Jump to content

Petroleum Boiler


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Craigjw said:

place the liquid vent at the bottom of the conversion chamber.  Dripping oil from above is sub-optimal. I've explained the process in this post.

Certain conditions are needed so that the crude oil doesn't squeeze out onto the next cell. Perhaps the pressure of the petroleum column, perhaps heating the upper cells so that the crude oil turns into petroleum there.
Under normal conditions it looks like this:

oil2.png.93827e7d3cbca14ede7142b5be01db6c.png

and so on:

oil.png.7ab2c66bff90dca42fb6969883ebf6ca.png

With a cell arrangement like I have on the screen, lowering the liquid vent down doesn't work. I checked just now.

1 hour ago, MinhPham said:

I prefer stair build over zigzag build ... at least your dupes have access to every corner of the boiler ...

Yes, you're right, the zig-zag heat exchanger is easier to service. The question is, what is there to service? Plus, it's a little more bulky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MinhPham said:

at least your dupes have access to every corner of the boiler

Waterfall boiler provides completely open access. You can build it in any vertical chamber, or for that matter down the center of your base if you have a vacuum stairwell somewhere. It has the best heat exchange properties of all boilers.  It can start/stop very quickly. Couple it with flaking at the hot plate, and you don't even lose the 1.5C when it turns from crude to petro. 

Stairs and zig-zag are also options.  All are fun. I like escher falls boilers that can handle 90+kg/s if needed. @Zarquan and I both built one in this thread. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, mathmanican said:

 

This link is interesting about cooking crude oil on a volcano. But that's a topic for a separate article, I have one and I plan to add different volcanoes to it.

It also shows a heat exchanger on a waterfall. But I did not like it. It uses aluminum (TC 410), not copper (TC 120). I don't use aluminum since it's not available on Terra.

If you build his vertical waterfall heat exchanger out of copper, with the same efficiency, it becomes 90 cells long.

7 minutes ago, mathmanican said:

Couple it with flaking at the hot plate, and you don't even lose the 1.5C when it turns from crude to petro. 

That's interesting, I'll read it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DimaB77 said:

This link is interesting about cooking crude oil on a volcano.

The heat source can be whatever you want.  The volcano can be swapped out for a tricked tepidizer, if you want. I assume you know that the tepidizer stops working above 125C after save load. 

8 minutes ago, DimaB77 said:

with the same efficiency

Compare a zigzag, to a stair, to a waterfall. Use the same materials, and the same length of pipe.  Then compare them.  Which will win?  The waterfall (or rather beaded version) completely negates any backflow in the heat exchanger. None of the others achieve that.  The stair case option cannot be mirrored without triggering a massive bug. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DimaB77 said:

It also shows a heat exchanger on a waterfall. But I did not like it. It uses aluminum (TC 410), not copper (TC 120). I don't use aluminum since it's not available on Terra.
 

Since you're using thermium aquatuner anyway, it has the same heat conductivity as aluminium :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MinhPham said:

Since you're using thermium aquatuner anyway, it has the same heat conductivity as aluminium

The question here is not about the heat source, but about the heat exchanger. Yes, I use thermium in this variant. But there are also schemes on magma, magma volcano, metal refinery, etc. And the question is that you should not count on aluminum in the heat exchanger. If possible, they should be built from more available materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mathmanican said:

Compare a zigzag, to a stair, to a waterfall. Use the same materials, and the same length of pipe.  Then compare them.  Which will win?  The waterfall (or rather beaded version) completely negates any backflow in the heat exchanger. None of the others achieve that.  The stair case option cannot be mirrored without triggering a massive bug. 

 

I actually did that, using Copper, 95°C input crude Oil and the exact same boiling chamber design and heat source. Staircase design (right to left to avoid the bug, cannot be mirrored as you know) wins out by about 8% when all the pipe segments in the staircase are radiant, when comparing 25 steps with 50 height waterfall. Note that you could make half the staircase insulated or whatever (because the outside edges are in vacuum) to make the staircase twice as efficient on the "length of radiant pipes" metric, but I didn't bother testing that out.

Obviously, zigzag will have a worse efficiency per pipe segment, but it has an overwhelming advantage over staircases and waterfall: since it traps way more mass, it much more stable, which allows, provided enough pipe segments and space, a way higher efficiency that other designs cannot reach without breaking or having a very precise boiling chamber.

