Jump to content

Drip Cooling Termination


Recommended Posts

If you guys are complaining about wonky thermodynamics, then the first thing to complain about isn't fixed output devices, which have a reasonable explanation as alluded to above, but to the 6 J/g specific heat of polluted water, which is insanely high.  To then justify certain devices with this ludicrous number is just spreading this madness all over everything like a plague of impossible to remove glitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, trukogre said:

If you guys are complaining about wonky thermodynamics, then the first thing to complain about isn't fixed output devices, which have a reasonable explanation as alluded to above, but to the 6 J/g specific heat of polluted water, which is insanely high.  To then justify certain devices with this ludicrous number is just spreading this madness all over everything like a plague of impossible to remove glitter.

I just looked up a table of specific heats and you're right - there isn't really a lot out there that has a larger value than water. Liquid hydrogen does by a long way (14.3 J/g) and ammonia, barely (4.7), but yeah, water is right up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Giltirn said:

I just looked up a table of specific heats and you're right - there isn't really a lot out there that has a larger value than water. Liquid hydrogen does by a long way (14.3 J/g) and ammonia, barely (4.7), but yeah, water is right up there.

Remember,  when you boil polluted water, it's like 99.5% water and 0.5% dirt, I don't remember exactly but it's in that ballpark.  The specific heat of 99.5% water and 0.5% dirt should be basically the same as just water, AFAIK.  Or instead at looking at products of boiling, we can look at  'how does it become polluted?'  Mixing a bit of CO2 in it with skimmers?  Mixing a small amount of biosolids in after showers/lavatories?  None of those would change the specific heat by much at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trukogre said:

Remember,  when you boil polluted water, it's like 99.5% water and 0.5% dirt, I don't remember exactly but it's in that ballpark.  The specific heat of 99.5% water and 0.5% dirt should be basically the same as just water, AFAIK.  Or instead at looking at products of boiling, we can look at  'how does it become polluted?'  Mixing a bit of CO2 in it with skimmers?  Mixing a small amount of biosolids in after showers/lavatories?  None of those would change the specific heat by much at all.

I would not be upset if the specific heat of pwater were to be reduced to a value less than that of pure water. It would be more physically realistic. Seawater has a specific heat of 3.9 vs 4.2 for pure water, so logically any pollutant would lower the specific heat (presumably by disrupting its ability to form hydrogen bonds).

I would suggest though that any such balance changes happen after a proper, scalable solution to the heat problem is implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cpy said:

 

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 12:41 PM, Cheerio said:
  • Fix Drip Cooling. In liquid density settling code we should've been calculating average temperature, not average energy which caused a rapid loss of energy.
  • Abyssalite should now ignore neutronium when averaging the temperature of nearby cells during world generation.
  • Fixed a bug where elements with zero thermal conductivity were conducting.
  • Fixed a crash that could occur when a helmet was destroyed.

 

View full update

 

So borg cubes no longer work now?

They do not as of a patch or two ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solution to the whole heating/cooling debate: Change the walls of the asteroid to abyssalite, create special 'vacuum' tiles outside that wall that absorb heat, allowing heat to be radiated to space. Replacing the abyssalite walls with more conductive materials means faster heat radiation to space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Giltirn said:

I just looked up a table of specific heats and you're right - there isn't really a lot out there that has a larger value than water. Liquid hydrogen does by a long way (14.3 J/g) and ammonia, barely (4.7), but yeah, water is right up there.

There's a very good reason why nuclear power plants use water for coolant. Part of it is because it translates into steam generators, but it makes an excellent and stable coolant that is readily available, and has relatively ideal thermal properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ambaire said:

Simple solution to the whole heating/cooling debate: Change the walls of the asteroid to abyssalite, create special 'vacuum' tiles outside that wall that absorb heat, allowing heat to be radiated to space. Replacing the abyssalite walls with more conductive materials means faster heat radiation to space.

This would work. In reality thermal radiation is pretty close to nil at room temperature, but meh. Acceptable breaks from reality.

I'd almost prefer that ONI made a(n approximation to) adiabatic cooling and reintroduced voids, though. Still allows for avoiding heat death, while requiring a little more thought than just 'replace rim with radiators'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TLW said:

This would work. In reality thermal radiation is pretty close to nil at room temperature, but meh. Acceptable breaks from reality.

