Jump to content

Could someone take a look, whats going wrong?


Recommended Posts

Upper right of the map, there is my rocket launch base. 

Left to it, there are the cooling chambers for liquid oxygen and hydrogen. 

Left to them, the cooling fabs with super coolant.

Left to them (again...) the pre-cooling for the gases. And here  is the problem. Every few minutes (1-3) the output pipe of the thermo regulators break. They are made of insulation and are insulated. The state of the gas cant change at all, so they should never break. Gas comes in with 40-80°C and will be filtered out way before it condenses. 

I would appreciate any suggestions.

x2.sav

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is your problem. The bridge after the shut off gets blocked so it can't filter out too cold gases.image.thumb.png.67ab7c36c211c122b91957fed7896237.png

The easiest way to solve it is to reverse the function of the shut off valve from above to below and reroute the pipes like this

image.thumb.png.8dc73fea12573f7c1fdcdd7b496decf1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not quite correct. You've identified the problem, but the root cause is that it's possible for the pipe to stop. If the pipe can back up in your revised pipe layout, bad gas packet routing is still going to happen. If you have a pipe temperature sensor followed by a shut off valve, it only routes gas packets correctly if it's in motion. The temperature sensor is always testing the packet that is about to enter the shutoff valve, not the packet that's actually in the valve right now.

This works if the packets are moving, but fails if they stop. Once they stop, if the packet in the valve is too cold, but the one behind is warm, when the pipe restarts, the too-cold packet goes into the thermoregulator and the output pipe takes damage. This is true whether the valve tests for too cold or warm enough.

He needs a proper temperature filter. Which is a loop, where there are two sensors and two shutoff valves. Valve #1 sends warm packets to the thermoregulator. Valve #2 sends cold packets to the output. Then there's a loop back, so if valve #2 is backed up, the same packets circulates in the filter to be tested again. This keeps the gas in motion so the sensor-shutoff valve pair never produces an error.

This is an example of a hot/cold filter. It's for my metal refinery, but the principle is the same.

5cae918b586f5_TemperatureFilter1.thumb.jpg.f01a160e20df7e6e70b2bc1948b8c268.jpg

It irks me that I can't use a single temperature test, since there's a possibility of error if the temperature tests aren't the same. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way around two tests / valves in a truly foolproof mechanical filter. One-valve solutions will always send packets the wrong way if either outlet pipe is blocked.

I can't give you an example from my liquid hydrogen generator, because neither my liquid hydrogen or oxygen setups have filters where the pipe can back up. The temperature sensors are on the supercoolant loops, not the gasses, and there's an expansion tank so the coolant never backs up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a bit about my assumptions, and I think there probably is a one-sensor, one-valve solution, if you provide loop-backs on both branches in case of pipe blockage. The drawback being that it's almost certainly more complex and larger than a two-valve solution because you need a minimum of 3 bridges (two loop back, one for the fluid input so looping flood gets priority over new fluid).

I'm not actively playing right now, I'm waiting for the QOL3 release to become stable before I start a new colony, or I'd test this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done something similar, but it used two sensors.  One detected the temperature range I wanted filtered.  The other was an element sensor that detected if I had a full  output.  It was on a feedback line and would shut the main off until the feedback line cleared.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gus Smedstad said:

You've identified the problem, but the root cause is that it's possible for the pipe to stop.

No. It's not possible for the pipes to back up with the solution I gave in the context of the set up used.

Here. I've drawn you a simplified picture of the set up used.

drawingapicture.thumb.png.91818ce9e8c60137d3f65e615a31d7d6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gus Smedstad said:

I've been thinking a bit about my assumptions, and I think there probably is a one-sensor, one-valve solution...

Yes. There is. And it's not difficult to make.

Hell. You don't actually need any shut off valves at all.

However, the OP asked a specific question how to solve his issue with breaking pipes in his set up. I provided a solution that absolutely will work in his set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saturnus said:

No. It's not possible for the pipes to back up with the solution I gave in the context of the set up used.

