What does keep energy conservation?

[tasauge]

DISCLAIMER:

I do not say that this is possible. It is just a game. I am aware of this. My goal is only to determine whether it is possible to find some machines/genetic oozes/things that keeps energy. The real life physics laws may also not apply (especially Einstein's E=mc²+...). The other goal is to find other laws to replace them, if possible. Thank you for your comprehension.

 

I was wondering, what does conserve energy, and what are the ratios?

After a little browse I found that some buildings (like the electrolyzers...) do have a fixed temperature output. (Some complained about it, some don't, I don't want to open yet another debate here.)

Also, of course, gas grinding (using door closing) or void (space) removes energy (kinetic/heat energy and mass, which is energy using the E=mc² equation IRL).

Spoiler

I also know that the equation is not complete, as you must also add some energy due to motion, but this is negligible, and the equation maydoes not apply in this game in its IRL form.

But then, I thought of the lavatory, that adds some water to the system. But that's logic, because the duplicants eat, and so outputs this extra mass, gained by eating food that grown, that eventually took some water.

So here I go: what conserves energy?

Spoiler

• Conserves energy
• Not answered yet...
• Doesn't conserve energy (tie: if two or more buildings gives the same element different energies and we cannot minimize the energy differential because there is multiple solutions, every buildings are considered "non-concerving")
• Doesn't conserve energy due to "electricity's energy instability", "heat energy instability" or "light energy instability"
• Output request: what do you think the output is?
• Check request: please check the answer

Buildings:

Spoiler

• Doors (outside gas grinding): ?
• Storage compactors: ?
• Algae deoxydizer: ?
• Algae terrarium: no (fixed output heat)
• Deodorizer: no (fixed output heat) (check request)
• Carbon skimmer: ?
• Electrolyzer: no (fixed output heat)
• Manual generator: ?
• * generator: ?
• * wire/joint plates *: ?
• * battery: no (generates heat, loses energy, no consistancy)
• Power transformer: no (heat generator or electricity destructor using automation, see martosss's first post for an explanation)
• Microbe musher: ?
• Electric grill: ?
• Planter box: ?
• Farm tile: ?
• Hydroponic farm: ?
• Ration box: ?
• Refrigerator: ?
• Critter/fish *: ?
• Incubator: ?
• Egg cracker: ?
• Outhouse: ?
• Lavatory: ?
• Shower: ?
• * pump: no (fixed heat generation without energy dropping, even with less output generation, see martosss's first post) (check request*)
• * pipe/bridge: apparently not? (check request)
• * liquid pump: ?
• Liquid vent: ?
• Liquid filter: ?
• Liquid shutoff: ?
• Gas filter: ?
• Gas shutoff: ?
• Compost: ?
• Water sieve: no (fixed output heat)
• Fertilizer synthesizer: ?
• Algae distiller: ?
• Rock granulator: ?
• Kiln: ?
• Metal refinery: ?
• Glass forge: ?
• Oil refinery: ?
• Polymer press: ?
• Wash basin: ?
• Sink: ?
• Hand sanitizer: no (destroys germs and bleach stone, no output)
• Apothecary: ?
• Pharma chamber: ?
• Tasteful memorial: ?
• Flower pot: ?
• Ice block: ?
• Lamp: no (lights up one or more tiles with the same energy sink, fixed light tile energy)
• Ceiling light: ?
• Research station: ?
• Super computer: ?
• Power control station: ?
• Farm station: ?
• Grooming station: ?
• Shearing station: ?
• Textile loom: ?
• Exosuit forge: ?
• Exosuit checkpoint: ?
• Exosuit dock: ?
• Space heater: ?
• Liquid tepidizer: ?
• Hydrofan: ?
• Thermo regulator: ?
• Thermo aquatuner: ?
• Ore scrubber: ?
• Oil well: ?
• Tempshift plate: yes (balances temperature)
• Automation wire: ?
• Automation wire bridge: ?
• * gate: ?
• Memory toggle: ?
• Signal switch: ?
• * sensor: ?
• Weight plate: ?
• Duplicant checkpoint: no (consider this as emitting light that tells "stay here" if you don't see any output) (output request)
• Meteor scanner: ?
• Auto-sweeper: ?
• Conveyor rail/bridge: ?
• Conveyor loader: ?
• Conveyor receptacle: ?
• Printing pod: no (create mass and light)

