In this age of rapid communication via the internet we have a golden opportunity to engage in synergy on a global scale to solve problems in science and engineering.
Synergy, as I use the term here, is an emergent property of a cooperative human system. A forum is established in which all legitimate participants have an equal opportunity to submit ideas relating to the solution of a problem.
A legitimate participant is any person having a legitimate interest in the outcome of the debate. By way of example, a person on trial for a crime is a legitimate participant in the relevant court proceedings. A media reporter may be a legitimate observer, but is most commonly not a legitimate participant.
A state of synergy arises as ideas are filtered by participants. The vital component is the process of filtering. The notion of whether or not somebody is formally qualified to submit an idea is not considered. The personal attributes of the submitter of any idea are not considered. No idea is rejected as 'self-evidently' wrong: it is discussed.
The value of a 'bad' idea to synergy is that it is used in marking off the area within which a solution is most likely to be found - if one exists.
There is plenty of anger and blame surrounding this environmental
disaster, and I encourage all involved to keep focused on solutions...Drew Stephens, Director,
The GIS Institute
http://thegisinstitute.org/blog/deepwater-horizon/deepwater-gis-data-con...
The Deepwater Horizon Incident
This incident is an example of a problem the solution to which has global applications. Accordingly, I suggest, every human has a legitimate interest in solving the problem. Globally there are likely to be many people with ideas about stopping the flow of oil. One of the biggest obstacles to solving the problem through synergy is the inertia in human communication systems. An email containing 'the' solution may even now be sitting in somebody's inbox. Or spam folder.
Globally there must be very many scientists, engineers, citizen scientists and gifted amateurs whose ideas could be examined to see what they can contribute to solving the problem of stopping the flow of oil.
Either BP or the US government should set up an open forum with the specific purpose of inviting all comers to suggest solutions to the problem. The ideas should not be reviewed by a 'panel of experts', but should be peer-reviewed by the world's citizen scientists by means of comments on an open forum.
Until such time as BP or the US government sets up such an open forum, I invite readers to submit ideas here at scientificblogging.com.
Please post only comments which add value to the process of synergy. Avoid politics or satire. I reserve the right to delete any comment which breaks that rule.
An example
I have been thinking over the problem since day one of the disaster. I have rejected most of my ideas as unworkable. Here, to start the debate, I submit a suggestion based on the 'junk shot' idea. I do not submit it as 'the' solution. It is just an idea for starting the debate.
It is widely known that pumps and lines are easily blocked by debris. Fire pumps and the like have strainers on the submerged end of the pipe for that very reason. In ships, the end of a bilge pump sits in a strum box. In nautical parlance, strums are oddments such as rags which end up in the bilges and can block pipes. A similar term is 'thrums'. Thrums are odd bits of thread, or offcuts. The term comes from the weaving industry.
My proposal is based on the idea of a 'strum box'. A small open pipe is lowered down the main bore of the well. It is fitted with disk-shaped collars. The collars are flexible and are convex in the direction of the well. The collars are of perforated metal or mesh and may be segmented to ease their downward passage.
The first collars offer little resistance to the oil flow. As the pipe is sent deeper into the well the collars have ever smaller apertures. The idea is that as the pipe descends, its weight assists in lowering it against the upward force of the flow. Initially the 'junk shot' assembly offers little resistance to oil flow. Even if a mile of this assembly enters the bore, there is much less resistance to pressure than would be the case in trying to cap the well.
Once sufficient length is in the well, thrums are injected down the pipe. Wool is ideal for the purpose as it will readily entangle with itself and snag on any obstruction. As the thrums are flushed back up by the oil flow they get entangled with the disks. The thrums are injected in increasing quantities. There is no sudden hydraulic shock: the flow is slowly diminished.
The pressure of the oil flow on the assembly will cause the many convex disks to press against the bore. The injection of thrums should continue until the pipe is jammed. At this point the flow from the well should be substantially reduced. It should now be possible to cap the well permanently using whatever method is most durable.
Discussion:
How can the flow of oil from this well be stopped or dramatically reduced?
The answer may lie with citizen scientists, but citizen scientists can only solve problems through synergy if they are given full and free access to valid data.
Comments