Transformer Usage

[Saturnus]

6 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

@Saturnus Please share a formula how your superconducting machine works.

We can start with the most basic. A solenoid. The Force of a solenoid is given by F=C*A*n/I, where C is the proportional constant, A is the current, n is the number of windings, l is the length. As you can see, Force is derived through electrical current alone. No need for resistance or voltage.

13 minutes ago, Master Miner said:

Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea. Still, the "power damage" would happen only in a place where a critical current occurs, not at the end of a line with a consumer which draws few Watts.

Ah but if we assume that internally all machines in the game can handle more current than any of the wires in the game (although I think ceiling lamps actually do break on a heavi-watt circuit with more than 2000W running through it (W is clearly a relative term is this context) then the wire would break at a random point when the critical current is achieved. And that's what we see happening in the game.

[SkySentinel]

4 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

We can start with the most basic. A solenoid. The Force of a solenoid is given by F=C*A*n/I, where C is the proportional constant, A is the current, n is the number of windings, l is the length. As you can see, Force is derived through electrical current alone. No need for resistance or voltage.

Using this formula, how to calculate joules consumption from a power line? You know what I'm implying, don't you?

By the way:

Serial

Parallel

[Saturnus]

8 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

Using this formula, how to calculate joules consumption from a power line? You know what I'm implying, don't you?

At this point, I must ask, what part of the superconducting principle doesn't make sense to you? When you have no resistance in the cables it is irrelevant how much current flows through the cables unless they reach the critical current.

Machines work just like you'd expect them to but that's not even part of this discussion. Or interesting in any way. 

[SkySentinel]

2 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

At this point, I must ask, what part of the superconducting principle doesn't make sense to you? When you have no resistance in the cables it is irrelevant how much current flows through the cables unless they reach the critical current.

Machines work just like you'd expect them to but that's not even part of this discussion. Or interesting in any way. 

Oh, come on, I asked just an electrical work formula for a superconductor machine. I just want to show you that this entire "superconducting" topic is very fictional and speculative (hard to find needed equations, right?). But even if you insist, you must take into account, that even superconductive circuit breaks in the most loaded (the highest current) part. While we don't have reason to make it serial, my illustration is still relevant for parallel superconductive circuit (and it actually is parallel on the illustration). Are you disagreed with this?

[Saturnus]

9 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

But even if you insist, you must take into account, that even superconductive circuit breaks in the most loaded (the highest current) part. 

As I wrote earlier, we have no reason to assume that machines aren't designed with a higher critical current than any of the standard wires. In fact, we are to assume exactly that given that all machines function on heavi-watt cables. 

Here's a good example why it is to be seen as a serial circuit.

The standard wires (with lower critical current) breaks down on a current the rest of the circuit can survive. If it wasn't serial the dead end would not see any current at all.

[SkySentinel]

I assume this as "yes": you've agreed about my parallel circuit (doesn't matter superconductive on not).

48 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

Here's a good example why it is to be seen as a serial circuit.

The standard wires (with lower critical current) breaks down on a current the rest of the circuit can survive. If it wasn't serial the dead end would not see any current at all.

Yes, this is the perfect evidence... of the devs incompetence in electrodynamics (sorry, Klei). We can clearly see two wires that end with the unconnected (left floating) plug with two pins. And there's no jumper. Thereby it means the circuit is open and no current flow in the case of serial circuit. But the machines work somehow. It's a Mystery! (No, incompetence) Furthermore, when the dead end's segments will break to zero, the machines will be functioning as usual. Do you need more evidence that the power system is neither serial nor parallel?

Talking about serial circuit, please give me at least one reason to make the power system serial. To proof your theory doesn't count as a reason.

Meanwhile there is objective reason to make it parallel. You can find this reason in the real life everywhere.

[Saturnus]

19 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

I assume this as "yes": you've agreed about my parallel circuit (doesn't matter superconductive on not).

No.

19 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

Yes, this is the perfect evidence... of the devs incompetence in electrodynamics (sorry, Klei). We can clearly see two wires that end with the unconnected (left floating) plug with two pins. And there's no jumper. Thereby it means the circuit is open and no current flow in the case of serial circuit.

There might be an internal connection in the plug that are disconnected by inserting it

Sometimes it's the little things in practical solutions you don't consider that makes the whole difference, isn't it?

19 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

Meanwhile there is objective reason to make it parallel. You can find this reason in the real life everywhere.

If we see the circuit as superconducting, which I hereby assume you agree to, then there is no reason not to make it serial. It is much easier to make a serial connected superconducting circuit than a parallel one for the simple practical reason that splitting superconducting wires is always going to introduce potential weak points.

