 0.214 0.209 0.211

±0.001m

Final height (m) 0.159 0.156 0.157 0.156

±0.001m

Initial mass (kg) 0.00032 0.00051 0.00017 0.00024

−6
±1 × 10 kg

Final mass (kg) ± 0.48211 0.48937 0.52820 0.49264

−6
1 × 10 kg

3.2 Data Processing for water (0 sugar concentration)

Table 3: Processed data for water (0 sugar concentration)

Volume V (unit) Average time tavg (s) Uncertainty for tavg ,∆𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔(s)
-5 3
±2.5×10 m

0.00005 4.65 0.59

0.00010 9.35 0.15

 0.00015 13.76 0.28

0.00020 19.22 0.54

0.00025 24.45 0.70

0.00030 30.38 0.44

0.00035 35.62 0.41

0.00040 41.17 0.82

0.00045 46.90 0.55

0.00050 53.46 0.58

Average initial height h1 ±0.001 Average final height h10 ±0.001

(m) (m)

0.157 0.212
Height
Average height h = 0.184m

Average initial mass m1 Average final mass m10

−6 −6
± 1 × 10 (kg) ± 1 × 10 (kg)

0.00031 0.49808
Mass
Average mass m = 0.249 kg

Calculations for table 3:

From table 2, the average time taken for a specific volume to be collected in the beaker can be obtained
by adding the corresponding 4 different values for each volume and dividing by 4.
For V = 0. 00005m3,
𝑡1+ 𝑡 +𝑡3+𝑡4
4.55+5.28+4.67+4.09
Average time (tavg ) = 2
4
= 4
= 4.65s
The uncertainty for tavg is the difference between the maximum time (tmax) and the minimum time (tmin) for
a corresponding volume and then dividing the result by 2.
−5
For V = 5 × 10 m3,
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥− 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 5.28−4.09
Uncertainty for tavg (∆𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔) = 2
= 2
= 0.59s

The average mass m of all initial masses and all final masses of water collected in the beaker was
calculated. The average height of the water in the plastic bottle at all initial and final positions was also
calculated. Those averages were then used to calculate the final overall average height and mass between
the initial and final positions. That average overall mass will be used to calculate density ρ and along with
the average overall height, be used to calculate the fluid pressure difference p.
 0.212+0.214+0.209+0.211
Average initial height h1 avg = 4
= 0. 212m
0.159+0.156+0.157+0.156
Average final height h10 avg= 4
= 0. 157m
Raw uncertainty for a ruler is 0.001m so,
Uncertainty for each initial and final height = 0.001+0.001+0.001+0.001 = 0.004 m
ℎ1 𝑎𝑣𝑔+ ℎ10 𝑎𝑣𝑔
Average overall height h = 2
=0.184 m
Uncertainty in average height ∆ℎ = 0. 004 + 0. 004= 0.008 m. This method was used as it gave the
bigger uncertainty.

0.00032+0.00051+0.00017+0.00024
Average initial mass m1 avg= 4
= 0. 00031kg
0.48211+0.48937+0.52820+0.49264
Average final mass m10 avg = 4
= 0. 49808kg
−6
Raw uncertainty for the laboratory balance is 5. 00 × 10 kg
−6 −6 −6 −6
Uncertainty for both initial and final mass =5. 00 × 10 +5. 00 × 10 +5. 00 × 10 +5. 00 × 10 =
−5
2. 00 × 10 kg
𝑚1 𝑎𝑣𝑔+𝑚10 𝑎𝑣𝑔
Average overall mass m = 2
=0.249 kg
−5 −5 −5
Uncertainty in average mass∆𝑚 = 2. 00 × 10 + 2. 00 × 10 =4. 00 × 10 kg. This method was
used as it gave the bigger uncertainty.

𝑚 0.24900
Densityρof water= 𝑉
= 0.000250
= 997 kgm-3
−5 −5
∆𝑚 ∆𝑉 4.00×10 2.50×10
Uncertainty in average density∆ρ =( 𝑚
+ 𝑉
) × ϱ= ( 0.249
+ 0.000250
) × 997= 99.8 kgm-3
So, fluid pressure difference 𝑝 = ρ𝑔ℎ =999 × 9. 81 × 0. 184= 1790 Pa
∆ρ ∆ℎ 99.8 0.008
And ∆𝑝 =( ϱ
+ ℎ
) × 𝑝 =( 997
+ 0.184
) × 1790 = 258Pa
4
π𝑝𝑟
We know,𝑉 = ( 8𝑙η
) × 𝑡. Graphing Volume V against time t will give the linear graph where the
4
π𝑝𝑟
slope is equal to 8𝑙η
from which we can obtain η. Therefore, from the values obtained from table 3, a
V vs. t graph is plotted.
Graph 1: Volume of outflowed water (V) vs. time (t) for water (for 0 sugar concentration)
Here, the slope m = 9.208×10-6 m3s-1
−5 −6
𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 1.000×10 −8.353×10
The uncertainty in the slope = 2
= 2
= 8.235×10-7m3s-1

