Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: ahini21 on 30/08/2006 15:00:36
-
to whom it may concern, this is an innovative approach of risk assessment based on the energetic calculation, according to the hypothesis that risk is a latent energy, and accident is the wrong dissipation of energy. Every arrangement and situation is characterized by a module of risk which is proportionnal to the amount of energy stored and dealt with. the formula is already available.
change and die, or die for change
-
Hmmm... I'm not sure I've understood you right, but it sounds to me at best like an interesting theory. It's all very fine calculating risk, but what's actually important in this context is the measures which can be put in place to mitigate the risk, which tend to require more imagination than calculation.
Are you literally suggesting that the amount of energy stored is the only factor? In which case, what about chemical/biological hazards and the difference between equivalent amounts of energy stored, say, as gravity as against as electricity. Or is this some sort of analogy I haven't got yet?
-
Risk of what?
If one is talking about risk as meaning uncertainty, then one could possibly make connections between uncertainty and entropy; but risk in everyday speech normally refers to risk of harm, but what denotes harm is a subjective issue.
George
-
As additional information, of course the concept of risk is wide enough but here, it's physical and the basic idea is the relation between the module of risk and the amount of energy, or energy concentration and it is presumed to suit the risk management field. The formula in itself is very simple and given briefly as follow:
Risk Module = K.E/S.r
K: constant, E: sum of energy S: area and r: is the resistance to contain energy
Of course definitions of related parameters are available. But the topic I would like to share is the extent of applicability as each form of energy now is viewed through specific approach and by this formula it requires somehow unified or analogue expression of whichever kind of energy, what do you think?
change and die, or die for change
-
Again to answer your question, as you can see factors to be considered are mainly energy stored or flowing and the resistance to contain energy, which is energy and by this approach chemical hazards are known hazards because of the natural low resistance to contain such substances. In the scope of measures, up to now research program is still ongoing but it is presumed to focus more research on how to increase resistance as it obvious. which a form of mitigation.
Concerning uncertainty, as probability this approach is to consider as an alternative beneath the risk matrix and the constant K is the parameter which deals with probability, and again the concept of risk here is to keep somehow exclusive to latent energy
change and die, or die for change
-
Hmmm... I'm not sure I've understood you right, but it sounds to me at best like an interesting theory. It's all very fine calculating risk, but what's actually important in this context is the measures which can be put in place to mitigate the risk, which tend to require more imagination than calculation.
Are you literally suggesting that the amount of energy stored is the only factor? In which case, what about chemical/biological hazards and the difference between equivalent amounts of energy stored, say, as gravity as against as electricity. Or is this some sort of analogy I haven't got yet?
-
Risk of what?
If one is talking about risk as meaning uncertainty, then one could possibly make connections between uncertainty and entropy; but risk in everyday speech normally refers to risk of harm, but what denotes harm is a subjective issue.
George
-
As additional information, of course the concept of risk is wide enough but here, it's physical and the basic idea is the relation between the module of risk and the amount of energy, or energy concentration and it is presumed to suit the risk management field. The formula in itself is very simple and given briefly as follow:
Risk Module = K.E/S.r
K: constant, E: sum of energy S: area and r: is the resistance to contain energy
Of course definitions of related parameters are available. But the topic I would like to share is the extent of applicability as each form of energy now is viewed through specific approach and by this formula it requires somehow unified or analogue expression of whichever kind of energy, what do you think?
change and die, or die for change
-
Again to answer your question, as you can see factors to be considered are mainly energy stored or flowing and the resistance to contain energy, which is energy and by this approach chemical hazards are known hazards because of the natural low resistance to contain such substances. In the scope of measures, up to now research program is still ongoing but it is presumed to focus more research on how to increase resistance as it obvious. which a form of mitigation.
Concerning uncertainty, as probability this approach is to consider as an alternative beneath the risk matrix and the constant K is the parameter which deals with probability, and again the concept of risk here is to keep somehow exclusive to latent energy
change and die, or die for change
-
In project risk analysis the biggest risks in society and governments are frequently the risks of things that they want to do not happening. I fail to see how you can account for this in your one sided energy dissapation approach to risk.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!