Prev: Solar Scientists Agree That the Sun's Recent Behavior Is Odd,but the Explanation Remains Elusive
Next: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
From: jimp on 30 May 2010 14:25
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
> There is just no way BP execs can testify that they could not ask
> their engineers to insert a pressure gage or two mounted on a sub to
> determine the flow rate.

You mean other than the fact that a pressure guage doesn't measure flow
rate?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 30 May 2010 19:40
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Only two pressures are necessary.
>
> One just past the mangled section and one ten feet further upstream.

Measuring pressures outside an underwater pipe tells you little more than
how deep in the ocean you are.

If they could stick something in the pipe it would be a lot simpler to just
stick in a flow meter.

Anywhere at all will do and the only thing you have to know is the diameter
where you stuck the flow meter.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 30 May 2010 20:36
In sci.physics bert <herbertglazier79(a)msn.com> wrote:

> Far to late for BP to start telling all it knows. The truth can only
> give it more bad PR Reality is BP plan was to let it blow. It hoped
> after a few weeks its pressure would be gone and then easy to cap.
> That still is the plan. All else was just Micky Mouse engineering that
> any 11 year old would know it was not going to fix the leak. Best to
> keep in mind other Texas Towers will explode,and we should use all
> this as a great warning that the worse is yet to come. If not we are
> all to blame TreBert

A search finds a grand total of two platforms having blowouts or being
destroyed in the area, not counting unavoidable causes such as hufficanes.

And these platforms have been out there how many decades?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 31 May 2010 12:51
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Pressure sensors are good to five or 6 decimal places.
>
> Instead BP was off by several _orders of magnitude_.
>
> The excuse for that "error" or "omission" does not exist.

Even if true, why should anyone be spending any effort whatsoever to
instrument the flow?

The problem is that it IS flowing and the objective is to STOP it as soon
as possible, not do science experiments.

I suppose if your house catches fire you are going to be running around
installing sensors to quantify the fire instead of working on putting it
out?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 31 May 2010 13:42
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Even _one_ pressure measurement upstream of the rupture will work if
> they took some photos of the mangled pipe.
>
> How hard would it take to recreate the same flow _situation_ above
> ground?
>
> A few hours to be accurate to +/- 10%?
>
> BP was off by _orders of magnitude_.

The thing that BP has to do is STOP the flow of oil, not fool around
doing high school science experiments.

Measuring the flow of the spill would do nothing to STOP the flow.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Solar Scientists Agree That the Sun's Recent Behavior Is Odd,but the Explanation Remains Elusive
Next: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can