The main drawback of the waterfall design is that it has huge temperature fluctuations because it doesn't trap mass. This flaw of waterfall and zigzag can be remediated by adding a top layer, making it a mix between zigzag and staircase/waterfall. This was theorized by @Saturnus, we call this Z-shape (though the bottom layer of the Z is less important than the top one) and I confirmed it has the efficiency gains of staircase and the stability of zigzag.

 

Note: you won't find all those tests on the forums, since @Saturnus, a few others and me exchanged extensively on that on Discord #advanced-machine-design a few days ago, following my fixation on understanding heat exchangers and finding the optimal design (which, as I now know, really depends on what your metrics are between stability, efficiency, radiant pipe segment, and space)

 

Edit: sorry about going a bit off-topic there. I didn't feel like necro-ing the Waterfall Petroleum Boiler thread or doing a full write-up of my tests, but the waterfall supposed efficiency advantage didn't happen with rigorous testing, and it has real flaws (though it has some uses depending on your metrics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mathmanican said:

I assume you know that the tepidizer stops working above 125C after save load. 

Just wanted to ask a question about the tepidizer.It works, but after loading the temperature drops from 407 to 397C and it takes more than 1 cycle to return to normal.
What can this be caused and what do you mean it does not work above 125C after loading the save?
I can send you the save-file, that would not have to build a scheme from blueprint.

By the way, remembered another option for brewing crude oil on man-made sources (without volcanoes and magma) - the rocket.

A little less than 1 cycle after loading:

lt.png.a9fc97450a6e81ed3e79abd33a76ecd4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upd. There is definitely something wrong with the tepidizer. After the save, it reached 405C and locked up. Changing the timer settings started it up again. I will have to test more.
If there is a thread on this issue, drop me a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fradow said:

on that on Discord #advanced-machine-design a few days ago

Great info over there.  I'll have fun with it this weekend. :) Kudos. 

1 hour ago, DimaB77 said:

it does not work

If you rebuild the tepidizer every time you start playing, then it works fine.  The problem is a bug from more than 2 years ago. The tepidizer won't heat beyond 125C after save/load. My guess is this has to do with steam turbines.  As long as you're willing to deconstruct and rebuild tepidizers every time you load the game, it's not a problem. 

The Timer automation did not exist last time I tested all this. Maybe things have changed some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, rebuilding solves the problem. But who would want to do it. About the turbines, I came to the same conclusion. Otherwise, there would be a lot of simple schemes to get energy out of almost nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DimaB77 said:

Certain conditions are needed so that the crude oil doesn't squeeze out onto the next cell. Perhaps the pressure of the petroleum column, perhaps heating the upper cells so that the crude oil turns into petroleum there.
Under normal conditions it looks like this:

oil2.png.93827e7d3cbca14ede7142b5be01db6c.png

and so on:

oil.png.7ab2c66bff90dca42fb6969883ebf6ca.png

With a cell arrangement like I have on the screen, lowering the liquid vent down doesn't work. I checked just now.

Yes, you're right, the zig-zag heat exchanger is easier to service. The question is, what is there to service? Plus, it's a little more bulky.

you need to deposit one tile of petrol into the column of oil and it stops that happening, forever.  If you set it up incorrectly, like you have done, then of course it's going to go wrong.  You need a tile of petrol above the oil, in order for the vent to become over pressurized and stop the flow of oil.

It might be due to not having a mesh tile at the top of the column, as you have an insulated tile, which the oil clings to and might cause the oil to seep into the adjacent tile.  The version I tested, which I tested very thoroughly, I didn't need to prime it with petrol, it just over-pressurized the vent.  Try adding a few drop of petrol to the column, you'll see that it works.

Nothing is idiot proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mathmanican said:

Waterfall boiler provides completely open access. You can build it in any vertical chamber, or for that matter down the center of your base if you have a vacuum stairwell somewhere. It has the best heat exchange properties of all boilers.  It can start/stop very quickly. Couple it with flaking at the hot plate, and you don't even lose the 1.5C when it turns from crude to petro. 

Stairs and zig-zag are also options.  All are fun. I like escher falls boilers that can handle 90+kg/s if needed. @Zarquan and I both built one in this thread. 

 

I believe my version 2 is better than my version 1.  It creates more contact points and takes advantage of direct liquid-liquid heat transfer which, iirc, has a multiplier.  It is also highly modular. Also, just for bragging rights, I built it in survival.

On the dupe accessibility of this build, I actually made a mistake at one point an messed up the temperature sensors, which caused crude oil to change in the wrong place.  I corrected this error, but it was not easy.  I would give it a 3/10 on repairability.  My v1 is more repairable due to the fact that almost all passages are at least 2 tiles tall.

One thing I learned when designing petroleum boilers is that it is a good idea to consider related or unrelated pipe runs BEFORE you make the build.  In my pipeless designs, I didn't do that so I had to run the crude oil input pipes around the boiler rather than through, which clogs up my plumbing.  For example, on the OP's build, you could run 5 liquid pipes vertically through your build, giving you the ability to put your petroleum generators above your build without taking any extra space for piping.

EDIT:  I looked at your linked page, and I think you made a unit error.  I don't think an aquatuner can boil 7,000 kg/s petroleum, no matter how good your heat exchanger is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Craigjw said:

Try adding a few drop of petrol to the column, you'll see that it works.

Assembled your circuit, put 3 tiles of petroleum on top.  It works.

Assembled 1 more with copper tiles instead of doors. Let all circuits work for 20 cycles. Broke and rebuilt vents. Gave it a few more cycles to work.
Result is the same +/- inaccuracy = 70-74%.

217952318_.png.b854dd0e04db3b36f1f7c76889289ae0.png
Let's calculate the costs: scheme with hydrosensor - 35 kg of copper, scheme with Airflow tile - 600 kg of copper. In addition, we need to pour 1520kg of petroleum into it, at the stage of startup. The great complexity of the construction is evident.

So what is the point of complication? What advantage did I not see?

10 hours ago, Zarquan said:

EDIT:  I looked at your linked page, and I think you made a unit error.  I don't think an aquatuner can boil 7,000 kg/s petroleum, no matter how good your heat exchanger is.

Well, yes, that was a bit of a lie.:p 7 k/s, of course.

upd. august 2020 Zarquan: "but I am fairly certain it should be able to handle the 90+ kg/s"

Tempting. All that's left is to find a 90kg+ water map to pump out the oil and find a use for all that petroleum. :) Just kidding. That's an interesting idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DimaB77 said:

Let's calculate the costs: scheme with hydrosensor - 35 kg of copper, scheme with Airflow tile - 600 kg of copper. In addition, we need to pour 1520kg of petroleum into it, at the stage of startup. The great complexity of the construction is evident.

So what is the point of complication? What advantage did I not see?

Generally, the material costs aren't much of a concern.

The benefit is that it makes it so you don't have to worry about it again.  If you don't have these here and you run out of power on your aquatuner circuit, then your system may break due to too much crude oil.  The vent under the petroleum makes sure you don't overflow with crude oil.  The temperature sensor above is to make sure that you don't overflow while priming and to ensure you don't overheat the petroleum, which can break the heat exchanger.

The airflow tiles exist to prevent pressure damage, which is common when adding one liquid to another of a different type in a tight space.

16 hours ago, mathmanican said:

If you rebuild the tepidizer every time you start playing, then it works fine.  The problem is a bug from more than 2 years ago. The tepidizer won't heat beyond 125C after save/load.

The reason the tepidizer never heats above 125C is because it used to be used to melt metals.  You could easily heat a tile of a few grams of chlorine to thousands of degrees while running cool water on the tepidizer to stop it from overheating.  I'm sure you can do the math on what would happen if you dumped 1/4th of the heat generated by a tepidizer into 5 grams of chlorine.  This is something they didn't want.  Their hotfix to this was to make the tepidizer set the temperature of the tiles it occupies to the overheat temperature of the tepidizer (if I recall correctly, it may have been updated later to set the temps to 125 across all materials) so that it couldn't be used as a blast furnace anymore.  Their fix mean tepidizers can be used to mass destroy heat (e.g. you can make hot sour gas pass a running watercooled tepidizer to set its temperatures).  As a result, I personally see the tepidizer as a buggy building and never use it.  In my mind, it makes certain things too easy, like generating heat in the cold.  And when used in high temperature environments, it behaves in ways that don't make sense. 

Keep in mind that what I have said here may be out of date, as I don't experiment with tepidizers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

Generally, the material costs aren't much of a concern.

It's not a question of someone not having 600 kilograms of copper. The question is that any expenditure must be justified. If 2...3...5 circuits work the same way, with the same efficiency, protected from outages and accidents, why choose the more complicated one?

