ghkbrew Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 I present what I'm dubbing the Debris Furnace: Basically, I've exploited the well known temperature reset bug when a liquid solidifies on top of an existing pile of debris. I figure either I can get the bug patched or I can start installing free energy in my survival bases Spoiler This is the heart of the contraption. 5kg/s of magma super-cooled to 130C is dropped on top of a pile of igneous rock 1C below it's melting temperature (2C above the listed temperature). The magma instantly solidifies adding mass to the debris pile but not changing its temperature. The ceramic insulated tile on the left is necessary, because supercooled liquids won't solidify unless they have something to interact with thermally (not vacuum or insulation) Spoiler Piping for completeness. I'm using a glass forge for the reheater, just to show how little input heat is needed. With this build the forge only has ~5% uptime. Even the smallest volcano should easily power multiple copies of this. The save file is attached. P.S. Don't feel bad for Harold... he knows what he did. Debris Furnace.sav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachunga Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 Nice. The small packet mechanic is the clever bit that turns a heat deletion bug into a heat creation bug. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 3 hours ago, ghkbrew said: I've exploited the well known temperature reset bug when a liquid solidifies on top of an existing pile of debris This is a work of art. Thanks for the share. I'll point people to this post from now on when they want to know more about the temp reset bug. Thank you again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0xFADE Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 I was using a glass furnace and refinery to boost the heat in my regolith melter when my volcano was dormant but his is much nicer. I had to set up the melting point in such a way to avoid that whole heat deletion/creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghkbrew Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 2 hours ago, mathmanican said: This is a work of art. That's high praise from the master of ONI bug exploits. Thanks! 5 hours ago, wachunga said: The small packet mechanic is the clever bit that turns a heat deletion bug into a heat creation bug. Yeah, I was actually trying to get a pair of builds one heat creation and one deletion, but I haven't been able to the get the cooler to keep to seed debris pile at a stable temperature. I suspect it's the super cooling that allows the droplets to solidify before interacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 56 minutes ago, 0xFADE said: a glass furnace With the update to partial melting, we only need 23.8% of the actual energy to get liquid glass to flake off solid glass. So you can cool the glass down to 200C, and then reheat it for less than 1/4 the energy. It's not the debri bug issue (which this post highlights), but is another, now legit, use of glass for generating heat. It's actually the best option to use in partial melting, if you want materials that can cycle (solid -> liquid -> same solid). 35 minutes ago, ghkbrew said: deletion Have you played any with the bugs that @flapee called the "SFT" (sub-freeze temps). I haven't seen anyone really explore this bug at all, since our discussions last year (see here). I don't think this bug is fully understood yet, and could be a great place to collaborate. The debri bug you showcased was mentioned by @Tonyroid in this video, but the SFT bug seems to be completely different, and when combined with the debri bug, will get you massive heat deletion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghkbrew Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 2 hours ago, ghkbrew said: I suspect it's the super cooling that allows the droplets to solidify before interacting. I was right! The Debris Fridge (TM) works! Turning 42K liquid oxygen into 1K solid oxygen at 10kg/s. This should work with basically any liquid and you get ~ 10kg * SHC * Freeze Point heat deletion per second. This makes water pretty much ideal for -11 million DTU/s. And since you're making ~0K ice you can use it for arbitrarily low target temperatures (though you lose efficiency at anything below the freeze point since you still have to melt it before you can complete the cycle). Does this qualify as a new "Borg Cube"? 2 hours ago, mathmanican said: Have you played any with the bugs that @flapee called the "SFT" (sub-freeze temps). I haven't. Looks like i have a new itch to scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 37 minutes ago, ghkbrew said: at 10kg/s. We're gonna have to collaborate so we can get this up to 625kg/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachunga Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 1 hour ago, ghkbrew said: The Debris Fridge (TM) works! Fantastic stuff. I've been screwing around with a similar idea off and on, your method works way better. In retrospect I'm kicking myself for not thinking of pipes and small packets. Regarding the SFT stuff. I was looking into it a bit and stumbled upon another bug. When a gas or liquid phases down, the temperatures of the surrounding cells that cooled the gas/liquid are potentially calculated incorrectly. Or the temperature of the new liquid/solid depending on your point of view. Top is initial conditions with 100kg of thermium and 1kg of water. Bottom is after one tick. The left side is calculated correctly. Each Cell-Cell conduction reduces the water's temp by 51.5C due to the 1/4 temperature difference clamping. Add 1.5C worth of heat because the water phased down and you end up with -51.5C ice. Thermium temps (rounded to one decimal) changed by the correct amount to match the water's temp change. Right side is screwed up. All 4 thermium cells changed by the amount to match the 51.5C of water change. But the water/ice changed by 51.5C only once. I assume because one Cell-Cell conduction was sufficient to freeze the water, after which the game lost track of the other 3 Cell-Cell conductions for the ice but not for the thermium. Same thing happens with gas, but you have to advance one tick for the gas to condense into droplets and then advance some frames for those droplets to materialize as a liquid cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, wachunga said: the game lost track of the other 3 Cell-Cell conductions So similar to the bug you found when heating water up when we were studying turbines. Nice find. I do think it is interesting that the left build gets computed correctly despite having two contact points. I wonder if water to steam is the same. Just cover the top with an insulated tile and let both left and right sides heat up 95C water to steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghkbrew Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 Edit: Argh! @wachunga beat me to it! I should refresh more often. 4 hours ago, mathmanican said: Have you played any with the bugs that @flapee called the "SFT" (sub-freeze temps). So after reading through the thread and looking at examples. Does this explanation fit with what you're seeing: Phase changes happen in 3 steps. 