Jump to content

Waterfall Petroleum Boiler


Recommended Posts

The other petroleum boiler thread reminded me how much I dislike the popularity of the John Francis design. I consider it the worst thing to happen to the ONI community since SPOMs. In the interest of showing that other fresh ideas still exist, I present the waterfall boiler.

image.thumb.png.abf27901b1ca88f337eb756f3858252d.png

The small pit by the copper volcano prioritizes the boiler for molten copper usage. Excess copper overflows into the steam turbine build (made prior to the discussion on heat deletion, some improvements are possible). Molten copper floats on a cell of molten gold next to the top door, this causes the copper to drip as a bead which avoids a heat deletion bug in debris formation. Copper falls into a chamber to have it's heat harvested, high thermal mass here minimizes temperature fluctuations. The bottom door does the usual heat control for the boiling chamber. Petroleum flows out and falls off a cell of molten lead to produce the waterfall. Aluminum pipes in the waterfall exchange heat with the incoming crude.

In terms of heat exchanger efficiency per pipe segment, this is best I've seen. There shouldn't be such a big pool of petroleum at the bottom, several pipe segments are covered and efficiency is reduced. It's been running continuously for ~400 cycles and I just haven't bothered to do anything with all the petroleum. Note that this is currently running at 1 kg/s because I have too much petroleum already, but it can easily do more.

 

Not much else interesting in the survival save but feel free to look.

Waterfall Boiler.sav

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very interesting.
I tried the heat exchange part of the waterfall roughly.
As a result, using the waterfall as beads seemed to improve efficiency a little. (Really little)

Spoiler

1.thumb.jpg.8ced47bac32b2fc7895fc536620c1608.jpg

2.thumb.jpg.5cb9d7e803ee24362a131b4658a019e9.jpg

It may be that efficiency is improved a little by blocking heat exchange above and below the petroleum by using beads.
However, I have little understanding of the correct heat calculation, so my idea may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

Did you also mirror each design and test. The horizontal flow at top does affect exchange a bit.

The left and right are fully mirrored.
If I'm talking about mirroring with OP's original design, I'm not doing that.
This was just a simple comparison of waterfalls and beads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kbn said:

This was just a simple comparison of waterfalls and beads.

The minor difference you see could be due to direction of flow at the top and not at all comparing beads with waterfalls. That's all. I didn't see your name in the following thread so figure you might like the info.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kbn said:

It may be that efficiency is improved a little by blocking heat exchange above and below the petroleum by using beads.

My initial testing with the waterfall was showing that each cell was not interacting with the ones above and I assumed more cells was more better. But your screenshot shows that something is going on.

Intriguing! Off to do some testing.

My initial thought was the same as @mathmanicanwith the heat deletion that occurs on liquids flowing rightwards, but the crude is a bit hotter. Also I made the top horizontal flow part wide to allow the petro flow to smooth out a bit, perhaps that has something to due with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mathmanican said:

The minor difference you see could be due to direction of flow at the top and not at all comparing beads with waterfalls. That's all. I didn't see your name in the following thread so figure you might like the info.

Yes, apparently my prediction was wrong.
I will do my best to read the topic.
Oh... very long...

1 hour ago, wachunga said:

My initial testing with the waterfall was showing that each cell was not interacting with the ones above and I assumed more cells was more better.

I think it's correct.
I tried another cooling test in the middle of the waterfall, but there was no upward heat exchange.
Therefore, my theory that beads improve thermal efficiency does not seem to hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kbn said:

Yes, apparently my prediction was wrong

I think you are partially correct. There is indeed heat conduction in falling liquids. It's hard to see in an actual waterfall and I suspect I missed it in the same way you did. Paint two blobs of different temperature liquid touching each other. Track them as they fall and conduction can be seen.

