How Much Is a Drop in a Bucket?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

In my previous post, I suggested that $5.6 billion was a drop in a bucket compared to total US exports of $1.5 trillion. But is it? Just how much is a drop in a bucket, anyway?

Obviously this depends on the size of the bucket, but that’s the easy part. The hard part is figuring out the size of a drop. Querying the internet produced a surprisingly wide variation of estimates that were seemingly based on nothing at all until I finally found this:

Now that’s what I’m talking about. This is old-school science from some guys at the University of Michigan doing contract work for the Air Force, for whom raindrop size and distribution were presumably important. So they went out to Flagstaff and used their radar gear to measure the average size of raindrops.¹ After 100+ pages of explaining why this is so hard blah blah blah, Figure 54 is their final distribution plot. The red circle is my eyeball guess at the average, which is a raindrop diameter of about 2mm.² That gives us a radius of 1mm and a volume of 4 cubic millimeters. At a million cubic millimeters to the liter, that’s 250,000 drops per liter, or about 1 million drops per gallon. This means that a common 3-gallon bucket holds about 3 million drops.

So a “drop in a bucket” is 1/3,000,000, or about 0.00003 percent.

As for our exports to India, $5.6 billion is 1/300th of $1.5 trillion. That’s 10,000 drops in a bucket. I stand corrected.

¹Note that I am defining “drop” as “raindrop.” Raindrops, it turns out, are quite a bit smaller than, say, a drop from an eyedropper (75,000 per gallon) or a leaky sink (15,000 per gallon)

²Which, I admit, is roughly what the internet was telling me from the start. Still, it’s always good to have hard, typewritten data to back up your Google searches.

UPDATE: Sorry, I got my cubic millimeters mixed up with my cubic centimeters, so my original post was off by a factor of 1000. No big deal between friends, right? It’s all corrected now. Thanks to the many people who pointed this out.



Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend