oil cooling vs hydrogen cooling

[eloy2030]

I was wondering, have someone compared oil cooling vs hydrogen cooling for oxygen purification? If so, which is more power/effective?

 I´ve done this math, though its probably wrong.

hydrogen cool 1k vs 10k, with a heat capacity effieciency of 1,4 using 0,51 the power. so, my math is 10/1.4*0.51=3.64 times the power vs oil cooling... Is this remotely correct?

[Coolthulhu]

Pretty close, but as far as I recall, hydrogen is 2.4 capacity, while oil is 2. So not 1.4 but 1.2.

Oil is a clear winner in raw numbers, though you may need a very complex or huge liquefier to make good use of it. It only really shines when you cool full packets and heating up (with the oxygen that is being cooled) a whole packet of oil may take a while. With a small liquefier, you may end up with a ton of oil at minimum temperature, with lots of power wasted on trying to cool oil that can't be cooled further.

[eloy2030]

4 minutes ago, Coolthulhu said:

Pretty close, but as far as I recall, hydrogen is 2.4 capacity, while oil is 2. So not 1.4 but 1.2.

Oil is a clear winner in raw numbers, though you may need a very complex or huge liquefier to make good use of it. It only really shines when you cool full packets and heating up (with the oxygen that is being cooled) a whole packet of oil may take a while. With a small liquefier, you may end up with a ton of oil at minimum temperature, with lots of power wasted on trying to cool oil that can't be cooled further.

U r right about hydrogen, but, acording to ingame chart, Oil EHC is 1.69.

Well, time is not a problem for me and building huge and complex contraptions is what im looking for, so...

Truth is, power is not a problem either, so, I could stick with hydro, but yeah, I like to build stuff...

 

Tks, man!

[Reaniel]

On 2017/10/7 at 2:49 PM, eloy2030 said:

U r right about hydrogen, but, acording to ingame chart, Oil EHC is 1.69.

Well, time is not a problem for me and building huge and complex contraptions is what im looking for, so...

Truth is, power is not a problem either, so, I could stick with hydro, but yeah, I like to build stuff...

 

Tks, man!

Yes, the number in OI is indeed 1.69

2 is the thermal conductivity.

Here's the math comparing the two:

DeltaH Hydrogen in Thermal Regulator = 1*1000*2.4*14 = 33600

DeltaH per Watt: 33600/240 = 140

DeltaH Crude Oil in Thermal Aquatuner = 10*1000*1.69*14 = 236600

DeltaH per Watt: 236600/1200 = 197.17

So efficiency wise, Aquatuner + Crude Oil combo is better.

Another advantage they have is the availability of Wolframite Pipes for liquid piping, which allows you a more rapid cooling of the environment.  You'd need a lot more tiles with granite gas pipes to achieve the same amount of cooling.

 

[Cilya]

44 minutes ago, Reaniel said:

You'd need a lot more tiles with granite gas pipes to achieve the same amount of cooling.

Did they change the formulae for heat transfer ? Granite conductivity is 3.39 (W/m)/K thus more than most of the liquid or gases you can run through pipes.

edit:

While not being very practical, liquid methane (natural gas) can be used to cool or pre-cool things. It's not very practical because the temperature range of liquid methane is narrow, but it has a Specific Heat a bit higher than crude oil.

[Reaniel]

18 minutes ago, Cilya said:

Did they change the formulae for heat transfer ? Granite conductivity is 3.39 (W/m)/K thus more than most of the liquid or gases you can run through pipes.

edit:

While not being very practical, liquid methane (natural gas) can be used to cool or pre-cool things. It's not very practical because the temperature range of liquid methane is narrow, but it has a Specific Heat a bit higher than crude oil.

Wolframite has thermal conductivity of 15, and test shows that it can heat/cool low mass tiles (gas) much faster than granite.

