Removing heat from debris

[Occam Blazer]

What's the state of the art for getting heat out of debris (EG igneous rock from magma)?  Is it still the door trick?

[SharraShimada]

Or you put it into a water chamber, cooling the stuff down, transfering the heat to the water and make power via steam turbine from it. via temperature sensor on a conveyor rail you can extract it, when its below 125° (the temperature the turbine stops working).

If you dont mind manual labour, you can build stuff from it. Most of the buildings have fixed temp-values when build. 

[Occam Blazer]

8 hours ago, SharraShimada said:

If you dont mind manual labour, you can build stuff from it. Most of the buildings have fixed temp-values when build. 

I don't, but I want to use the heat from the debris first.

8 hours ago, SharraShimada said:

Or you put it into a water chamber, cooling the stuff down, transfering the heat to the water and make power via steam turbine from it. via temperature sensor on a conveyor rail you can extract it, when its below 125° (the temperature the turbine stops working).

Is the rail method quicker than trapping the debris in a door?

[TheMule]

58 minutes ago, occamrazor said:

I don't, but I want to use the heat from the debris first.

Is the rail method quicker than trapping the debris in a door?

I think if you run the rail inside solid tiles (e.g. diamond window tiles, metal tiles) it's very similar to being inside a door. IIRC debris inside a tile have a  grater bonus in heat transfer then debris on a tile. I'm not sure what is best, debris on a rail in a gas or in solid tiles. Anyway, it uses the min TC.

[Lifegrow]

Depending on what you're moving, a huge pool of liquid lead works quite nicely too  

[ghkbrew]

 

2 hours ago, occamrazor said:

Is the rail method quicker than trapping the debris in a door?

Like @TheMule said, it's there's not much difference between the two in terms of heat dissipation.  The thermal calculations for debris are identical whether it's on a rail or not.

What's nice about the rail method is you're processing 20kg chunks at a time.  So you can cool each chunk down to a usable temperature before processing the next bit.  If you simply put everything in a door, all debris combines into a single pile and you end up with a massive pile of partially cooled (but still hot) debris.

My advice: if you want a massive heat battery and don't care about recovering the material (geothermal power) use the door method. If you want the cooled material (metal volcano) use the rail method.

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

Or if you fed all your igneous rock on an Emptera map to a stable of 150 stone hatches and need both power and rock do this:

 

[Occam Blazer]

Decided to experiment. (Thanks to @voqn for the template.)

The left hand side stuff here is inactive.

Top right is debris on a rail.

Below that is debris in a door.

Left of that is debris in a puddle of lead.

 

Time to heat up 6000 kg of water from 27C to 200C

462s  Debris in the door

615s  Rails

1,146s Molten lead

[Lifegrow]

Don't forget - lead can be 9970kg per tile (hence "huge pool of lead")  

Same with molten gold - iron/aluminium being 7870kg pet tile.

In extreme heat builds you can make some ridiculously small exchangers using molten metals.

[avc15]

Rails inside a solid tile used to get a x20 heat transfer rate multiplier or something. But the limit with rails is how much mass you can move through them. (is the rails-behind-a-solid multiple still a thing? I only check back here from time to time now)

Try with more rails in parallel through a refined metal floor tile, but the rail only needs to be something like 3 long.

Or attach your debug save and let's have a contest? Who can get the lowest benchmark with these dimensions?

 

[Occam Blazer]

5 hours ago, Lifegrow said:

Don't forget - lead can be 9970kg per tile (hence "huge pool of lead")

That's a lotta lead.

5 hours ago, avc15 said:

Or attach your debug save and let's have a contest? Who can get the lowest benchmark with these dimensions?

Here we go. (-:

My priorities here are:

1. Get the most energy out of the debris.

2. There is no second thing.

Heat Injection Timed Test.sav

[mathmanican]

10 hours ago, occamrazor said:

462s  Debris in the door

615s  Rails

1,146s Molten lead

It's not quite a fair comparison. 

• You have to account for the fact that adding rails adds mass itself that must heat up, as does using liquid lead.  Any comparison that just accounts for "time to heat up" something specific must also look at the thermal buffer that did the heating. What starting temp was the thermal buffer? The rails and conveyors, and conveyor bridges, add quite a bit of extra mass you have to heat up, and these did not show up in your "debris in door" experiment.
• You didn't provide enough rails to get all the rock on rails, hence you're loosing out on heat transfer potential "speed". 

If your priorities are only, "Get the most energy out of the debris." then the test above does not help with this. Bugs aside, any of the three methods described will satisfy this.  If it's "get the most heat energy out as fast as possible," that's a different question (but still leaves out the configuration issue).  Do you care about the size of the heat exchanger (is smaller better)? I'm sure we could design a "best" exchanger that wins in speed, with any of the three options, provided you let me redesign the testing arena. I can think of scenarios where each of the three options above would beat the other two, hands down, in heating up some steam. 