1) Adjacent tiles exchange heat as normal according to the known rules. Then a check is done to see if a material is past it's freezing/boiling point by at least 3C. If it is, 2) the material is replaced by it's phase-changed counterpart (e.g. water to ice) then 3) the current temperature is reverted 1.5C towards it's phase-change point. If there is a large temperature/mass delta (such as 5kg of 320K water next to 100kg of 26K aluminum), the material can significantly overshoot it's phase-change point in step 1. Step 1 is heat neutral +/- rounding errors. Step 2 is not heat neutral if the SHCs of materials change (as is well known), but importantly it happens at the current temperature. The heat created is delta SHC * current temperature. This means if you can contrive to super-heat/super-cool a substance you can increase the get more than "ideal" efficiency out of phase changes that modify SHC. Step 3 is not ever heat neutral, but is hard to exploit since in any loop you have it happening in two opposing directions. But, the 6C hysteresis in freeze/melt points makes it possible as evidenced by the "Crying Crab" cooler. While playing with this though I did find another bug that I'm not sure is known: In the above test, 5kg of 272K water is adjacent to 100kg of 100K aluminum (top row). After 1 tick (bottom row) all of the water droplets freeze to 5kg of 255.1K ice. All of the aluminum tiles have a new temperature of 104.2K. The air flow tiles don't change. For the far right column with a single metal tile adjacent to a single drop of water this fits the explanation I gave above (+/- rounding). But when multiple metal tiles are touching the water, they each act as if they were the only one. So on the far left column, if x heat is lost by the water then 3x heat is gained by the tiles... This should be very exploitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, ghkbrew said: But when multiple metal tiles are touching the water, they each act as if they were the only one. Looks like you and @wachungafound the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachunga Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, mathmanican said: So similar to the bug you found when heating water up when we were studying turbines. Yup, similar in that a bug exists when multiple tiles are conducting during a phase change event. The exact specifics of the bug are different though. Weird stuff. @ghkbrew Hah! Great minds think alike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 18 minutes ago, ghkbrew said: Argh! @wachunga beat me to it! We can just go with independent simultaneous discovery and avoid a Newton-Leibnitz fight if y'all are fine with it. Sounds like @wachunga would be amenable. . I plan to jump more into the SFT tomorrow. Looks like we piqued @wachunga's interest. Did you find the other threads on SFT as well? I only linked one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachunga Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, mathmanican said: avoid a Newton-Leibnitz fight I would demand that we use my notation, but his names are better than the ones I was thinking of. 8 minutes ago, mathmanican said: Did you find the other threads on SFT as well I only looked into the one that you linked. Sounds like I have some forum searching to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghkbrew Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, mathmanican said: We can just go with independent simultaneous discovery and avoid a Newton-Leibnitz fight if y'all are fine with it. I agree on the condition that everyone admits that @wachunga and I are great minds 7 minutes ago, mathmanican said: Did you find the other threads on SFT as well? I only linked one of them. I'll admit I didn't really look. Everything I saw in that thread seemed to fit the explanation I proposed though. Do you know of any counter examples? 13 minutes ago, wachunga said: but his names are better than the ones I was thinking of. About 60% of my motivation for making these was so I could use those names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, ghkbrew said: I agree on the condition that everyone admits that @wachunga and I are great minds Agreed. And apparently we're going with @wachunga = Leibnitz, and @ghkbrew = Newton. We'll forever be plagued with derivatives, and never get to use infinitesmals, and differentials will be completely taboo (though linearizations are completely OK). Done. I'll put together everything I find on SFT in the morning. Gotta head for now. I'm not sure that your explanation fully accounts for everything, but it might. It's just been too long. FYI, you could look for my "molten lead for the win" post from last year, if you want to see a way to abuse the phase change issues. I wonder if it will actually be better now that heat deletion is fixed. I am thinking of swapping to Sulfer, instead of molten lead, when I have another crack at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0xFADE Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 Sulfur eh. It looked pretty useless with it's low values but if the temps it changes state in is the useful part then that could be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 18 minutes ago, 0xFADE said: Sulfur eh. It looked pretty useless Last year I was getting a little success with lead (SHC = 0.128). Sulfur is almost 6 times higher. Last year I ignored sulfur. Now I see people clamoring for a use for sulfur. If I can get 6 turbines running full time off SHC shenanigans, then I'd be happy. Of course, once you can reliably produce sulfur, you've already got a crude -> NG boiler going, so the extra power is useless. But I've got to try it, for science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0xFADE Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 I was, and am, one of them. For science indeed. You could consider it additional power from the whole NG boiler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, 0xFADE said: You could consider it additional power from the whole NG boiler. The sulfur power would be an endless loop that needs zero inputs once going. So you could continue adding more turbines as sulfur builds up. Essentially you could fill your whole map. So tomorrow is SFT and sulfur time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0xFADE Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 I was looking at sulfurs conductivity when I should have been looking at its capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifegrow Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 Not more crap I need to try and explain to learner players (then swiftly advise they avoid like the plague...) Why can't we all just play nicely damnit! Lets all stop uniquely naming these things - let's just use a blanket term, like "dangle clanger" or something."Oh hey guys, found another dangle clanger, and this one's a real beaut!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathmanican Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 I think one of these (maybe all of them) describes @Lifegrow right about now (probably the first). On the other hand, I think one of these aptly describes the excitement of a hunt. xoxo Spoiler Shamelessly snagged from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifegrow Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, mathmanican said: I think one of these (maybe all of them) describes @Lifegrow right about now (probably the first). Nah bud, I put on the front of a grumpy old bugger, in reality I always feel like this (fabulous fyi) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.