Discussion of New Partial Melting/Evaporation mechanics (Flaking Updates)

[TripleM999]

17 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

How as about with 5 turbines venting, forcing flaking. 5kg will flake but the other 5 get a temp reset?

I think, this will work.

2x 5kg of 200°C steam + 10kg water at 95°C on the left.

1x 10kg steam at 199.8°C (prepatch donornewtemp + averaging), 1x 5kg steam at 102.4°C (child after conduction) and 1x 5kg water at 196.8°C (heat pushed as first observed by @kbn) on the right.

[mathmanican]

4 minutes ago, TripleM999 said:

prepatch

Have you tried post patch? I'll hopefully have some time later today to explore. 

[mathmanican]

Finally had some time. Even in the new update, things are wrong. 

Before ---> After

 ---> 

Definitely a bug somewhere in the splattering code. This will definitely need more attention. 

Bug report is in. 

 

[Zarquan]

1 hour ago, mathmanican said:

Finally had some time. Even in the new update, things are wrong. 

Before ---> After

 ---> 

Definitely a bug somewhere in the splattering code. This will definitely need more attention. 

Bug report is in. 

 

Might this be due to the vacuum weirdness rather than the flaking?  Try painting in 1 mcg steam at 500K

[mathmanican]

29 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

Might this be due to the vacuum weirdness rather than the flaking?

We think alike. @TripleM999 tested a few hours ago. 

  

8 hours ago, TripleM999 said:

No, vacuum is not the cause. The same is happening, when the top tile is filled with steam too

And I've now gone and built several steam turbines that generate way to much heat. I'm trying to minimize conduction loss, so playing with Chlorine right now, and several different packet stacker options. 

There is way more power to be harnessed here. I am thinking I will separate the turbine room from the boiling room, so that I can deal with the temp swapping bug far away from splattering bug. 

Just in case you missed the implication in the picture above, I can heat chlorine (extremely easy, almost no heat loss), use it as the donor, and then reset the parent water (half of what left the vent) at the chlorine's temp. 

If I packet stack several lines, and then simultaneously have them drop liquid so as to appear at the same time, then I only flake 5kg, but temp reset the rest of the liquid....  This is massively abusable.  It is a heat amplifier like no other I've seen yet in the game. 

This one might be so bad, @TripleM999, that Borgie doesn't stand a chance...  We've only got a few days to probably test it, so time to design. 

[mathmanican]

I'm getting over 2000 total watts from one aquatuner running water.  I still think there is lots of potential here, and that I haven't even scratched the surface of this bug. 

The key to abusing this bug is getting the donor's temp extremely high, while not passing that temp onto the child. For a turbine, this is a delicate balance. If the 95C water raises to much, then flaking ends and everything is conduction (you loose the heat amplification game, and have to start over). High steam pressure makes it hard to raise the temp, but it also holds mass that prevents large fluctuations...  I guess what need is a way to let the water raise high enough in temp that flaking is not possible, but not high enough to phase change, until it reaches a hugh mass vale, and then swap it all at once....  

[mathmanican]

I think a new condition on liquid flaking is that the temp of the donor cannot drop more than 10 degrees (K). This requires that you have a critical mass to enable flaking, which makes the conduction problem a little tougher with this vertical temp swap.   

I can say, with pretty solid certainty, that when the temp swap happens, the temp of the parent is being reset with the temp that the donor should be getting from the flaking algorithm. 

I also believe a rule to enable flaking is that the parent cannot be withing 3K of it's vaporization point. 

So for a steam turbine, we must keep the temp below 369.5K (it comes out of the turbine at 369.1). This is a tricky business. 

[Manarz]

Ah that explains this finding i had with flaking steam:

On 6/16/2020 at 1:32 AM, Manarz said:

Okay so we are not finished here...
While testing for the turbine heat deletion thread i wanted to check wether high steam pressure would flake the incomming 95C° water.
Surprise: it kinda did but not rly...

According to this formula
DonorNewTemp = DonorOldTemp - 10 + (5 * ParentSHC * PhaseUpDelta) / (DonorSHC * DonorMass).

if id have really high pressure in the steamchamber i would expect massive heatloss if flaking would occur.
take for example 9999kg steam @120 C° with 3 steamturbine outputs comming in (6kg Water). This should result in 10°C heatloss in the Donor steam cell.

So here is my test and its result:

results:

1. Picture: 1 Frame before flaking
2. & 3. Picture: Frame where flaking happend
3. Picture: 1 Frame after flaking without any visable heatloss
 

Is it flaking? If so does Gas Liquid Parent - Gas Donor flaking behave diffrently?
Or is it a thing which happens when u use the same Material for Donor and Parent and is just vaguely related to flaking?

[Manarz]

A simple (not at all optimized) space material setup like below can run 20 steamturbines on full power EASILY. I didnt test out its limits and i dont think it is needed...

