One advantage to dam3/d is that it gives an easily-envisioned idea of the size of the spill. The amount of oil coming out would fill a box 10 x 10 x 80 meters.
(I hope I have that right) Carleton From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pat Naughtin Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 23:12 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:47682] Re: Fw: Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI On 2010/06/11, at 07:50 , John M. Steele wrote: Well, now this team is estimating 50000 barrels per day http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill;_ylt=AtxggR3w2l1udpgsF6tt.oth24 cA;_ylu=X3oDMTM2NnQ2cGZkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjEwL3VzX2d1bGZfb2lsX3NwaWxsBGNj b2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RlYW1z YXlzbXVjaA-- That is 8 dam³/d to us. But the estimate gets higher every time anyone estimates, so I don't have any confidence in it. Dear John It might be cubic decimetres to you, but it is 8 megalitres to me. By the way a cubic decametre (= 1 megalitre) to an irrigator or a water engineer is a relatively small amount. I suppose that an automotive engineer at the SAE might rarely meet with megalitres of coolant or lubricant so a cubic decametre might be an appropriate size. However, to an outsider the use of such a specialised unit smacks of jargon. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com <http://www.metricationmatters.com/> for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 2:55:25 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:47652] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI It is defined as 42 US gallons or 9702 in³. From the latter definition it can be converted to 0.158 987 295 m³. For the lousy leak estimates 0.16 m³ is more than adequate. I saw an article today in which the leak team gave a rough estimate of 19000 - 43000 barrels per day or 3 to 7 dam³/day. (How do you sensibly round a number with NO significant figures and debatable order of magnitude?) _____ From: Phil Hall <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 2:08:34 PM Subject: [USMA:47652] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI A search of the internet seems to suggest that a barrel of crude oil is widely regarded as 42 "US gallon" It may be used in the international markets but it is fair to say it is probably of US origin and largely the result of thier commercial dominance. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 10 June, 2010 6:47:21 PM Subject: [USMA:47651] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI Barrels are the unit of measure used in the international oil markets. The oil industry is one of the least metric industries that I know. One of their units of measure is to express oil reserves in a reservoir in barrels per acre-foot. In metric parlance, this would be expressed as a percentage (or decimal fraction). From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Humphreys Sent: 10 June 2010 18:41 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:47650] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI I was of the understanding that 'barrels' was an international thing used only by the oil companies. Interesting that this international company has stirred up a bit of anti-brit feeling in the US (not on this list though) where BP is truly an international company like Ford. Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:35 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:47641] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI To: [email protected] I hope that is a joke, as I KNOW you understand precision and sensible rounding. However, we have some "decimal dusters" who might not get it. The 1000 m is of course one of "those" numbers where you ask how many of those digits are significant. Given a vertical plume, and general lack of precision in measurements at sea, I'm guessing 1 or 2, although clearly it is a guess. However, I do wonder why British Petroleum measures the leak in American "barrels." Do they think they are aidding or hindering understanding? Given the range, that figure has no significant figures and the order of magnitude seems debatable. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 11:00:56 AM Subject: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI Pat, In my local newspaper I read that an oil plume was located at a depth of "3 300 feet" which was probably reported at 1 000 meters. i.e. 3 300 x 0.3048 = 1 005.84 meters. Note the discrepancy of 5.84 meters between the value reported and the numbed down value disseminated by the Associated Press. Shame on the AP distortion! Gene, Censor of Deviations from SI ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:29:29 +1000 >From: Pat Naughtin < [email protected] > >Subject: [USMA:47625] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI >To: "U.S. Metric Association" < [email protected] > > > Dear Gene, > You might be interested in this article in our local > newspaper, 'The > Age': http://www.theage.com.au/world/experts-at-loggerheads-over-oil-leak-rate-201 00608-xtlj.html > Since each of the sources has their own > 'down-dumber' I don't suppose we can have any > confidence whether the original data (kilograms, > litres, cubic metres, metres per minute, metres per > hour, gallons UK, gallons USA, feet per minute, etc, > ) is being reported reliable given the possibility > of multiple conversion errors. > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin >... Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.