Radiation cooling is used on the space station and other similar places. Basically you have a big A/C unit with the hot part connected to radiators. I think this is a good solution in ONI as it would require a little more thought than just replacing the rim with radiators; you have to build a heat exchanger to concentrate the heat into a liquid which is then piped around inside the radiator. For example building thermal aquatuners to dump heat into a pwater reservoir. It would also be a mid-late game solution as getting to the edge of the map is far from trivial!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2018 at 2:45 PM, Giltirn said:

You perhaps use some other exploit? Fixed temperature output devices for example? Or do you actually subsist on worts and the AETN? If so, bravo!

Rarely by design.  Typically my sieves are in closed loop with co2 scrubbers.  If I am cleaning PW, it is usually going to electrolyzers.  I did have a PW slush geyers and thought it was funny the water heated to 40C from much cooler input.  But honestly, there are lots of ways to manage heat without even using the fixed temp thing (which is not an exploit).  Dump heat into liquids that are being disposed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, crypticorb said:

There's a very good reason why nuclear power plants use water for coolant. Part of it is because it translates into steam generators, but it makes an excellent and stable coolant that is readily available, and has relatively ideal thermal properties.

* cough * I'd hardly call the water in nuclear plants stable.. This is because this water is under intense pressure and contains a lot of heat ( generally well over 300 degrees C, and with enough pressure that it remains liquid ). This is required to ensure that the water used as coolant for the reactor can keep up with the reactor's output. This super pressured water is then used to boil regular water and drive steam turbines.

If the pressured water pipes every break, or the system overheats, that's when things go drastically wrong with a nuclear reactor. And while critical mass for a nuclear explosion is nigh impossible to get in such an accident, if the water overheats the pressure will cause it to decompress explosively once the pipes break, as this highly pressurised water then immediately turns to insanely hot steam. At 3 mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima, this is what caused the explosions during the accidents.

By contrast, Thorium liquid salt reactors are MUCH safer, even though they run at far higher temperatures(the ones that in a regular reactor would be considered a meltdown actually ), they do not involve any pressure, so in case of overheating, there are no explosions or some such, thorium also is not capable of creating nuclear explosions, so that threat is also off the table. In fact, a thorium reactor that overheats automagicly shuts itself down due to the molten salt flow being interrupted and diverted from the reactor room into a cooling area instead.

The only reason we're using uranium reactors, is because these can make those lovely isotopes that governments want for their nuclear weapons programs and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suicide commando said:

* cough * I'd hardly call the water in nuclear plants stable.. This is because this water is under intense pressure and contains a lot of heat ( generally well over 300 degrees C, and with enough pressure that it remains liquid ). This is required to ensure that the water used as coolant for the reactor can keep up with the reactor's output. This super pressured water is then used to boil regular water and drive steam turbines.

If the pressured water pipes every break, or the system overheats, that's when things go drastically wrong with a nuclear reactor. And while critical mass for a nuclear explosion is nigh impossible to get in such an accident, if the water overheats the pressure will cause it to decompress explosively once the pipes break, as this highly pressurised water then immediately turns to insanely hot steam. At 3 mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima, this is what caused the explosions during the accidents.

By contrast, Thorium liquid salt reactors are MUCH safer, even though they run at far higher temperatures(the ones that in a regular reactor would be considered a meltdown actually ), they do not involve any pressure, so in case of overheating, there are no explosions or some such, thorium also is not capable of creating nuclear explosions, so that threat is also off the table. In fact, a thorium reactor that overheats automagicly shuts itself down due to the molten salt flow being interrupted and diverted from the reactor room into a cooling area instead.

The only reason we're using uranium reactors, is because these can make those lovely isotopes that governments want for their nuclear weapons programs and the like.

I had to do a bit of research before I commented above on water in nuclear reactors, and decided I didn't have the technical knowledge to summarize it. You seemed to do it better justice that I could have.