One time flake-swapping 795kg of supercoolant from sth like 400°C to 900°C  generates 3.339.000.000DTU.... and how often you can use it basically only depends on how fast you can cool down the gaseous supercoolant. In my basic tests i managed to flake-swap around every 30-45 seconds.

Btw this setup could also be used in row to multiply its effect with the heat of just one AT.

I havent experimented with other materials yet but in theory this should work with no space materials at all at a lower efficiency.

[mathmanican]

4 minutes ago, Manarz said:

One time flake-swapping 795kg of supercoolant from sth like 400°C to 900°C  generates 3.339.000.000DTU

Nice.  Haven't had time to play for a while. I was planning on abandoning the steam generator self contained heating problem, and move towards another element (like phosphorous or sulfer) to see how much heat I could extract. I found doors to be a great way to separate the hot plate from the cold plate, despite their high thermal conductivity. 

Since they have fix in testing for @TripleM999's Borgie, I definitely need to get something made ASAP to take on Borgie before he's gone.  

[Manarz]

7 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

I found doors to be a great way to separate the hot plate from the cold plate

I used doors for that too but saw some matter deletion so i scrapped it (atleast for those two elements). The little heat loss through conduction doesnt matter at all at this point.

Doors are a great way to avoid letting the liquid flake since as long as there is no space for the child after flaking nothing will happen and you can safely heat the donor to any temperature you want.
In my setup the gaseous supercoolant will always only be in the lowest tile and always completly changes state, so i didnt need this door mechanic.

[mathmanican]

26 minutes ago, Manarz said:

I used doors for that too but saw some matter deletion

My experiments yesterday led me down a path that avoided mass deletion, but required that the donor and child be the same. Trying to insert any other gas (like chlorine or carbon dioxide), created lots of deletion, yet got me very high temps and fully powering 5 turbines.  It's also what lead to the "donor can't drop more than 10C" rule that I found (a wise move from the devs that prevents us from abusing 1mg of chlorine to phase change stuff).  

Thanks for the share. I'll probably adopt something similar when I get a chance to play again.  I assume you have around 1000kg of chlorine in each cell above the supercoolant, so that the gaseous supercoolant is forced into one cell. Batch processing this stuff is a fun endeavor. 

Hmm.... What would happen if we placed Borgie directly next to the supercoolant metal tile.  You could cool the supercoolant to solid every other tick, and generate insane amounts of energy.  Would the system get more and more extreme, or stabilize (and then we can declare them tied). 

I also found some interesting air flow tile mechanics, where I could vacuum out an air tile that had liquid left of it, and 20kg of steam above.  A very odd mechanic that I think is related to mass deletion in some liquid overpressure designs. 

[TripleM999]

3 hours ago, mathmanican said:

What would happen if we placed Borgie directly next to the supercoolant metal tile

One of Borgies quirks is its chance based working, and the hydrogen chamber is not optimal for conducting the heat away from just one metal tile. But one could probably place something like our earlier swap based cooling mechanisms to cool the metal tile quite fast.

[Manarz]

8 hours ago, mathmanican said:

Trying to insert any other gas (like chlorine or carbon dioxide), created lots of deletion,

In my setup some mass got deleted too so i investigated it a bit. I found that every thermal contact point touching the parent tile adds to mass deletion of the parent. A thermal contact point below the parent causes mass deletion. So you'd want to conduct heat out of the parent only by bridges to get rid of mass loss. I haven't yet identified the exact interaction that is responsible for the deletion though.

[TheOneFinn]

So does flaking completely ignore the additional matter generation?

 

I just dumped a load of hot iron into a pwater room and got no dirt generated at all, steam seemed to be generating in 5kg chunks so I'm fairly certain all steam was generated via flaking.

[mathmanican]

2 hours ago, TheOneFinn said:

So does flaking completely ignore the additional matter generation?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. If boiling something via conduction generally creates 2 products, then you only get 1 product from flaking. 

5 hours ago, Manarz said:

In my setup some mass got deleted too

Good to know.  I tried your setup last night, briefly, and lost most of my phosphorous in the first minute. I figured I had done something wrong.

[TheOneFinn]

9 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

To the best of my knowledge, yes. If boiling something via conduction generally creates 2 products, then you only get 1 product from flaking. 

Thanks, guess I dont need to worry about superheated dirt in my steam room then.

I think i'm starting to hate flaking as much as you do.

 

[mathmanican]

1 minute ago, TheOneFinn said:

guess I dont need to worry about superheated dirt in my steam room then.

Take care though.  Flaking will only convert things in 5kg chunks.  The last little bit will convert via regular conduction, so you can get dirt in there, just not as much as you would have gotten. 

Not sure if "hate" is the right word.  It's more of a "love/hate" relationship.    The mechanic is quite fun to play with, and once all the abuses are gone, that would be nice.  In addition, the loss of a second element is odd. 