UPD: I will of course add a tile scheme to the article so that players have a choice. But I don't see the benefits so that it makes sense to waste materials and time (like prefilling with oil).

29 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

The benefit is that it makes it so you don't have to worry about it again.

To quote from the article: "The circuit is protected against overheating (if the crude oil supply has stopped), by a thermosensor in the chamber with the AT, and against freezing of the water by a pipe sensor."

29 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

The reason the tepidizer never heats above 125C

Oddly enough, it works. Only very, very badly:

2021323908_.png.dc4d929b9d5ec4cfe0315c89e79b6bd8.png

If 0.5kg/s can even be called work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the concept of the pipeless refinery counterflow, however it looks like a ***** to setup correctly with all them escher pumps.

at 0.5kg/s conversion rate, that's 20 tepidizers to produce 10kg/s of petrol, lol.  I fail to see the point of using a tepidizer and not just use an aquatuner.  If you have petrol, then the added power requirement of an AT is kind of moot at this point. I can't see any examples where this build would be used for producing anything other than oil to petrol, so why bother with the tepidizer? Besides, using a tepidizer for producing petrol is like trying to crush a brick sledgehammer with a peanut...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DimaB77 said:

To quote from the article: "The circuit is protected against overheating (if the crude oil supply has stopped), by a thermosensor in the chamber with the AT, and against freezing of the water by a pipe sensor."

I'm not saying your build doesn't have these features, I'm saying the purpose of those expenditures is to provide these features.  The methods he suggested here are tested and have been refined to be as small as possible.  This does not mean that your safeguards aren't sufficient to prevent errors.  I often don't put all these safeguards in my systems.

In your setup, the fact that the liquid vent isn't being used 100% could be due to the aquatuner chamber not being hot enough.  If you run the aquatuner hotter, it should boil more petroleum.  This is due to thermal conductivity being proportional to the difference in temperature.  If the aquatuner chamber were 600 C, that should be hot enough.  I am assuming that an aquatuner actually provides the heat to boil 10 kg/s crude oil.  I personally haven't done the math on it, as I usually volcanoes or metal refineries or rockets (worst cast scenario) as my heat source.

31 minutes ago, Craigjw said:

I really like the concept of the pipeless refinery counterflow, however it looks like a ***** to setup correctly with all them escher pumps.

It isn't as bad as you think.  You can build escher waterfalls by first placing a small amount of liquid then placing the gasses.  This can be done simply (but tediously) with liquid and gas pipes.  If you can get a packet of the size you want in the pipe then destroy it, you can get a controlled amount of liquid or gas in an area.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of heat sources to use without needing tepidizers.  I primarily make boilers using magma and the forge.  Once I have these two refineries running, I'm pretty much sorted for power, however late game, when I've got about 30 aquatuners scattered about the place all running periodically, I do have to use the forge from time to time when the magma volcano goes idle.

Magma (for the most part) and forges can be used to produce 10kg/s continually.  The forge, if I remember correctly, only needs something like 10 iron bars or 3 steel bars per day made for it to run continually for entire day at 10kg/s

My testing with magma, on average wasn't 10kg/s.  I tried to extract as much heat as possible from the solidified igneous, but my system could probably be better.  I recall that I had to dump igneous when it was below 650c as anything below this, the heat wasn't able to be transferred to the refinery quick enough and the conversion wasn't able to maintain 10kg/s of oil-petrol.

All in all, the magma refinery was quite efficient, as I had to have about 7 steam turbines to extract the remaining heat to get the igneous to below 150c.

I found that having a liquid loop for heating the conversion chamber to be more effective than than having a direct source of heat, as the liquid temperature (usually petrol) can be controlled with much higher granularity, where as a direct heat source, there is always going to be some temperature fluctuation as the doors open and close to transfer the the heat.  As long as the petrol loop is maintained at about 470c, continual conversion occurred at 10kg/s.  With magma, this temperature fluctuation was a significant headache for me.  I'd definitely recommend a liquid loop for the heat transfer if magma is going to be used. 

Having a large heatsink surrounding the conversion chamber helped even out the temperature fluctuations also.

Is the aquatuner running continually despite only giving 7kg/s conversion?

One improvement I can suggest for improving the builds I've seen above, use the airflow tile instead of insulated tiles, airflow tiles don't transfer heat from the liquid and will improve the insulation between layers.

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...