Neutronium-sustained buildings:

Spoiler

• Anti entropy thermo-nullifier: no (destroy hydrogen and heat energy) (it could maybe work if heat has negative energy)
• * geyser/vent: no (create mass and heat energy) (it could maybe work if heat has negative energy)

Genetic oozes:

Spoiler

• Duplicant: no (fixed calories loss at all time, possibly changed by traits, standing=running)
• Wheezewort: no (destroy heat energy)
• * plants (outside of Wheezeworts): ?
• Shine bugs: no (lights up one or more tiles with the same energy sink, fixed light tile energy, with no input: can create infinite electricity)
• Sage hatches: yes (the input:output ratio is a 1:1 ratio) and no (output eggs, all input used elsewhere)
• * hatches (outside hatches): no (output eggs, possibly no input)
• Morbs: no (creates mass)
• * critters (outside of morbs, shine bugs): no (output eggs, possibly no input)

If you think other buildings/genetic oozes/things should be added, please tell me. I'll try to update this list as frequently as I can.

Energy equivalence:

Spoiler

Temperature: 1 K=1 K (reference energy)

• Electricity: 1 W=?? K
• Automation ON signal: 0 K (check request)
• Automation OFF signal: 0 K (check request)
• Automation DISCONNECTED signal: 0 K (check request)
• Conveyor carts: ?? K
• Light tile: 0 K (check request)

General "mass energy": 1 g=?? K

Exceptions to this "general mass energy":

• Slime has less energy than mushrooms (slime:mushroom ratio is 140:9 or less if with a greenhouse)
• Dirt has less energy than meal lice (dirt:meal lice ratio is 35:9 or less if with a greenhouse)

Thank you to:

Spoiler

• martosss (x3)
• ICKA (x2)
• Servio
• heckubis
• Lazy-Anemic (x2)

 

Spoiler

*For the pump, it may be yes, because outputing less that 500g of gas when the air has less than 500g shouldn't be that strange. But maybe it might use less energy.

 

[martosss]

• Air pumps might work, but gather less than the full 500g packet of gas. In that case you put the same amount of energy, but get different results - I would consider this non-conservation, as heat generation is constant.
  • same goes for liquid pump - in general 240W of power used, no heat produced, so energy loss.
• It is similar to the AETN - you give it a fixed input(100g of Hydrogen), but it has various output(cooling depends on surrounding environment). Same goes for wheezeworts.
• Water sieve outputs water at constant 40°, so no conservation - can lose or create energy depending on input
• Batteries - Generate energy in a form of heat - store energy and lose a certain amount/cycle(1kJ, 2kJ, 400J), yet generate a lot of heat(6.25W,6.25W,2.5W)
  • B1 ~4.7W of net heat generation
  • B2 ~3W of net heat generation
  • B3 ~ 2W of net heat generation
• Power transformer - depends on usage - can lose energy - 1kW if turned off by automation, or gain energy - fill its charge and then cut the lower end wire, then cut the upper end wire - that leaves the PT with 1000 charge and constant heat generation, so 5W of heat. In general I'd say it's a heat generator, since automation is not used so much on it.
• Lamp\light - can be used to boost productivity, but by itself it is an energy loss, as it uses more power than it generates in terms of heat
• Algae Terrarium - No conservation because it can be boosted by light or can grow in the dark with different effects, so at least 1 of its states is non-conservating(Apply the same argument to lights)
• Pipes - I'd argue they don't conserve energy, since you can move things for free with them. If you consider the alternative - using duplicates, that costs you time and wastes the duplicant's calories, so ... no conservation in both of them.

.... Do you feel in what direction this is going ?