From the graph, a positive linear relationship between volume and time is observed. The best-fit line,
which passes through all error bars gives slope 9.208×10-6 m3s-1. Most of the data points are also situated
near the best-fit line as shown by the low RMSE value of 6.791×10-6m3. This causes a strong correlation
of 0.991 which signifies that the data is quite precise. However, despite the strong correlation, the graph
4
π𝑝𝑟
also shows data inaccuracies. As 𝑉 = ( 8𝑙η
) 𝑡is compared to y=mx, the y-intercept should have been
at origin. The y-intercept of 1.812×10-5m3 signifies the presence of systematic errors which affect the
accuracy of the volume data gathered, which will be further elaborated in the evaluation.

4
π𝑝𝑟
From the equation, m = 8𝑙η
,
4 4
π𝑝𝑟 π×1790×0.0021
or, η = 8𝑙𝑚
= −6 = 1.48×10-3 Pas
8×0.186×9.208×10
∆𝑝 ∆𝑟 ∆𝑙 ∆𝑚
Unc. in viscosity coefficient ∆η = ( 𝑝
+4× 𝑟
+ 𝑙
+ 𝑚
)× η
−7
258 0.0001 0.001 8.235×10 −3
= ( 1790 + 4 × 0.0021
+ 0.186
+ −6 ) × 1. 48 × 10 = 2.97×10-4 Pas
9.208×10

So final coefficient of viscosity η of water at 284K = 1.48×10-3 ±2.97×10-4 Pas

The standard value of the coefficient of viscosity of water at 284K is 1.27×10-3 Pas. Taking into account
the uncertainty values, the standard value falls within range of the obtained value, indicating that the
experiment works to some extent. To know the accuracy of the experiment,
 −3 −3
𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 1.48×10 −1.27×10
Percentage accuracy error = 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
× 100% = −3 × 100%= 16.5%
1.27×10

This percentage accuracy error is due to a culmination of both systematic and random errors that have
been propagated throughout the experiment which will be further discussed in the evaluation.

3.3 Raw Data Collection for sugar solution (1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water)
Table 4: Raw Data Collection for sugar solution (1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water)
Time t (s) ±0.01s
3
Volume V (m ) ±
t1 (s) t2 (s) t3 (s) t4 (s)
2.5×10-5 m3

0.00005 23.79 22.47 21.77 22.61

0.00010 49.85 48.02 47.4 48.24

0.00015 81.04 80.07 79.29 78.84

0.00020 112.57 111.43 110.94 111.52

0.00025 143.32 142.96 141.98 144.46

0.00030 176.25 175.53 176.51 177.3

0.00035 209.61 210.32 210.13 212.03

0.00040 243.82 244.25 244.19 245.8

0.00045 277.48 279.63 279.03 279.35

0.00050 313.06 315.51 314.57 315.16

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4

Initial height (m) 0.204 0.203 0.202 0.202

±0.001m

Final height (m) ± 0.152 0.151 0.151 0.150

0.001m

Initial mass (kg) ± 0.00021 0.00009 0.00014 0.00023

−6
1 × 10 kg

Final mass (kg) ± 0.60106 0.61371 0.60849 0.61158

−6
1 × 10 kg

3.4 Data Processing for solution (1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water)
Table 5: Processed data for solution (1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water)
 Volume V (unit) Average time tavg (s) Uncertainty for tavg ,∆𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔(s)
-5 3
±2.5×10 m