You have not given an adequate description of the problem you want to solve, and so there is no "best" solution. It's also possible to design scenarios where one option would be better than the other. I will repeat what @ghkbrew said earlier (though this is only a general rule of thumb).   

12 hours ago, ghkbrew said:

My advice: if you want a massive heat battery and don't care about recovering the material (geothermal power) use the door method. If you want the cooled material (metal volcano) use the rail method.

The liquid lead method works great too, and will provide you a buffer like the door method, only easier to extra stuff out in small bits, rather than having to dump large chunks all at once. 

To provide more for @ghkbrew's benefit, you can stagger debri-in-door exchangers to get debris to your desired temp. I'm sure you'll come up with an awesome design on your own, or you can use some google-fu skills to search the forums for examples (they often come as nuggets in volcano builds). You don't have to consign yourself to never being able to extract debris that are hidden in a door. I'm sure you knew this, but not sure if you have seen automated systems to extract materials at a desired temp. It does require batch processing, so you can stagger the batches for more continuous processing. 

[TheMule]

5 hours ago, occamrazor said:

That's a lotta lead.

Oh yeah... I didn't know that either, and learned the hard way. The moment I decided I needed a T-shaped liquid lock made of molten lead and started building shiftplate after shiftplate still haunts my nightmares. And I mean it haunts the monsters of my nightmares.

BTW, since @mathmanicanis here, do you mind if I ask... before that I used a different kind of lock, a single blob of molten lead, either in a classic corner lock or my fav type, a blob on a tile, empty tiles up, left, right of the blob, with only enough room for dups to move. (I hope that's enough to picture it anyway it's not relevant - it's a corner lock). That's my go-to type of lock, usually with naphtha. With naphtha I find this type of lock very stable. And I mean 1000 cycle stable. I had used the same type with petroleum, oil, knowing they would eventually fail (like, leaving some gas thru, diagonally). They may fail once every - say 200 cycles. I always double them, and take countermeasures when that happens. Anyway. With naphtha they never failed me, and I thought it was because of the mass involved, about 33kg vs 330g. With molten lead I thought, it would be rock solid. It wasn't despite having much bigger mass. I mean it would fail every 20 cycles or so and I was forced to create a T-shaped one.

Are you aware of anything that makes this type of lock fail based on the mass relative to the max that viscosity allows? Does having a blob that is much smaller than the max size favor diagonal swapping of gasses? (like steam and vacuum) It makes no sense to me, and three quick failures in a row may be just the RNG playing tricks on me.

[Lifegrow]

2 hours ago, TheMule said:

Are you aware of anything that makes this type of lock fail based on the mass relative to the max that viscosity allows? Does having a blob that is much smaller than the max size favor diagonal swapping of gasses? (like steam and vacuum) It makes no sense to me, and three quick failures in a row may be just the RNG playing tricks on me.

When corner locks fail it's nearly always caused by flash boiling/flash freezing/sublimation displacement.

I only use corner locks for temporary access for those reasons, they're super convenient but have too many derpy things that can break them (for me, it's nearly always a dupe carrying a bottle of water or a tiny blob of ice...).

I don't think viscosity really comes into the equation much, but I could be wrong. From my observations it's generally a flash boil that buggers them.

[mathmanican]

3 hours ago, TheMule said:

With naphtha they never failed me, and I thought it was because of the mass involved, about 33kg vs 330g. With molten lead I thought, it would be rock solid. It wasn't despite having much bigger mass. I mean it would fail every 20 cycles or so

Naphtha let's you exceed the 1800g off gassing limit. Larger mass also provides a thermal buffer to prevent rapid heat changes. 

Molten lead freezes at the temp of dupes. So each time they walk through the temp drops a bit. Too much traffic in a short amount of time and it's gone. 

So basically I second everything @Lifegrowsaid. 

[Zarquan]

I have my bases balanced on a knife's edge, so I have corner locks everywhere I need a vacuum.  But I always try to make sure that there are no accessible materials above boiling in any of these rooms, so these locks basically never break on me.

[TheMule]

On 8/21/2020 at 3:39 PM, mathmanican said:

Molten lead freezes at the temp of dupes. So each time they walk through the temp drops a bit. Too much traffic in a short amount of time and it's gone. 

There was no such obvious reason tho.  800C 200kg/tile sour gas on the other side, pretty sure that was enough to keep the lead liquid. Also, only a fraction of the sour gas would slip thru. Anywhere from 5 to 20 kg, but not a full 200kg tile. So I'm quite positive the lead never froze.

 

Although now that I think of it, it is possible it froze for like one tick, I guess. Unlikely for the very hot and dense gas it was touching but maybe possible. That would explain the small quantity of gas released.