This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What is the "background hazard" exactly? Jheijmans
Excuse my probable innumeracy, but how is a 1 in 63 event 950% more likely than a 1 in 16000 event? 100 * ((1/63)/(1/16000)) - 100=25296 -- ~ 25000%,more likely, no? 950% is about right for 1.02 -- 10^1.02 =~ 10.5. I suspect the background risk is actually higher than 1/16000. Mike Linksvayer 05:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think 16000 probably came from the energy of the 2004MN4. The annual background risk of a collision with that energy is 0.03 * 1600^-0.8 which would be 0.001%. This number is then multiplied by the number of years till possible impact, or ~25 in this case, so 0.025% background risk. 10 times that is only 0.25%, so I must be off by a factor of 10 somewhere, but I can't see it. In any case, I suspect the background risk for a similar event over the next ~25 years is around 1 in 500, not 1 in 16000. (the 1/63 risk for 2004MN4 seems to have been updated to 1/45). Mike Linksvayer 06:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do believe that the Palermo Scale has gone up to 1.10 for 2004 MN4 has it not? [ Cajist 27 December 2004 ]
Where does the kinetic yield slot in exactly? The formula I see has space for chance of hitting, chance of something hitting, and time. Nothing about yield in there. Supersheep 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Historic Palermo Ratings (All are past tense)
I don't love that language. How about "Highest peak Palermo ratings" above the chart and "Each of these objects has since dropped below −2” below it? — Tamfang ( talk) 21:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)