Also, the low thermal conductivity of liquid methan makes it a poor internal medium in a piping array.  (same with naphtha, which is actually better than liquid methane in every way).

 

[eloy2030]

1 hour ago, Reaniel said:

Yes, the number in OI is indeed 1.69

2 is the thermal conductivity.

Here's the math comparing the two:

DeltaH Hydrogen in Thermal Regulator = 1*1000*2.4*14 = 33600

DeltaH per Watt: 33600/240 = 140

DeltaH Crude Oil in Thermal Aquatuner = 10*1000*1.69*14 = 236600

DeltaH per Watt: 236600/1200 = 197.17

So efficiency wise, Aquatuner + Crude Oil combo is better.

Another advantage they have is the availability of Wolframite Pipes for liquid piping, which allows you a more rapid cooling of the environment.  You'd need a lot more tiles with granite gas pipes to achieve the same amount of cooling.

 

tks, man!

Though, I, actually, dont understand your math... can u explain it for me.

also, my math is completely wrong, isn´t it?

tks again!

EDIT: Oh! I thinnk I understand it now... and I think my math could be right. Thing is, U were not taking in cosideration that U need (alway) pumps to run things. 

So...

33600/720(with pumps)=46.67

236600/1440(again, with pumps)=164.3

164.3/46.7=3.518 

Which is the power ratio of both, same as my math (pretty close). Did I get it right?

[Coolthulhu]

1 hour ago, Reaniel said:

Wolframite has thermal conductivity of 15, and test shows that it can heat/cool low mass tiles (gas) much faster than granite.

Tests have confirmed what could be read from decompiled sources and what is explicitly mentioned in the tooltip and thus officially confirmed by Klei:

Thermal conductivity used is the minimum of conductivities of contacting objects.

Wolframite's 15 conductivity only matters if you're exchanging heat between resources with conductivity higher than that of granite. Otherwise the only benefit from wolframite is its lower specific heat.

[Reaniel]

2 hours ago, Coolthulhu said:

Tests have confirmed what could be read from decompiled sources and what is explicitly mentioned in the tooltip and thus officially confirmed by Klei:

Thermal conductivity used is the minimum of conductivities of contacting objects.

Wolframite's 15 conductivity only matters if you're exchanging heat between resources with conductivity higher than that of granite. Otherwise the only benefit from wolframite is its lower specific heat.

Testing shows that it doesn't really work on a piping array systems like that for whatever reason.

Wolframite Array will heat up/cool off low mass external medium tiles A LOT faster than Granite when everything else is equal.  You were in the thread when I posted the results, but I'll post it here again with new results from OI (and numbers from in game selection info).

Granite and Sandstone merely sucks more heat out of the internal medium (water) than Wolframite, but they put A LOT less heat onto the external medium (oxygen) in low mass tiles situation.

 

Bonus info: Wolframite and Tungsten Arrays have little to no difference in terms of cooling external mediums.

[Cilya]

Aren't you measuring the heat capacity factor ? Both Wolframite and Tungsten have a low specific heat capacity while sandstone and granite have a much higher one. What was the initial temperature of the pipes ?

[Reaniel]

The pipes were primed to the same initial temperature as the medium, 95C.

If you believe it's due to the low specific heat, fine.  It still doesn't change the fact that Wolframite pipes will perform better in heating/cooling a low mass external medium. 

EDIT:  Tested Sedimentary Rock (which is the same as Igneous Rock and Obsidian in property) with the same layout.

Sedimentary Rock

External Medium (O2)

95.0C -> 41.0C

74.0MJ -> 63.1MJ

Net: -10.9MJ

Internal Medium (H2)

5.0C -> 8.9C

2324.8MJ -> 2357.3MJ

Net: 32.5MJ

So yes, as @Cilya said, it's affected by specific heat of the piping material.

And this means that in an array to cool/heat a gas (or low mass liquid tiles):

1. You'd want to use an internal medium with high specific heat and relatively high thermal conductiviity. (This makes Naphtha inferior to Crude Oil even though it has the higher specific heat).

