Recommended Posts

c8a6d75ec4.jpg

This revolutionary design can filter out over 100 grams of carbon dioxide  per second and costs merely ~1.8 joules per gram of carbon dioxide!!

Leave this at the bottom of your base and you can burn as much coal as you can get mine!

Edited by ChickenStealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispershade    50

Unless I have my sums wrong, (excluding the opportunity cost of the water conversion to Hydrogen) I'm pretty sure that's more energy expensive than using an air scrubber and without the bonus benefit of being able to turn the polluted water product into natural gas.

If you include pump time for the water in the energy equation with some napkin math from memory I think the cost for an airscrubber is like ~0.5j per gram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whispershade said:

Unless I have my sums wrong, (excluding the opportunity cost of the water conversion to Hydrogen) I'm pretty sure that's more energy expensive than using an air scrubber and without the bonus benefit of being able to turn the polluted water product into natural gas.

If you include pump time for the water in the energy equation with some napkin math from memory I think the cost for an airscrubber is like ~0.5j per gram.

The PCCA doesn't consume any water and does not have any opportunity costs! That is what's epic about it. It does not require water pumps or hydrogen coolers.

This one is dirt cheap and polluted water is generally an unwanted product because you can always make more with a gas gayzer.

Edited by ChickenStealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispershade    50

To be clear, air scrubbers don't require hydrogen coolers either. They do require water. But that water also becomes a useful product for energy production or food production.

Could you explain what's happening in your example? Without a gas flow overlay it isn't precisely clear to me what you're trying to do. I feel like you might be using some type of exploit to dispose of CO2. I don't know if I find that particularly epic, honestly. I prefer solutions more durable to future changes if possible.

Edited by Whispershade
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Risu    187
6 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said:

c801375e22.jpg

How about with?

So... it's an expensive bridge/valve loop?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Risu said:

So... it's an expensive bridge/valve loop?
 

The PCCA clears out all the CO2 in your base. No idea what part of this looks like a bridge/valve loop to you, sorry xD

Edited by ChickenStealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Masterpintsman    185
20 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said:

It clears out all the CO2 in your base.

Only as long as you can rely on the fully defective gas pipe tile still tranporting gas while bleeding out the fluid CO2...

Edited by Masterpintsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Masterpintsman said:

Only as long as you can rely on the fully defective gas pipe tile still tranporting gas while bleeding out the fluid CO2...

It doesnt xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Moggles said:

This just looks like a broken mess to me can someone explain?

The two most plausible explanations to why it looks like a mess to you is that either the machine is either too complicated, or that you have a habit of seeing thinks like a broken mess. Does this answer satisfy you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rezecib    3,075

@Moggles CO2 is coming into the system from the valve above, and being dumped into the middle chamber. For no apparent reason there's then a pump and a filter in this chamber, which then sends CO2 again to the thermo regulator loop in the bottom chamber. The thermo regulator repeatedly cools the gas until it's a liquid, and this damages the pipe segment at the output, dripping out the liquid CO2, which then evaporates, absorbing the heat from the thermo regulator.

This is using a exploit in that the gas pipe should stop functioning after being broken, instead of acting as a separator for the liquid and gaseous CO2.

And yes, design-wise this is a broken mess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispershade    50

Ok, so from the looks of it you're using a gas filter to feed a loop that will condense CO2 causing it to break the pipe and leave the the system out to an enclosed room you hope never gets accidentally opened because you haven't destroyed CO2 you've packed it into an incredibly small space.

You actually don't need to spend any energy at all on condensing to exploit this type of overpressuring.  You can just put a gas vent with a tile containing a few grams of liquid right under it and an empty tile above and just pump all the CO2 through the vent that'll never get overpressured because the water will trick it.  So even for an exploit, there are better.

Oh, since I was in the game, I looked at the numbers and napkin mathed the energy value of a CO2 scrubber's polluted water production.

1 scrubber running at full capacity produces 1000g/s of polluted water, which is enough to feed 6.666... Fertilizer factories. Those fertilizer factories then produce 155.333... g/s of natural gas.  This is enough natural gas to power 2.3 Natural Gas generators. Which is 1.84kw. Let us subtract 24w for the water pump to feed the system. 120w for the scrubber and 800w for the 6.666 factories, we're left with more than 900w in surplus.  It PAYS energy to to use a scrubber rather than cost us to use your exploit.

Edited by Whispershade
Correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rezecib said:

@Moggles CO2 is coming into the system from the valve above, and being dumped into the middle chamber. For no apparent reason there's then a pump and a filter in this chamber, which then sends CO2 again to the thermo regulator loop in the bottom chamber. The thermo regulator repeatedly cools the gas until it's a liquid, and this damages the pipe segment at the output, dripping out the liquid CO2, which then evaporates, absorbing the heat from the thermo regulator.

This is using a exploit in that the gas pipe should stop functioning after being broken, instead of acting as a separator for the liquid and gaseous CO2.

And yes, design-wise this is a broken mess.

Apparentness lies with the beholder. That pump and filter are crucial to the design of the PCCA. Whether something should or should not is up to the game designer.