Whether or not the interbead conduction is a bad thing depends on the conductivity of the liquid I think. High conductivity and the unwanted conduction does more harm than the greater number of pipe interactions do good. Low conductivity and the extra pipes win out. I did two tests, petro with piped crude and water with piped water.

image.thumb.png.8dc2b626e50d66c9e82ba8f6444e8fc7.png

image.thumb.png.7fc66762f69a897627f3c1e39b182d71.png

Separate beads are better for petro/crude, continuous waterfall is better for water/water. To confuse the issue even further, when cold water is flowing over hot piped water, beads are superior. Columns of liquid have a similar "heat rises" affect like gases, but it is an averaging. In the second water example, we have hot water below cold water and the averaging effectively increases the conductivity of the liquid enough that beads are better (I think :D).

For extra fun check out the top part of the water/water test. It demonstrates the liquid flowing right bug. Heat can either be created or destroyed depending on which is hotter, the free flowing liquid or the piped liquid.

 

Pretty sure I didn't goof anything up but it's possible.

WaterfallTest.savFlow Bug.sav

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mathmanican said:

But lots of good stuff. 

Yes. And the trouble is, the more detailed good stuff, the more my confusion accelerates.
For me, the biggest enemy in the forum is language.
Many calories are consumed to correctly interpret the mysterious text output by Google Translate.

3 hours ago, wachunga said:

I think you are partially correct. There is indeed heat conduction in falling liquids.

Really? Hmm...I see, it's difficult.
My understanding of heat conduction seems to be medieval.
I will first work on raising it to the modern level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kbn said:

Yes. And the trouble is, the more detailed good stuff, the more my confusion accelerates.
For me, the biggest enemy in the forum is language.

Sorry. That must be frustrating. I have tried recently to stop using as many idioms in my forum writing, but unfortunately as a native English speaker I sometimes don't even realize when I'm saying something that won't translate well.  I've got Spanish down pretty well, and a tad bit of German, but not much else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, wachunga said:

For the same number of pipe segments both a continuous waterfall and separate beads perform better than a leftwards stair. Rightward stairs are bugged and delete heat.

I didn't mean a stair like that; I meant the common design that goes 10 tiles left, falls down, then 10 back to the right, falls down, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psusi said:

I didn't mean a stair like that; I meant the common design that goes 10 tiles left, falls down, then 10 back to the right, falls down, and so on.

The designs above beat tower and stair designs hands down in space required and materials needed. Thanks for sharing @wachunga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the bead version of this is massively better than a zig zag snake design, in every way I can think of. So much so that I misunderstood the question. I don't say this to be a jerk, I did the snake design for a long time. But I tried new things and moved on to something better. The community should as well.

For a laugh look at this, so cringe worthy. The wheezewort usage was very clever though, I miss having to do stuff like that.

overview.png.639a55e13719e58ec705d00c10a

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wachunga said:

The community should as well.

Unfortunately beads and waterfalls are often ignored and seen as useless or exploity by so many.

I love this design and plan to build it down the center of my next base, right next to the printing pod. Make the dupes climb through it to eat in their exosuits and go pee. I'll add a few extra segments to account for dupe conduction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

Unfortunately beads and waterfalls are often ignored and seen as useless or exploity by so many.

I love this design and plan to build it down the center of my next base, right next to the printing pod. Make the dupes climb through it to eat in their exosuits and go pee. I'll add a few extra segments to account for dupe conduction. 

This, I've got to see. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that in the zig zag design, every time you drop down to the next floor, you are wasting 3 cells of space where the petrol is not in contact with the pipe because it is an inter dimentional drip, and the waterfall eliminates that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mathmanican said:

Yep. But that is only part of what makes the waterfall and bead versions better.

Stair version have one pro – petroleum on steps keep temperature in case of oil absence.

I mostly build in survival, and make a lot of mistakes and temporary fixes, and having empty oil pipe is entirely possible situation for me.

But no oil in pipe means no petroleum on top, means no waterfall.

Are there some solution for such situation?

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...