# Did the sieve actually delete thermal energy?

## Recommended Posts

There has been a lot of discussion about the sieve and how it does not follow the laws of physics because it is destroying heat. So lets do some simple calculations to see if the sieve actually removed any thermal enrergy. The goal here is to see if the difference between thermal input energy and output energy is 0. If it is then the sieve did not delete any heat and did not need to be changed.

We must first figure out what a DTU is in J. So lets look at the specific heat of water in game and irl. In game: 4.179DTU/g/K, irl: varies, but around the same. I therefore conclude that 1DTU=1J.

Now lets look at the sieve:

-Input: Sand 1kg, pwater 5kg. To make the calculations simpler while being as kind as possible lets assume it's all water and round it up to 5 J/g/K
Lets also assume it's 100°. Then this has the thermal energy E_ti=273*6*5 J

-Output: pdirt 0.2kg, water 5kg, heat 4kJ. To make the calculations simpler while being as kind as possible lets assume it's outputted at 0K so it has 0 thermal energy (E_to=0).

Using real physics we also have to consider the change in mass when calculating energy. Don't worry, we will still test my hypothesis and nothing else.

E_i = 6*c^2 + E_ti
E_o = 5.2*c^2 + E_to
where c=299792458 m/s

This gives us the equation
E_i - E_o = (6*c^2 + E_ti) - (5.2*c^2 + E_to)
Lets simplify, rearrange and add brackets for clarity:
E_i - E_o = 0.8*c^2 + (E_ti - E_to) <- we can see that if the sieve followed conservation of energy then E_to-E_ti should be 0.8c^2 but that's another story.

Now my hypothesis is that E_ti - E_to = 0, so let's substitute and see if it is true.

0.8*c^2 + 0 = 0.8*c^2 + (E_ti - E_to)

Plugging LHS into my calculator I get LHS=7.19004142989e16 <-I'm showing a lot of digits just to make sure there is no rounding error.
Plugging RHS into my calculator I get RHS=7.19004142989e16 which is the same as LHS.

Hence my hypothesis was true! The Sieve never deleted any thermal energy. Case closed!

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, QuQuasar said:

Yes, and a mighty reactor it is. 70PJ is my entire country's production over 12.5 days.

##### Share on other sites

800g of mass is deleted by the water sieve each second, doesn't that mass contain thermal energy? or did the thermal energy of 6kg get transferred to the 5.2kg that comes out?

You got to this step:

E_i - E_o = 0.8*c^2 + (E_ti - E_to) then just assumed (E_ti - E_to) = 0 and plugged it in ...and basically made the left side equal the right side!

what if you used the numbers you originally assumed?

E_ti=273*6*5 J

E_to=0

So, E_i - E_o = 0.8*c^2 + ([273*6*5] - 0)

E_i - E_o = 8197.19

Maybe i'm just tired, can you explain in more detail please? assume most of us are not physics experts because we aren't.. show all steps, show all proper units and go into more detail.

##### Share on other sites

It's a joke, you can't calculate the thermal energy content of a hunk of mass, and compare it against the thermal energy content of another hunk of mass.

It's a joke.... right?

##### Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, avc15 said:

you can't calculate the thermal energy content of a hunk of mass, and compare it against the thermal energy content of another hunk of mass.

I don't see why you can't. You know everything about the hunks of mass, after all.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yunru said:

I don't see why you can't. You know everything about the hunks of mass, after all.

physics. Here, I'll point you to a debate on reddit about the subject.

Enthalpy is always measured relative to a point of reference temperature and material. Even if that point of reference is a temperature of absolute zero, the enthalpies of two substances at absolute zero are still not equal to one another.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, avc15 said:

physics. Here, I'll point you to a debate on reddit about the subject.

Enthalpy is always measured relative to a point of reference temperature and material. Even if that point of reference is a temperature of absolute zero, the enthalpies of two substances at absolute zero are still not equal to one another.

But we're not talking about Enthalpy?

Plus ONI physics isn't exactly IRL physics.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, Yunru said:

But we're not talking about Enthalpy?

Plus ONI physics isn't exactly IRL physics.

He actually is talking about enthalpy.

It also would not work in ONI for other reasons.

But, I don't feel much like going farther down that rabbit hole. Anyone else?

##### Share on other sites

Just now, avc15 said:

He actually is talking about enthalpy.

(It might help if I know what it was  )

##### Share on other sites

The initial post is arguing that the difference in energy is due to matter annihilation. Considering the 1 DTU = 1 J is patently false in-game, and that even the signs in his/her calculations don't work the right way... it should give you an idea of how serious the OP was.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strygald said:

what if you used the numbers you originally assumed?

Maybe i'm just tired, can you explain in more detail please? assume most of us are not physics experts because we aren't.. show all steps, show all proper units and go into more detail.

I did:

RHS = 0.8*c^2 + (E_ti - E_to) = 0.8*c^2 + ([273*6*5] - 0) = 7.19004142989e16

LHS= 0.8*c^2 + 0 = 7.19004142989e16

RHS=LHS

The point is to prove that

(273*6*5) - 0 = 0

273*6*5=0

But disguise it in a very large number and some dubious reasons.

The essence of the false proof is that the difference is only seen in the 13th digit (and I'm showing 12)

It's using the absurdity of considering heat deletion when it is 1/1000000000000 of the total energy deletion in the machine..

##### Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Yunru said:

I don't see why you can't. You know everything about the hunks of mass, after all.

By E = mc^2, you can very much compare any hunk of mass to any other! I am glad we finally have a sound, scientific-looking explanation for things!

This also tells us how the sieve is really implemented: It has two matter scanners/destroyers for the input and a pair of Star Trek replicators for the outputs. With the printer basically being a replicator as well, this should have been obvious all along. Or did you think that device was doing something as mundane as pressing water through sand? Not so!

2 minutes ago, Hedning said:

The essence of the false proof is that the difference is only seen in the 13th digit (and I'm showing 12)

Now you have broken the magic. Awwww.

##### Share on other sites

I love this so much.

##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

Or did you think that device was doing something as mundane as pressing water through sand?

Of course not! Not with the requiring power and the technology implied by the printer pod