Prev: WE don't need God. All we need is nutty physics that we can call genius
Next: James Hansen and Climate Change; NASA�s Disgrace
From: deadrat on 1 Jun 2010 00:09
jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics deadrat <a(a)b.com> wrote:
>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics deadrat <a(a)b.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics deadrat <a(a)b.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do ya suppose that the flow rate might have something to do with
>> engineering
>>>>>> the proper solution for stopping (or even STOPPING) the leak, genius?
>>>>>
>>>>> Little to none, drooler.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do ya suppose that the leak might be nothing like a fire at your house,
>>>>>> genius?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you suppose you have totally missed the point, drooler?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a name.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think I've missed the point. Determining the physics of the
flow
>> at
>>>> the leak might just be important in determining how to stop the leak.
>>>
>>> Likely not to those in the oil industry with many decades of experience in
>>> handling such occurances.
>>
>> Likely? Bwahahahahahahha!
>>
>> How's that workin' for 'em, genius?
>>
>> Are you one of those "in the oil industry with many decades of experience"?
>>
>> Or do you just play one in cyberspace?
>
> Ah, a babbling USENET kook

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a kook.

> who has the answer to everything from what he
> reads in comic books and sees on TV.

All I've ventured is the opinion that the physics of the flow at the leak might
have some bearing on how the leak is stopped. Thus measuring what's at hand (or
rather what's a mile below the Gulf of Mexico) isn't some meaningless "science
experiment."

> How many years of oil rig experience do you have?

None. Now explain why I'm wrong. (Hint: the insight that measuring the
parameters of the problem might help with the solution is independent of oil rig
experience.)

> How many years of deep water engineering experience do you have?

None. Now explain why I'm wrong. (Hint: the insight that measuring the
parameters of the problem might help with the solution is independent of deep-
water engineering experience.)

> How many years of experience do you have at doing ANYTHING usefull in the
> real world do you have?

You can't even *spell* "useful," and you're gonna lecture me on who or what is?
Don't think so, ignoramus.

> Go ahead, tell us based on your vast experience just exactly what has to be
> done to solve the current problem.

You're so eager to demonstrate how clever you are that you don't even bother to
read the posts you respond to, do you, ignoramus?

Please quote my claims that I know "exactly" what has to be done. I'll wait.

Gawd! You're an ignoramus.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: WE don't need God. All we need is nutty physics that we can call genius
Next: James Hansen and Climate Change; NASA�s Disgrace