Jump to content

Thermo Aquatuner - Test - Power waste and Output delay

Recommended Posts

I know this Topic is known to a lot of people, yet there are few tests/explanations to it.
Since I did a test a while back and dug it up recently, I thought it might be useful to others, so here we go.


Test arrangement




In Motion







Components from left to right:



Overflow - Liquid not processed by the AT ends up here.

Providers - The source of Liquid(s) for the test.

Starter - Starts the test. The switch is at the very top.

Aquatuner (AT) - duh.

Measure - Here the processed liquid ends up. The AT's efficiency can be deducted from this. Battery leakage will cause minor deviations.

Batteries - Provide 10x40 kJ for each setup.

Flow descriptions


A string representing the elements in the pipe.

E = Empty
P = Petroleum
C = Crude Oil



'EPEP' for a pipe alternating empty and petroleum.


Test and Results:



Steady flow 'PPPP'. The AT runs continuously, processing 3240 kg. This is our base for comparison and equals 100% efficiency.



Flow splits up. 'PEPE' before the AT. After the AT it is 'EPPE'. 2140 kg are processed.
In consideration of 1.1(.1) this suggests that the AT runs for 1 second before processing/passing through the 1. package. The 2. package has time to catch up and is processed in the same "active period".

For every 2 packages processed the AT runs empty for 1 second (Total of 3 seconds): ⅔ efficiency  ≈ 66.6%  ≈ 2140/3240.



Flow is 'PEEPEE' and 'EPEEPE' before and after the AT. Liquid processed is 1600 kg. This is about  half of our Base value, confirming that the AT runs one additional second when receiving liquid anew before actually processing the 1. Package.

Efficiency ≈ 50% ≈ 1600/3240.



Same as 1.1 but flow to the AT is controlled by a Shutoff + Automation.  1600kg.
Timings Filter: 2.7 s, Buffer: 0.9 s



The AT is toggled by an Automation loop. Filter: 1.7 s, Buffer 0.9 s. Flow to the AT is 'PCPC'. Flow from the AT is 'PEPE'. Every second package is processed, giving us  3150 kg.

Considering the extended run time and battery leakage, this is about 100% efficient.



Same as 2.1 but with a liquid element sensor to toggle the AT. 3150 kg processed.
This test was conducted/necessary before the proper timings for 2.0 were found.



Just to mirror 1.1(.1) this build was included. In comes 'PCCPCC', out goes 'PEEPEE'. 
The AT processed  3080 kg, which is about 100% efficient considering leakage.



Tests 1.x.x show that resuming flow after it was interrupted will cause a 1 second spin up, which delays the 1. Package going into the AT and waste 1200 J.

Tests 2.x show that regulating the AT with automation doesn’t cause a spin up, delay or waste of energy.




2.2 the very 1. Package (Petroleum) doesn’t activate the element sensor. Can be seen in the video. 2.1 element sensor works, but has a package of crude oil before petroleum.

Automation should take 0.1 second for a switching states. This was rather irritating and the 0.3 seconds correction for the filters seems weird. Am I missing something here?

Why doesn't the mp4 autoplay work? I've last seen it in the post for the new update/test branch.



TEST - AT Power consumption.sav

The box with the golden border is the correct test arrangement (press shift+3 to get there). Switch is at the top.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psusi said:

You should put it in the bug tracker.

It already is:

The post also shows, that if there is a combination of bypass + flow interruption, the AT will "miss" packages.
Worst case: 1.1 (100% miss).


2 hours ago, Yalp said:

2.2 the very 1. Package (Petroleum) doesn’t activate the element sensor.

If you were (also) referring to this, it needs some more investigation. Maybe there is a report already.


Edit, save file#2:
TEST - AT Power consumption v2.sav

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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...