If you think this one is a broken mess, then make one that isn't! xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Whispershade said:

Ok, so from the looks of it you're using a gas filter to feed a loop that will condense CO2 causing it to break the pipe and leave the the system out to an enclosed room you hope never gets accidentally opened because you haven't destroyed CO2 you've packed it into an incredibly small space.

You actually don't need to spend any energy at all on condensing to exploit this type of overpressuring.  You can just put a gas vent with a tile containing a few grams of liquid right under it and an empty tile above and just pump all the CO2 through the vent that'll never get overpressured because the water will trick it.  So even for an exploit, there are better.

Oh, since I was in the game, I looked at the numbers and napkin mathed the energy value of a CO2 scrubber's polluted water production.

1 scrubber running at full capacity produces 1000g/s of polluted water, which is enough to feed 6.666... Fertilizer factories. Those fertilizer factories then produce 155.333... g/s of natural gas.  This is enough natural gas to power 2.3 Natural Gas generators. Which is 1.84kw. Let us subtract 24w for the water pump to feed the system. 120w for the scrubber and 800w for the 6.666 scrubbers, we're left with more than 900w in surplus.  It PAYS energy to to use a scrubber rather than cost us to use your exploit.

Sir, natural gas is abundant in gas geysers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispershade    50
1 minute ago, ChickenStealer said:

Sir, natural gas is abundant in gas geysers.

So you're saying you don't want more free energy? Curious. You would rather brag about the energy efficiency of your solution to CO2 then get paid energy abundance for disposing of it?

I find that odd. Incidentally one Natural gas Geyser is enough to power 1.6 Natural Gas generators which produces 1.28kw.  (Not including the gas pump)  It isn't that much more than what you get from 1 full time scrubber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rezecib    3,075
2 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said:

Yours consumes over a thousand times more water than this one and requires a lot of high tech parts. How is mine a broken mess and yours not?

All research can be completed in under 15 cycles. There is no real distinction between high and low tech.

Water is cheap; a geyser produces 4 kg/s. A scrubber has way more capacity and beneficial side-effects, and only consumes 25% of that at maximum capacity.

Yours is broken because you could be handling twice the throughput with a 60% reduction in energy costs if you used a mechanical filter and removed the middle room. Also, you keep posting designs here without any explanation, rationale, or whatever, then claim parts are essential to the design without saying why. So it's really not surprising that they're interpreted as broken jokes.

Edited by rezecib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rezecib said:

All research can be completed in under 15 cycles. There is no real distinction between high and low tech.

Water is cheap; a geyser produces 4 kg/s. A scrubber has way more capacity and beneficial side-effects, and only consumes 25% of that at maximum capacity.

Yours is broken because you could be handling twice the throughput with a 60% reduction in energy costs if you used a mechanical filter and removed the middle room.

Not really, the system would break if you removed the middle room. Even if it did not, it will use multiple times the amount of energy that this PCCA needs. Or you would have to operate it manually which sucks!

Have I posted another design where "I claim parts are essential to the design without saying why"?

Edited by ChickenStealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coolthulhu    28

Filtering CO2 looks pretty useless as mentioned above, but the same setup could possibly be used to get rid of polluted oxygen. Possibly turning it into clean oxygen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasuha    412

I don't see anything groundbreaking on this design. It's an exploit and unlike the flooded vent exploit, it uses power. Plus it's unnecessarily complicated, even if we stick to the broken pipe exploit the whole vent/pump/filter combo could be replaced by a single bridge or valve in my opinion.

1 hour ago, Coolthulhu said:

Filtering CO2 looks pretty useless as mentioned above, but the same setup could possibly be used to get rid of polluted oxygen. Possibly turning it into clean oxygen.

Yes, that's true. Less power efficient than when using hydrogen but more compact. The only problem is that polluted oxygen has just a tiny bit greater specific heat capacity so the regulator won't cool itself. Though with how tiny the difference is, it would probably take long to even notice.

Edited by Kasuha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kasuha said:

I don't see anything groundbreaking on this design. It's an exploit and unlike the flooded vent exploit, it uses power. Plus it's unnecessarily complicated, even if we stick to the broken pipe exploit the whole vent/pump/filter combo could be replaced by a single bridge or valve in my opinion.

Sir, how would you want to replace the filter? I can't figure out what you would replace it with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispershade    50
2 hours ago, Grimgaw said:

ITT an obvious troll getting fed.

I personally think it is wrong to say he's a troll. I don't mean to talk as if he's not going to read this, but I get the very strong vibe that he's a young person who has a sincere desire to participate and contribute with his own discoveries and tricks but is easily defensive and lacks a certain level of maturity to properly communicate his ideas and take criticism effectively.

I can't really blame him for wanting to be noticed for his creativity and cleverness.  I would be a hypocrite if I did.

Regarding the middle room. I think the question people don't understand is why are you venting into that middle room when you could pipe the CO2 directly into the regulator. The filter isn't even filtering as it has no second connection.  If you're using it to force larger packet sizes, there are probably better ways to do so that don't require the energy hit of an additional jump and filter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now