In any case, I reiterate, for the final time, that the observed function of wires in circuits in ONI are consistent with how a superconductive serial circuit would work if we had the technology to reproduce it.  

[Kasuha]

8 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

Meanwhile there is objective reason to make it parallel. You can find this reason in the real life everywhere.

Actually there's for instance good reason to not allow players to power a 1200 W machine using two parallel wires which can bear 1 kW each. Not only calculating realistic load distribution gets seriously non-trivial in complex circuits (even if we get over issues with missing voltage and resistance), but the results turn very counterintuitive in many cases and in general it would render most wire types irrelevant in favor of simple wire mesh drawn around the whole map (which is also one of worst cases to calculate).

ONI is a game. It does not have to be realistic. It needs to be playable, both in terms of performance and simplicity of its mechanics. I was one of first to complain and propose realistic approaches when the overload mechanic was introduced into the game but since then I came to understanding that the approach developers chose is the best one, regardless how unrealistic it may seem to be.

[Master Miner]

Saturnus has fun defending his theory about superconductive circuit with all consumers serially connected. Thanks for sharing the fun!

Otherwise, I think we all know we should assume as little as it is necessary to answer the question about the type of conductors in ONI

I'd choose these 3:
- the devs wanted stronger wire and weaker wire in order to introduce wiring problems
- the devs didn't even try to implement load calculations per segment of the conductor
- the code that decides which segment will get "power damage" works with some random function and/or is buggy

[Saturnus]

Oh, I'm not saying the devs even remotely thought about how superconductors works in real life (or in theory). I'm just arguing that on the whole it could be seen as such. The theory is definitely consistent with in game observations on how the electrical systems works in the game right now. That could well change in the future, or it might not. I think it's a fun idea because it also reminds me on practical applications of Maxwell's Field Equations and Ampere's Circuital Law.  

[SkySentinel]

1 hour ago, Saturnus said:

No. 

Why?

1 hour ago, Saturnus said:

There might be an internal connection in the plug that are disconnected by inserting it

May be or may not. No evidence, just your fantasy.

1 hour ago, Saturnus said:

If we see the circuit as superconducting, which I hereby assume you agree to, then there is no reason not to make it serial. It is much easier to make a serial connected superconducting circuit than a parallel one for the simple practical reason that splitting superconducting wires is always going to introduce potential weak points.

Nonsense. There're always two connections, doesn't matter serial or parallel. Try again.

The reason to make it parallel is material cost. Parallel circuit requires less wiring and less wire gauge while can handle heavier load without help from transformers and doesn't require heavy load pass through all consumers. These are already 3 reasons. You have zero.

so far 3-0 in my favor 

[Saturnus]

26 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

The reason to make it parallel is material cost. Parallel circuit requires less wiring and less wire gauge while can handle heavier load without help from transformers and doesn't requires heavy load pass through all consumers.

What is it about superconductors you don't understand? Please try to think about how they are used in real life. Are they ever used in parallel? If so, I don't know about it. In every MRI scanner, the LHC, and every other practical application I know of superconductors are always used in series. I have seen theoretical papers suggestion that parallel super conducting circuits might be possible to make but I have not seen any papers suggestion a practical use, yet. Superconductors have no voltage and no resistance, every assumption made by Ohm's Law is irrelevant.

[SkySentinel]

@Saturnus Too much theoretical. In short, I leave you with your theories. It was funny to argue with you, thanks, but in the second round it's not so much fun, 'cause the dispute is rapidly turning into demagoguery that is absolutely irrelevant to the game mechanics. Sorry for harsh words.

[Saturnus]

2 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

@Saturnus Too much theoretical. In short, I leave you with your theories. It was funny to argue with you, thanks, but in the second round it's not so much fun, 'cause the dispute is rapidly turning into demagoguery that is absolutely irrelevant to the game mechanics. Sorry for harsh words.

Maybe I should explain. Superconductors in practical applications are thought of as a continuous ring of accelerating and decelerating current given by the Maxwell's Field Equations, and transfers Force through Ampere's Circuital Law. This ring must be one continuous unbroken ring, hence serial, in the forms we know in practical uses.

[SkySentinel]

Oh I totally forgot to mention:

8 hours ago, The Plum Gate said:

Practically speaking, they refer to the transformer as ...adjusting the supply according to demand to prevent overloading of circuits - this sounds more like a capacitor with and a zener diode bridge to me. More like an inductor since there's no power run off.

For me it looks like an SMPS in current mode. At least there's a pulse transformer inside it.