If they ever do add nuclear reactors to ONI, the coolant will more likely be water input, instead of liquid salt coolant. Or maybe the will, that'd be neato.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2018 at 9:41 PM, neoazureus said:

Do some maths

Polluted Water: Specific Heat Capacity = 6 J/g/K

Water: Specific Heat Capacity = 4.179 J/g/K

Water Sieve: input = 5kg/s polluted water, output = 5kg/s water (40°C = 313.15°K )

Heat that water contains:

5kg/s water = 4.179 J/g/K * 5000g * 313.15°K = 6 543 269 J

The same amount of heat for polluted water:

equation: 6 J/g/K * 5000g * T = 6 543 269 J

T = 218.11°K = -55.04°C (Polluted Ice)

Conclusion: then it's impossible to generate heat from the conversion of polluted water using the water sieve because you can not supply polluted water at -55.04°C

Don't think about temperature, You need to think about energy

 

Good point, this is the first I've seen anyone actually try to provide a justification for a sieves apparent illogical function.  The change in specific heat value is huge.  The conservation of energy dictates that the temperature of the output water needs to rise relative to the input polluted water.  So a truly Adiabatic sieve would not have a set output temperature, rather it would raise the temperature in K 43%.  I would consider this an appropriate fix but only if we also had corresponding temperature DROPS when polluted water is created (which we don't).

But this begs the question of if the specific heat value for polluted water make any sense or serve game-play?  It's not intuitive for the player at all it's making polluted water management harder then it needs to be.  I think just dropping it to near or even below 4.17 would be fine. 

A specific heat value for Polluted water below clean water means you should see a process that pollutes water (like a lavatory or carbon skimmer) output hotter water then it started with, which would make sense to most folks.  Then when sieved it can drop in temperature, but in both instances no energy is lost or created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@neoazureus @ImpalerWrG @crypticorb

I've just read your comments and calculations on the water sieve. I find them very interesting! 

But! Nobody mentioned the sand to clay transformation

It just popped into my mind. Idk if it's of importance. What's the thermal capacity on them? what's the temp of the clay? What's the specific heat thing on both?

I can't check it out. I am on a business trip ...Sorry for the inconvenience. If anybody could shed some light on this. Maybe there are some insights for us.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yoma_Nosme said:

@neoazureus @ImpalerWrG @crypticorb

I've just read your comments and calculations on the water sieve. I find them very interesting! 

But! Nobody mentioned the sand to clay transformation

It just popped into my mind. Idk if it's of importance. What's the thermal capacity on them? what's the temp of the clay? What's the specific heat thing on both?

I can't check it out. I am on a business trip ...Sorry for the inconvenience. If anybody could shed some light on this. Maybe there are some insights for us.

Cheers

Ok, Let's do more maths :)

Specific heat capacity: polluted dirt = sand = 0.83 J/g/K

Water sieve: Input: Sand = 1000 g/s, output: polluted dirt = 200g/s at 40°C = 313.15°K

Output heat:

Spoiler

 

Heat that water contains: 6 543 269 J but output = 5 kg/s ---> 6 543 269 W

Water sieve: Heat = +20W

Heat that Polluted dirt contains: 0.83 J/g/K * 200g/s * 313.15°K = 51 982.9 W

Total amount of output heat: 6 543 269 + 20 + 51 982.9 = 6 595 271.9W

 

Possible heat Input:

Spoiler

 

Again polluted water at 50°C = 323.15°K (it's easy to reach that temp and you can heat it more.)

Heat that Polluted water contains: 6 J/g/K * 5000 g/s * 323.15°K = 9 694 500 W

Sand at 25°C =  298.15°K (maybe sand in starting biome, you can get sand at 326.9°C cooking dirt, but do that more easy and early game)

Heat that sand contains: 0.83 J/g/K * 1000g/s * 298.15°K = 247 464.5 W (More than polluted dirt, so you're deleting heat because you're deleting mass)

Total amount of input heat: 9 694 500 + 247 464.5 = 9 941 964.5 W (again, you can input hotter polluted water and sand)

 

Possible DeltaT: 6 595 271.9 - 9 941 964.5 = -3 346 692.6 W = - 3 346 KW (1 wheezewort can delete 12KW in hydrogen)

So water sieve = 278.83 wheezeworts

For me water sieve isn't an exploit, it delete heat like steam turbine, but steam turbine is more late game, then you can delete a lot of heat easily with water sieve in early game, that's need to be changed

Quote

I would consider this an appropriate fix but only if we also had corresponding temperature DROPS when polluted water is created (which we don't).

