I imagine testing of scale (including full scale) models is still used in most industries. Computers help you reduce the number of mistakes and shorten the iterative development cycle so you make fewer elementary errors.

In Oil & Gas, almost all of the major manufacturers have been modeling all their new components in 3D for the last decade. You can have whole departments dedicated to running Finite Element Analysis on these 3D models. It's not as simple as putting in your constraints (loads, fixed and pinned reaction points, etc) and hitting "solve". You still have to make certain assumptions, tailor the matrix (the 3D lattice/approximation made of pins and beams) or make simplifications to the model if you want it to converge toward a solution. The computer solves the cases iteratively. Once you think you're close, you perform a test at scale and verify your assumptions. Then your match it to your computer model and hopefully you're not too far off. For example, things like incorrect friction factors between materials matter a lot when they are amplified by huge forces. The manufacturer of a particular coating may claim it's .07 (if they even tell you). You learn it's more like 0.08 through repeated testing. At this point there is no way of calculating things like that.

Of course, this assumes that you have the time, money, and server time to run such experiments. Most of the time you focus on the one or two critical areas of a design for FEA and use past experience or classic formulas on the rest. Customers still want final tests before product ships, so technically you have one last point to catch a failure/issue before it ships.

Man, what's with Slashdot, the comments are full of so much negativity this past year.

These kids are in high school. That's pretty amazing that they were able to build that on their own, without it being assigned, including forming a team, agreeing on the project and following it through on their time and expense. I'm sure some of you were splitting atoms after school but my high school was certainly not like that. It may not be sized/shaped to historically accurate accounts (whatever that means) but they are making something by hand, and staying off the PC/Gaming Console/TV long enough to finish it.

I'm an amateur woodworker and can point out all sorts of flaws but that's really not the point here. It's easier to tear something down than build it up.

I don't know of any significant scientific advancements (those that have the potential of affecting a large part of the population) that are holding an open "reasonable" discussion. Actually, it would make me feel better if anyone could think of examples and prove me wrong. I see this in many facets of life - from politics to online forums. How do you encourage vetting of many ideas while discouraging spreading of FUD, noise, and false information. Who decides what is beneficial if the majority doesn't have all the facts or the capacity to make an informed decision? If one person is a filter, is it still a debate?

I think the problem is related to motivation and not knowledge/technology or even economics (although where does greed come into play?). If you could somehow motivate & focus people to solve today's problems using only today's tech (discounting R&D), we would already be much further along. How do you force people to care about more than just themselves?

I say this as an engineer. A part of me holds out for creating the product / process that changes the world. Lately I've been thinking that the only way of doing that (and being successful at making a large impact), is to give it away for free so no one can buy, subvert, or manipulate it for their own benefit.

I love how trolls can get modded +5 Insightful here. Please elaborate on your experience in the oil & gas industry.

I am a product engineer that designs subsea equipment. The company I work for sells equipment to the majors, one of them being BP. I can't tell you the amount of hours people have worked to try and fix this problem. In addition to the people involved, people that have had zero to do with the original Horizon products/well are creating Plan A - D solutions in 24-hour shifts. This is all in an effort to stop the leak as fast as possible, regardless of who has the liability (that will be worked out later).

If nuking it was a viable option, then I'm sure BP would risk losing a well at the cost of re-drilling a new one. The PR nightmare alone is worth that cost. I know it's easy to say BP is evil, but now all eyes are on them to fix the issue. If they create another problem (such as nuking the well), I doubt you would be the first one to defend their actions.

Things are not so black and white. Consider that you're operating in under high pressure (15-20ksi), with minimal access and visibility. Any equipment you send down there NOW has to be taken off the shelf. new designs have 4+ week deliveries (normally 8+). There is no such thing as "plug and play". Each customer, each project is different. So now you are patching together equipment from other clients (off their shelves) to make something work.

I can't speak for BP, but I can tell you I take pride in my work, and my coworkers are the same. We don't release anything that is unsafe. Period. I don't know about this project, but anyone in the industry can tell you that the environmental regulations we design to for Mobile Bay are stringent. No one wants to have this type of disaster.

At the same time, how many PHB's have you had that focused on schedules/costs instead of features/the product? That's their job. People make tradeoffs. I have to say that no PHB I know would knowingly risk damage to people/the environment over making more money. But it's never that clear is it? How do you balance risk and safety? What is the definition of effective? You never have all the metrics to make the right call. There are a lot of people/processes that make this well happen, a problem in any area can lead to this.

Oh, and in case you think I'm a shill, I would love it if we all drove electric cars. But until everyone decides to drop plastics for the corn variety, or gas for electric, you need fossil fuels.