## 7 Results and Discussion
The head is a significant factor in efficiency calculations, as it directly impacts the energy available for the turbine to harness. 3. **Turbine Design and Type:** Each turbine type (Turgo, Fixed Pitch Propeller, Crossflow) has distinct design characteristics that affect its efficiency. Details on the design, including blade shape, angle, and size, are necessary to understand how each turbine performs under specific conditions. 4. **Efficiency Curves:** The authors should provide efficiency curves or performance maps for each turbine type, which show how efficiency varies with different flow rates and heads. These curves are essential for understanding the operational range and optimal performance conditions of each turbine. 5. **Energy Conversion:** Details on how each turbine converts the kinetic energy of the water into mechanical energy, and subsequently into electrical energy, are crucial. This includes losses due to friction, turbulence, and other factors affecting overall efficiency. 6. **System Integration:** The efficiency analysis should also consider how each turbine integrates with the overall energy storage and distribution system, including potential losses or gains from the system's design and configuration. 7. **Measurement and Calibration:** Information on how efficiency was measured or calculated, including any calibration of instruments and methods used to ensure accurate data, is essential for validating the results. The detailed efficiency comparison and performance metrics for the Turgo, Fixed Pitch Propeller, and Crossflow turbines, in Figures 23 and 24, reveal that the Turgo turbine stands out as the most suitable option for fulfilling the 12 h operational criteria. The efficiency of the Turgo turbine is 85% at a flow rate of 0.03 m\({}^{3}\)/s and a head of 10 m, compared to 80% for the Fixed Pitch Propeller and 75% for the Crossflow turbine. Efficiency curves and graphs show that the Turgo turbine maintains higher efficiency across a range of flow rates and heads. Power output data indicate that the Turgo turbine delivers a stable 2.9 kW over 12 h, whereas the Fixed Pitch Propeller and Crossflow turbines provide slightly lower outputs of 2.8 kW and 2.7 kW, respectively. Additionally, the Turgo turbine offers a better balance of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l r r r r} \hline \hline  & **Power (W)** & **Bulbs Amt** & **Duration (h)** & **Amt of MLCP Able to Power** \\ \hline Pelton & 6003.7 & 600 & 7.7 & 7 \\ Francis & 5003.1 & 500 & 9.2 & 6 \\ Turgo & 2895.9 & 289 & 15.3 & 3 \\ Kaplan & 67,641.9 & 6764 & 0.7 & 81 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of different turbine types [50]. cost and practicality, with a lower initial cost and maintenance expense compared to the other turbine types, while still providing reliable and efficient performance. Based on the catalogue and performance criteria shown in Figures 25 and 26, the OSC 845 was selected. The OSC 845 operates with a power consumption of 37 kW and flow rate of 0.103 m\({}^{3}\)/s. It will operate for 4.5 h to pump a volume of 1655.5 m\({}^{3}\) of water up a head of 12 m and can be seen in Table 4 below. Figure 23: Power comparison of different turbines. Figure 24: Number of light bulbs powered. Figure 25: Operating duration of different turbines.