And I agree with what  @ImpalerWrG says, I'm deleting heat with polluted water because i'm creating heat with polluted water (but you can delete more heat than you create and it's ok because geyser create heat and we can not expel heat out of the asteroid, wink wink ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, neoazureus said:

Ok, Let's do more maths :)

Feel free to, but it's ultimately pointless. As pointed out above, the specific heat capacity of polluted water is way off. It doesn't work to try to prove something right based on something wrong. So as long as heat of polluted water itself is broken, there's no point in discussing anything based on that. Even if water sieve in-game were correct based on this in-game setting, then a lot of related stuff is broken anyway.

Interestingly enough, most in-game materials seem to have their specific heat capacity correct (if https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html is to be trusted). Besides polluted water the only other one wrong I could find is hydrogen. Oxygen, (clean) water, tungsten, diamond are exactly what the table says, or reasonably close. So it looks like Klei did their homework and just few elements are wrong for some reason.

One way or another, heat in ONI is broken.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, llunak said:

One way or another, heat in ONI is broken.

It's broken because you can delete heat easily. If Klei change Specific heat capacity of polluted water, then they should give us another tool to remove heat, boiling polluted water also delete heat due to specific heat capacity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, neoazureus said:

Heat that Polluted water contains: 6 J/g/s * 5000 g/s * 323.15°K = 9 694 500 W

By the way, your math is incorrect even on its own. First of all, the units don't match (the result should be Joules, not Watts, and Kelvin are just Kelvin, not degrees). More importantly, water has different heat capacity depending on the state, and changing state implies heat changes as well. It seems J/g/K is a relative unit and you should count only changes in J, not absolute values. See https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/states-of-matter-and-intermolecular-forces/states-of-matter/v/specific-heat-heat-of-fusion-and-vaporization .

Apparently this heat stuff in reality is not as simple as it seems and who knows how much of it ONI tries to simulate. According to the video, converting -10C ice to 110C steam is dominated by the energy needed to turn 100C water into 100C steam (75% of all the energy of the entire process) and I kinda doubt ONI implements that.

Still, the polluted water seems wrong with no good reason for it. And adding more wrongs on top of it doesn't look like a very good solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, llunak said:

By the way, your math is incorrect even on its own. First of all, the units don't match (the result should be Joules, not Watts, and Kelvin are just Kelvin, not degrees). More importantly, water has different heat capacity depending on the state, and changing state implies heat changes as well. It seems J/g/K is a relative unit and you should count only changes in J, not absolute values. See https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/states-of-matter-and-intermolecular-forces/states-of-matter/v/specific-heat-heat-of-fusion-and-vaporization .

Apparently this heat stuff in reality is not as simple as it seems and who knows how much of it ONI tries to simulate. According to the video, converting -10C ice to 110C steam is dominated by the energy needed to turn 100C water into 100C steam (75% of all the energy of the entire process) and I kinda doubt ONI implements that.

Still, the polluted water seems wrong with no good reason for it. And adding more wrongs on top of it doesn't look like a very good solution.

For that accuracy the Game either would have to cheat updating all the data or be able to take advantage of all cpu cores to tick every tile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 12:26 PM, jodamm said:

I'm using cold water (around 20 °C) for the toilets and showers. With the polluted water from their output i'm cooling the aquatuners where the cold water comes from. The polluted water is heated up until it boils to steam, and the steam is cooled down and the resulting water is send thru the aquatuners again. With this setup for every 1000g water that is used in the toilet or shower around 189384 J of energy is removed.

Polluted water will boil around 124°C and requires 6J/g/K * 1000g * 104 K (diff. from 20°C to 124°C) = 624000 J to boil to steam.

To cool the steam back to cold water 4.179J/g/K *1000g * 104 K = 434616 J must be removed.

With this energy i can cool down around 600g additional hot water from 95°C to 20°C for every 1000g water used by the dupes.

No sand needed, germs killed, no fixed thermal output needed.

Got any screenshots of your setup?

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...