[TheOneFinn]

16 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

Not sure if "hate" is the right word.  It's more of a "love/hate" relationship.    The mechanic is quite fun to play with, and once all the abuses are gone, that would be nice.  In addition, the loss of a second element is odd. 

I like consistency, and the fact that it uses different rules is annoying.

Also it really puts a spanner in the works if you want to build a manual desalinator (480W FFS!), presumably a pre-heat stage is going to have to get it within the threshold of the phase change (possibly doable with just a counterflow heat exchanger) to prevent flaking?

Or should you do the counter-intuitive thing of disabling conduction using an insulator and using bridges as the only heat transfer mechanic whenever you need a phase change to multiple outputs? (and care about the second output)

Sorry, kinda went off-topic for this thread.

[mathmanican]

1 minute ago, TheOneFinn said:

I like consistency

I'm with ya there, hence I want to fully understand the partial melting/evaporating mechanics so I can consistently use them, or avoid them, and plan accordingly. 

3 minutes ago, TheOneFinn said:

a manual desalinator (480W FFS!),

You can prevent flaking with consistency. One option, as you mentioned is to get within 3K of the phase change.  Another is to just trap the salt water/brine so the mechanic cannot flake,which is the route I'll go (I love the one-element per tile mechanics, and the interesting consequences that fllow). Preventing flaking requires knowing the rules so we can consistently apply them.  I'm perfectly happy with the additional rules, just want them to be consistent.  Currently this, "flake from above to reset the donor temp," is NOT consistent. 

7 minutes ago, TheOneFinn said:

should you do the counter-intuitive thing of disabling conduction using an insulator and using bridges as the only heat transfer mechanic whenever you need a phase change to multiple outputs?

This is a good point that I hope the devs see. It would be nice if partial evaporation phase changes behaved the same way as conduction phase changes for multi-element conversions.  At least currently they are consistent about not producing the element. Making the exchange room so small that flaking cannot happen can be done and still let you use conduction without insulating things.  But yeah, you do have to design around this mechanic for desalination. 

This was definitely not off topic. In fact, I think adding some designs for multiple output phase change designs would be a welcome addition. 

[Manarz]

19 hours ago, mathmanican said:

Good to know.  I tried your setup last night, briefly, and lost most of my phosphorous in the first minute. I figured I had done something wrong.

The setup i posted does not delete any mass if you have enough chlorine pressure.I think I had to use above 4000kg/tile. It ran 20 cycles without deletion then

[mathmanican]

I'm planning to test a 6 tile tall setup today.  2 tiles at top for gas, 2 tiles at the bottom for liquid and vacuum, and 2 tiles in the middle for a door, that shuts when the top pressure is too small, or the liquid level is to large, and opens when the temp of the top reaches a desired level. With space above and below the door for gas to flow (hence 2 tiles below, not just one), I hope gas deletion won't happen.

[Denisetwin]

On 6/28/2020 at 1:38 PM, mathmanican said:

On 6/28/2020 at 1:37 PM, TripleM999 said:

The crude pushes the materializing water one tile upward into the steam,

That should be easy to test. No ONI access now. If it is true then venting water over a mesh tile where crude lies in the mesh and petro over the vent (one tile wide column) with two tiles of steam above petro should allow us to make massive amounts of heat.

I think I missed some of the info - did this end up working?  I need some extra heat in a salt water boiler that didn't work the way I was anticipating (my asteroid is cold. large glaciers, frozen core cold.  Two iron volcanoes and a gold all in the frozen core still has not melted it in a couple hundred turns, which I can't figure out but whatever, I'm using the -17 oil to cool my generators and metal refinery)

[mathmanican]

20 minutes ago, Denisetwin said:

I think I missed some of the info - did this end up working?

I'm still playing with ideas on this thread.  I haven't found a great way to do things. @Manarz has a solution that seems to work above. Packet stacking liquid going into a steam turbine does help generate extra heat because of the bug, and it doesn't require anything more than making sure the donor steam is in the tile above the parent incoming 10kg liquid (that is trapped on all sides but up).  Half the liquid will flake to 103Cish steam, and the rest will convert to whatever the temp of the steam above is.

Now that the gas flow bug is hopefully found, reported, and awaiting a fix, I'll probably devote more time to this issue. 

[Manarz]

I did manage to generate quite some heat by just closing doors above the water inlet and opening them once when i reached 1000kg water. The steam above the door can be brought very high if you abuse the fact that hot steam conducts its heat downwards rather slowly. You just need to make sure that this very hot steam touches your water first and then route the resulting steam sideways towards the turbines. Its nowhere near as effective as the supercoolant design but it still generates quite some energy.

The main problem with such designs is that i cant seem to find a way to avoid the temerature swapping heat loss since we generate a high pressure, high temperature steam tile that is flowing into a lower pressure, lower temperature environment underneath the turbines...