0.00005 22.66 1.01

0.00010 48.38 1.23

0.00015 79.81 1.10

0.00020 111.62 0.81

0.00025 143.18 1.24

0.00030 176.40 0.89

0.00035 210.52 1.21

0.00040 244.52 0.99

0.00045 278.87 1.07

0.00050 314.58 1.22

Average initial height h1 ± Average final height h10 ±

0.001m 0.001m

0.203 0.151
Height
Average height h = 0.177m

Average initial mass m1 Average final mass m10

−6 −6
± 1 × 10 kg ± 1 × 10 kg

0.00017 0.60871
Mass
Average mass m = 0.304kg

The calculations are done similar to what was done above for the first case of water (0 sugar
concentration).
For V = 0. 00005m3,
Average time tavg = 22.66s, and Uncertainty for tavg ,∆𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔= 1.01s
Average initial height h1= 0.203m, Average final height h10 = 0.151
Average overall height h = 0.177, Uncertainty in average height∆ℎ = 0.008 m
Average initial mass m1= 0.00017kg, Average final mass m10 = 0.60871kg
−5
Average mass m=0.304kg, Uncertainty in average mass ∆𝑚 =4. 00 × 10 kg
Density ρof sugar solution =1220kgm-3, Uncertainty in density∆ρ =121kgm-3
Fluid pressure difference 𝑝 = 2110Pa, Uncertainty in fluid pressure difference ∆𝑝 =307Pa
Graph 2: Volume of outflowed sugar solution(V) vs. time(t) for water( 1.5kg of sugar per 0.001m3 of water)

Here, the slope m = 1.528×10-6m3s-1 and uncertainty in the slope ∆m = 1.55×10-7m3s-1

Like in graph 1, a linear positive relationship between volume and time is obtained although slope is more
shallow here with value 1.528×10-6m3s-1.This is due to the sugar solution flowing more slowly than water
and hence increasing time needed for the same amount of volume to be collected. The high correlation of
0.9994 and the low RMSE value of 5.368×10-6m3 means that precision of data points is quite high.
However, similar to Graph 1, the y-intercept’s value of 2.590×10-5m3 signifies inaccuracies and
systematic errors in data collection. Here, the y-intercept is greater than that of graph 1, because more
time was taken to collect required volumes. Hence, the errors also propagate more during that duration.

Coefficient of viscosity η= 1.01×10-2 Pas

Unc. in viscosity coefficient ∆η = 4.90×10-3 Pas
Therefore, final coefficient of viscosity η of sugar solution = 1.01×10-2 ±4.90×10-3 Pas

5. Conclusion and Evaluation

5.1. Conclusion:
To answer the RQ, “How does the change in volume of water/sugar solution coming from a straw
connected to a bottle affect the time taken to collect that particular volume given fixed radius and length
of straw at 284K,” I discovered from the graphs and the line of best-fit that there was a positive linear
relationship between volume and time. The obtained slope from the graph was then used to calculate the
viscosity of the sugar solution, which was the overarching aim of my exploration.

To test the validity of my method, I first conducted my experiment with water (0 sugar concentration) and
compared obtained viscosity of water to its standard value. I got a value of 1.48×10-3 ±2.97×10-4 Pas,
meaning that the obtained value falls within the range of the standard value at 284K which is 1.27×10-3.
 However, the percentage accuracy error was 16.5%, indicating that many systematic and random errors
may have affected the data. However, as this was still fairly accurate, I decided to proceed with the
calculations of viscosity for the sugar solution for which I obtained the value 1.01×10-2 ±4.90×10-3 Pas.
From the higher value of the sugar solution’s viscosity, it can be concluded that as sugar concentration
increases, viscosity will also increase.

The higher value of viscosity is due to its slope of 1.528×10-6m3s-1 being shallower compared to water’s
4
π𝑝𝑟
9.208×10-6 m3s1. Hence, when the smaller value of m divides the numerator in the equation η = 8𝑙𝑚
,
a higher value of ηis obtained. The sugar solution moves more slowly as adding sugar would lead to more
internal friction, especially as sugar is a medium sized polar molecule and hence, has low mobility in the
water. Therefore, it would take more time to reach the same volume of outflowing water compared to that
of water, making the slope shallower.

Both graphs also revealed a high degree of precision for water and sugar solution. The line of best-fit
passed through all error bars and the RMSE values of 6.791×10-6m3 and 5.368×10-6m3 for water and
sugar respectively was also low, indicating that all data points were centered around the line of best-fit.
However, precision does not guarantee accuracy. Although there was no standard value to compare the
sugar solution’s viscosity to, it was clear from the graph and the existence of the y-intercept values of
1.812×10-5m3 for water and 2.590×10-5 m3 for sugar solution, that there were errors present, which are
elaborated below.

5.2. Evaluation: (Note: Volumes are referred to in terms of ml for easier understanding)
Table 6: Limitations of the experiment which affected the results of the experiment