2. You'd want to use the piping material with the lowest specific heat but still relatively high thermal conductivity, at least higher than that of the internal medium. (This makes Sedimentary Rock a better piping material than Granite/Sandstone).

[Cilya]

The implication are a bit more important to me. It has to do with initial cooling vs asymptotic cooling. The Wolframite and Tungsten will move very fast to the water temperature, unlike sandstone or granite pipe. But once the pipes are near the water temperature, the heat transfer will be the same.

Someone else in this forum (was it @Saturnus ?) explained to me that the initial time required to reduce the pipes temperature was a good reason to actually use sedimentary rock or igneous rock as they have a much lower heat capacity (0.2 J/g/K - still greater than wolframite/tungsten) but have a thermal conductivity high enough to not reduce the heat transfer (2 W/m/K).

So... yeah, I agree with you, the initial setup will be faster with wolframite.

[Reaniel]

7 minutes ago, Cilya said:

The implication are a bit more important to me. It has to do with initial cooling vs asymptotic cooling. The Wolframite and Tungsten will move very fast to the water temperature, unlike sandstone or granite pipe. But once the pipes are near the water temperature, the heat transfer will be the same.

Someone else in this forum (was it @Saturnus ?) explained to me that the initial time required to reduce the pipes temperature was a good reason to actually use sedimentary rock or igneous rock as they have a much lower heat capacity (0.2 J/g/K - still greater than wolframite/tungsten) but have a thermal conductivity high enough to not reduce the heat transfer (2 W/m/K).

So... yeah, I agree with you, the initial setup will be faster with wolframite.

Yes, you're right, and I was actually editing my post when you replied

And yes, it means that in an array meant to heat/cool a gas, whether for temperature control or liquefication, Sedimentary Rock/Igneous Rock is a better material than Granite/Sandstone.

[Cilya]

Actually, I'm not sure it's always the case that you want the lower heat capacity.  I've just built large gas tanks in my game. Before filling them, I've added a small radiator to liquefy the contents in case I would want to increase the capacity when the tank is filled with 20kg/tile. I've made the error to build the radiator in granite while a low heat capacity material would have been much better. The reason is I don't want the contents to be permanently cooled, but only when I need more storage density. So, the important thing here is that the need to cool is occasional and you want the highest reactivity possible.

But if I want to build an oxygen liquefier, or anything that needs to stay constantly at a given temperature, it might be interesting to have higher capacity radiator. It will require much more time to initially cool it, but the temperature will stay more stable. The last time I built a liquefier, it was to get rid of highly concentrated area of polluted oxygen; the input of polluted oxygen was not constant. With granite pipes, the pipes would stay cool even if there is a very high amount of gas incoming at once. Here, I want the pipes to stay cold at all times, which is a bit different need: reactivity is not the most important thing, while still interesting.

However, I'm not sure the difference is noticeable as pipes already have a high heat capacity from their huge mass, so even with low capacity material, it should be pretty stable.

[Reaniel]

22 minutes ago, Cilya said:

However, I'm not sure the difference is noticeable as pipes already have a high heat capacity from their huge mass, so even with low capacity material, it should be pretty stable.

This is something I really want to get some kind of confirmation from someone who can look into the codes, but it seems that pipes, or at least liquid pipes, are only using 1/5 of their mass in heat transfer calculation, just like machines.  It's something I've noticed in my test in OU, but I never get to ask someone to look into it.

However, in these latest tests I've done, the only way the numbers would make sense is if the pipes are 1/5 of their listed mass.  Otherwise, specific heat shouldn't matter that much if each piping sections are 100kg.

Take the wolframite numbers for example.

