Re: OK, here's a risk analysis question for you ...

[Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 08:35:58PM -0400, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Anyway, the best estimates I've seen came from a random Slashdot post, which
> actually cited some checkable mathematics (
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1651510&cid=32201876):

I checked it, and while I'm able to reproduce the calculation, I'm not
able to reproduce the numbers: my results are an order of magnitude and
change larger.  There could be any number of reasons for that: I might
have botched the math, or a units conversion, or chosen significantly
unrealistic values for some of the other parameters required (like
viscosity or fluid velocity).  Or my fluid mechanics may be rustier
than I thought.

But that's, I think, just one more reason why we should be dispensing
with all these estimates in favor of a direct measurement: the Pitot tube
method should yield a value for total fluid discharge accurate to better
than 1%.  However:

        BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed
        to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would
        give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really
        gushing from the well.

        "The answer is no to that," a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said
        on Saturday. "We're not going to take any extra efforts now to
        calculate flow there at this point. It's not relevant to the
        response effort, and it might even detract from the response
        effort."

Source:

        Giant Plumes of Oil Forming Under the Gulf
        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html?hp


Yes, as I'm sure we'll all well aware, one of the last things anyone
should want to do when tackling an engineering problem is to have a
reasonably accurate idea of its size.

---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.