Source of error and its effects Significance and evidence Improvements

Systematic errors which affect accuracy

The difference in time between 2 High significance because: - A way to combat this is to
consecutive volumes to be collected - As height of water/mixture drops, use a much bigger tank so
in the beaker increased over time: In the outflow speed drops too, that the difference in height
the water and sugar solution, more causing time for required volume to with the collected volume is
time was needed to increase a rise. In Table 2, 4sec was first negligible, and the water
specific volume by 50ml as greater needed to increase volume by 50 would flow out at relatively
volume (ind variable) values were ml. This increased to 5sec and 6sec the same speed. Doing this
chosen. As water volume to be for the last volume. This was also would obtain a more accurate,
collected in the beaker increases, the seen in the sugar mixture with it steeper slope. The steeper
water level in the bottle decreases. initially taking 25sec and later slope would also move the
The decreasing height in the bottle 35sec to increase the volume by y-intercept closer to the
causes pressure to decrease as well, 50ml. This would mean the origin, hence reducing the
meaning the water/solution cannot be experiment overmeasures the time, error and inaccuracy.
pushed out with as much force and making the slope more shallow and
velocity as before. This would mean hence, increasing the y-intercept.
over time, as greater volumes of As time and viscosity is directly
water/solution are collected in the proportional from the equation
beaker, the time taken to increase it 4
π𝑝𝑟 𝑡
η= 8𝑙𝑉
, the obtained
by 50ml will also increase by a
greater proportion. viscosity of 1.48×10-3 Pas and 1.01
×10-2 Pas for liquids was
overestimated and should’ve been
lower.

Less range and trials of data: The High significance because: Taking 20 values in 25ml
values of 10 volumes ranging from - the best-fit line of both graphs increments from 50ml to
50ml-500ml, and the time required to does not pass through the origin 500ml and 5 trials each will
collect them were collected. indicating some error. This also give more data points, leading
However, more values could have affects the correlation and RSPE to a more accurate value of
been taken as 10 values may not value. Getting more data can viscosity. It may also make
have given an entirely accurate slightly change the slope and hence, the y-intercept move closer to
relationship between the two calculation of viscosity. the origin.
variables.

Random errors which affect precision

Reaction time: The stopwatch had to High significance because: A running timer can be
be started and stopped when the - The majority of recorded time suspended along the beaker.
water left the plastic straw and measurements for the same volume A video camera can be moved
reached a specific volume had differences of over 1sec for upwards parallel to the rising
respectfully. Stopping it too slowly sugar solution and 0.5sec for water. water level in the beaker (at
or quickly would give inaccurate The presence of error bars for eye level) to reduce parallax
time values, affecting the average average time also indicates errors in error. Similarly, the exact
time and its uncertainty, which may data recording. time at which water escapes
lead to varying graphs. Although the - Although near the line-of best fit, from the plastic straw and the
stopwatch’s error itself is 0.01s, many points are not on it, indicating corresponding time it takes to
taking into account reaction time, it some sort of random error affecting reach a particular level of
is likely to be around 0.1s, which precision. volume can be seen in the
would again increase uncertainty and video and then subtracted to
lead to errors. get the required time for
water/solution to reach the
required volume.

Bubbles along the calibrated sides of Low significance because: A wider beaker with less
the beaker: As the beaker was quite - The created bubbles were not very height could have been used.
tall, when water fell from the plastic big, as they were only around As it would be less tall, the
straw into it, it created bubbles that 3-4mm. This low value would mean water from the straw would
travelled along the edge of the the error they caused for the not impact it with more force,
beaker. This made it hard to average time would not be very hence reducing the amount of
accurately read the correct volume large, hence viscosity calculations bubbles created and leading
and may have resulted in stopping would not be affected greatly. to more accurate readings.
the stopwatch earlier and later than
the corresponding volume, which
will affect the average time values,
hence affecting the viscosity.
However, this was only for water as
there were no bubbles in the sugar
solution experiment due to their slow
flow.
 Bibliography
“DEFINITION OF VISCOSITY.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University,
www.princeton.edu/~gasdyn/Research/T-C_Research_Folder/Viscosity_def.html.

“Practical Applications of Viscosity .” QS Study,

qsstudy.com/physics/practical-applications-of-viscosity#:~:text=In%20light%20machinery%20thin
%20oils,also%20very%20vital%20in%20greases.

Jones, Andrew Zimmerman. “The Definition of Viscosity in Physics.” ThoughtCo, 3 July 2019,
www.thoughtco.com/viscosity-2699336.

“Determination of Coefficient of Viscosity of Water by Poiseuille's Flow Method.” BrainKart,

www.brainkart.com/article/Determination-of-coefficient-of-viscosity-of-water-by-Poiseuille-s-flow
-method_3059/#:~:text=03%3A44%20am-,Determination%20of%20coefficient%20of%20viscosit
y%20of%20water%20by%20Poiseuille's%20flow,per%20second%20through%20the%20tube.

Halliday, D., Resnick, R., Walker, J. Fundamentals of Physics – 8th ed. Hoboken (N. J.), John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2008, 14-4, 14-8, 14-9.

“How Does Temperature Change Viscosity in Liquids and Gases?” Fungilab, 23 Sept. 2013,
www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=10036.