After re-watching our findings, we realized that this is so because the waves are reflected back at it’s origin. This will greatly reduce the impact of the wave, thus reducing the height of the wave when on the beach. We think that the inconsistency in the results are due to human error. Therefore, we think that if we are given a chance to improve the results, we will use a mechanical hand/plunger to push our waveband. This is to achieve consistent results. Also, we have to wait for the waves to settle before testing again. We also think that we should not have used small pebbles, but bigger, heavier ones. This is to prevent the “beach” from moving and affecting our results by changing the gradient of the beach. We also used many scientific principles like siphoning by gravity, and calculating the force of the wave to come out with our conclusion.
From the results, we have found out that a concave structure is the best at preventing the waves from hitting the beach. This is from the shorter height of the wave when it reaches the beach. The concave wave breaker had an average of 13.3 cm height when it reached the beach, lower when compared to the triangular wave breaker with an average wave height of 14.5 cm when it reaches the beach, with the convex and flat having the same average wave height of 15.8 cm. Therefore we can deduce that the concave wave breaker is the best at preventing major damage at coastal areas. This data also can be showed in the bar graph, where the energy dissipation of the concave wave breaker was the best, as there was a largest drop in wave height between the fake beach and the wave breaker, which also pairs with our conclusion.