Heat gained by water:  30.2MJ

Heat lost by oxygen: 12.8MJ

Heat lost by pipes (assuming listed mass): 85.1MJ

Heat lost by pipes (assuming 1/5 mass): 17MJ

Granite:

Heat gained by water: 45.2MJ

Heat lost by oxygen: 5.0MJ

Heat lost by pipes (assuming listed mass): 196.7MJ

Heat lost by pipes (assuming 1/5 mass): 39.3MJ

[Coolthulhu]

8 hours ago, Reaniel said:

This is something I really want to get some kind of confirmation from someone who can look into the codes, but it seems that pipes, or at least liquid pipes, are only using 1/5 of their mass in heat transfer calculation, just like machines.  It's something I've noticed in my test in OU, but I never get to ask someone to look into it.

It would make perfect sense for it to be the case, as pipes are just 1x1 buildings. All buildings seem to use common code for temperature exchanges, including that 1/5 mass thing.

Pipes use the same base CreateBuildingDef function that all other buildings do and they do not override MassForTemperatureModification that is set to 1/5 of Mass.

[Reaniel]

Thanks @Coolthulhu for the info.  It's just that visiting various older testing threads, most of them use the full mass for heat calculation, and I didn't see anyone disputing that notion.  It's good to have a bit of clarification.

A few more tests I've done on the matter of piping materials...  showed some wierd and unexpected results, and I'm still trying to make sense of them.  But for whatever reason, Sed Rock is performing worse than Wolframite in taking heat out of the internal medium, in the scenarios I've ran, when it should be better.  I'm going to do a bit more tests to see if I can catch the variable that's causing this.

[Risu]

1 hour ago, Reaniel said:

But for whatever reason, Sed Rock is performing worse than Wolframite in taking heat out of the internal medium, in the scenarios I've ran, when it should be better.

Why do you say that? Sed rock has 2 thermal conductivity, Wolframite has 15.
So Sed rock would be using its own terrible conductivity for most liquids.
Wolframite would be using the liquid conductivity for most liquids.

The SHC of both differs so little that it can be ignored when comparing them.

Edit: Reviewing it again and water has thermal conductivity lower than 2 so... yeah SHC matters.
Plugging some numbers in and yeah it really doesn't matter. 10 kg of 70C water in non-insulated 20C pipes in one second...

Wolframite: Liquid changed -0.03626731112979585783107013C Conduit changed 0.56552646720677943983597773C
SedimentaryRock: Liquid changed -0.03631836194205277339147880C Conduit changed 0.37943608638959635000747476C
Abyssalite: Liquid changed -0.00000059822923735913538518C Conduit changed 0.00000031249999786547834684C

One cycle...

Wolframite: Liquid changed -3.01115999360682810451293744C Conduit changed 46.95387169135423376402818507C
SedimentaryRock: Liquid changed -4.33862635915209495934414016C Conduit changed 45.32779888724151208774787720C
Abyssalite: Liquid changed -0.00035893558432205878231265C Conduit changed 0.00018749897586023545641193C
 

[Cilya]

53 minutes ago, Risu said:

So Sed rock would be using its own terrible conductivity for most liquids.

According to this page, the only liquids which have a have a conductivity higher than 2.0 are the molten metals and mercury. (The page is wrong for oil Heat Capacity, so there might be other errors) What liquids do you have in mind ?

 

[Risu]

19 minutes ago, Cilya said:

According to this page, the only liquids which have a have a conductivity higher than 2.0 are the molten metals and mercury. (The page is wrong for oil Heat Capacity, so there might be other errors) What liquids do you have in mind ?

 

Had the specific heat capacity of the liquids on my mind, not the conductivity. My bad.
 

[Botaxalim]

This conversation is like granite tile vs plastic tile

[Cilya]

8 hours ago, Botaxalim said:

This conversation is like granite tile vs plastic tile

Sadly, there is no plastic pipes yet.

[Saturnus]

1 hour ago, Cilya said:

Sadly, there is no plastic pipes yet.

Might be a bit OP with disinfecting pipes. Just bit