 

I was basing that on what I saw in the screenshots. I didn’t download the save file, so I didn’t see the additional plumbing you show there.

The full diagram has two valves and a loop back. Exactly like the diagram I showed, if larger, and using a tank for a loop back instead of a bridge.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about one-valve solutions, or rather you’re thinking very specifically of the OP’s specific setup, rather than the general case of temperature filtration. Absent any knowledge of where the hot and cold fluids are going, you do need valves.

In the OP’s specific setup, a no-valve solution may or may not work. Specifically, I’m thinking of the solution where you control the thermoregulator instead of a valve. If you put a bridge immediately after the temperature sensor, when the fluid or gas stops moving through the thermoregulator, it then uses the bridge to bypass it.

That works fine for cooling loops, but breaks if there is ever a gap in the flow of fluid or gas. I strongly suspect the OP’s setup does have such occasional gaps. I know the flow of hydrogen to my liquid hydrogen setup is not always continuous.

You may be thinking of some other solution that I haven’t encountered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gus Smedstad said:

I was basing that on what I saw in the screenshots. I didn’t download the save file, so I didn’t see the additional plumbing you show there.

So basically what you're admitting is that when you said my solution was not correct, you hadn't actually checked the set up used, and therefore could not make any sort of claim whether or not my solution would work in the set up used.

Begs the question why you even tried calling me out on this when you didn't have your facts straight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

 

Begs the question why you even tried calling me out on this when you didn't have your facts straight?

 

I explained exactly what my reasoning was. I was reacting to what I saw in this thread. If the original screenshots had included the additional context, I would have seen that the revised setup would work.

As for “why,” I was trying to help the original poster. It had precisely zero to do with you, or “calling you out.” I’m sorry you perceived it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, FiannaTiger said:

So would these kinds of set ups be good for looping crude oil through a refinery to boil it to petroleum?

I’m not sure exactly what you’re thinking, but I’ve used this kind of temperature filter for a metal refinery, and I’ve used it to heat crude oil up considerably before I released it from the loop.

I’m assuming bad things happen if crude oil gets over 400 C in a pipe. Pipe damage, like a phase change, even if it’s still a liquid. I haven’t tried it.

You could, however, pre-heat crude oil considerably with a metal refinery loop before sending it to an oil boiler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gus Smedstad said:

I’m not sure exactly what you’re thinking, but I’ve used this kind of temperature filter for a metal refinery, and I’ve used it to heat crude oil up considerably before I released it from the loop.

I’m assuming bad things happen if crude oil gets over 400 C in a pipe. Pipe damage, like a phase change, even if it’s still a liquid. I haven’t tried it.

You could, however, pre-heat crude oil considerably with a metal refinery loop before sending it to an oil boiler.

My thoughts was about looping crude oil to heat close to transition.  Yeah I did think about if you could transition crude oil to petroleum in a pipe.  I'm not sure why that would cause damage since they are both liquids, and the transition would happen inside of the metal refinery which can have multiple kinds of coolant in it at the same time.

I guess I'll test it out tonight in debug and see if I can use a metal refinery as a boiler...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FiannaTiger said:

My thoughts was about looping crude oil to heat close to transition.  Yeah I did think about if you could transition crude oil to petroleum in a pipe.  I'm not sure why that would cause damage since they are both liquids, and the transition would happen inside of the metal refinery which can have multiple kinds of coolant in it at the same time.

I guess I'll test it out tonight in debug and see if I can use a metal refinery as a boiler...

No need to test.  It will 100% break pipes.  If it didn't, this would be THE way to make a boiler. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gus Smedstad said:

I’m assuming bad things happen if crude oil gets over 400 C in a pipe. Pipe damage, like a phase change, even if it’s still a liquid. I haven’t tried it.

Yes, i can verify that bad things happen if crude goes over 400C. :D

@FiannaTiger, if you want to convert crude to petroleum inside pipes, you have to reduce the amount of the crude to 1kg or less per pipe section. (This actually works for all phase changes as long as the amount is 10% maximum pipe capacity so 1kg in liquid pipes and 100g in ventilation pipes.) 

Using a refinery to heat crude to near 400C, using a valve to send 1kg packages, heating to above 403C, then dumping the petroleum out of the pipes without letting packets combine does work. It's a bit slower than other methods but is fairly simple to set up for the first bit of petroleum if you're like me and absolutely hate "wasting" crude oil in an oil refinery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2019 at 4:26 PM, Saturnus said:

No. It's not possible for the pipes to back up with the solution I gave in the context of the set up used.

Here. I've drawn you a simplified picture of the set up used.

drawingapicture.thumb.png.91818ce9e8c60137d3f65e615a31d7d6.png

Hi there @Saturnus, could this build be improved by allowing the green output pipe from the Thermo Regulator to take precedence over output from the first temp check valve with a bridge? In the current approach it would be held up by any backed up traffic going to the reservoir via the second output temp check I reckon. If instead there was a bridge after temp check #1 with it's green arrow just after the Thermo Regulator output, then a pipe blocked condition from the regulator should only result from a full reservoir etc. I tweaked my copy of this on my Metal Recycler and it seems to have helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Draxbear said:

Hi there @Saturnus, could this build be improved by allowing the green output pipe from the Thermo Regulator to take precedence over output from the first temp check valve with a bridge? In the current approach it would be held up by any backed up traffic going to the reservoir via the second output temp check I reckon. If instead there was a bridge after temp check #1 with it's green arrow just after the Thermo Regulator output, then a pipe blocked condition from the regulator should only result from a full reservoir etc. I tweaked my copy of this on my Metal Recycler and it seems to have helped.

No. That's how the OP have set it up. And that's why it failed.

In the system as shown the output of the temp check overrides the thermoregulator output which is exactly what you want.

You cannot allow neither the bypass nor the flow through of the shut off valve to ever be blocked for any reason, or it will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2019 at 12:26 AM, Saturnus said:

No. It's not possible for the pipes to back up with the solution I gave in the context of the set up used.

Here. I've drawn you a simplified picture of the set up used.

drawingapicture.thumb.png.91818ce9e8c60137d3f65e615a31d7d6.png

The area above the Temp Check circle on the left, below the Thermo Regulator, can back up.  This shouldn't happen much, as it would take a particular combination of packets -- however, once things backed up, it could make a wrong packet go past the valve.  You can eliminate this potential problem by continuing the pipe past the input of the thermo regulator and bring it back in to the output side of the bridge from the input.  This gives the overflow the priority and allows packets to continue moving past the temp sensor even if there's a backup.

Edit: Actually, the feedback bypass I suggested above could cause a too-cold packet to go through the regulator.  The bypass should be on the valve's output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KittenIsAGeek said:

It has happened to me.

Different set up then.

Try counting it. Remember that if a packet goes one way there's an empty pipe section going the other way. So it's not possible for it to back up under any circumstance (except power loss obviously).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Saturnus said:

Different set up then.

Try counting it. Remember that if a packet goes one way it there's an empty pipe section going the other way.

There are 4 pipe segments on the input side and 3 on the output side.  Assuming normal use, there will never be a backup.  Suppose, however, that for 1 tick the regulator doesn't have enough power.  Suppose, also, that the input side is completely full and the packet on the temp sensor is the right temperature to turn the valve on.  An extra packet will divert through the valve.  With the right combination of following packets, the output segment from the valve can fill up without the input side of the regulator moving up.  At this point, with both pipes full, the the flow on the input could start to lurch, making packets go through the wrong branch, or lock completely up.  I've had this happen as recently as last week.

Is it common? No.  Most of the time things will work just fine.  The possibility exists, however, for a problem -- and its more likely to happen when you're not watching that area. My fix has been to use a feedback loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, KittenIsAGeek said:

Suppose, however, that for 1 tick the regulator doesn't have enough power. 

You left this out on purpose?

22 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

So it's not possible for it to back up under any circumstance (except power loss obviously).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...