Actually the task at hand might become more difficult if you add a possible coefficient between W of electrical power and W of heat, since those two systems don't really interact  in a 1:1 ratio, but you might come up with a coefficient that equalizes them and in that sense the whole system might be energy conserving, although it might convert, say 400W of Power to 10W of heat and vice versa.

Then again, Wheezies will always delete heat, Power transformer with 1k charge inside will always generate heat.... duplicants standing idle vs running the wheel definitely doesn't feel energy conserving either.

  Hide contents

• Conserves energy (tie: if two or more buildings gives the same element different energies and we cannot minimize the energy differential because there is multiple solutions, the one that makes less energy is considered as a non-conserving energy thing, except if one one them is made of neutronium or genetic ooze)

Hm, why not consider both of them non-conserving, since 1 generates and 1 deletes ?

In this case if we compare the 3 batteries you might say 1 of them is energy conserving, although they all generate heat out of the blue cosmos?

 

 

[ICKA]

Algae terrariums output polluted water at around 30 C, even if the clean water feeding it is hotter. 

[Sevio]

The relationship between electrical power and heat energy in the simulation is a.... rather loose one. Prime example here is the Tepidizer, although its potential for self-destructive high temperature heating has been curbed, when running it still produces something on the order of 4000 times the heat energy compared to the input power taken. But this goes for pretty much any building that produces heat. That's just a fact of the game, which I like to rationalize with the idea that cycles actually take much longer for duplicants than for us and that the heat numbers are "time warped" but power numbers are not.

I think for this topic it's better to ignore the conversion of power/work into heat but on the material conversions done.

[ICKA]

Did some additional testing with deodorizers, everything in a sealed room was at 500 C. The sand inputted into the deodorizers was 500 C, so was the polluted oxygen. Even the deodorizers started at 500 C. But somehow the clean oxygen came out at a much much lower temperature. Around 180 C or so. I tested it again with sand and deodorizers at a much lower temperature and polluted oxygen still at 500 C and the oxygen temperature was cool enough to pump. Might try this with a hot polluted oxygen vent sometime.

[tasauge]

On 14/07/2018 at 12:09 AM, martosss said:

• Air pumps might work, but gather less than the full 500g packet of gas. In that case you put the same amount of energy, but get different results - I would consider this non-conservation, as heat generation is constant.
  • same goes for liquid pump - in general 240W of power used, no heat produced, so energy loss.
• It is similar to the AETN - you give it a fixed input(100g of Hydrogen), but it has various output(cooling depends on surrounding environment). Same goes for wheezeworts.
• Water sieve outputs water at constant 40°, so no conservation - can lose or create energy depending on input
• Batteries - Generate energy in a form of heat - store energy and lose a certain amount/cycle(1kJ, 2kJ, 400J), yet generate a lot of heat(6.25W,6.25W,2.5W)
  • B1 ~4.7W of net heat generation
  • B2 ~3W of net heat generation
  • B3 ~ 2W of net heat generation
• Power transformer - depends on usage - can lose energy - 1kW if turned off by automation, or gain energy - fill its charge and then cut the lower end wire, then cut the upper end wire - that leaves the PT with 1000 charge and constant heat generation, so 5W of heat. In general I'd say it's a heat generator, since automation is not used so much on it.
• Lamp\light - can be used to boost productivity, but by itself it is an energy loss, as it uses more power than it generates in terms of heat
• Algae Terrarium - No conservation because it can be boosted by light or can grow in the dark with different effects, so at least 1 of its states is non-conservating(Apply the same argument to lights)
• Pipes - I'd argue they don't conserve energy, since you can move things for free with them. If you consider the alternative - using duplicates, that costs you time and wastes the duplicant's calories, so ... no conservation in both of them.

.... Do you feel in what direction this is going ?

Actually the task at hand might become more difficult if you add a possible coefficient between W of electrical power and W of heat, since those two systems don't really interact  in a 1:1 ratio, but you might come up with a coefficient that equalizes them and in that sense the whole system might be energy conserving, although it might convert, say 400W of Power to 10W of heat and vice versa.

Then again, Wheezies will always delete heat, Power transformer with 1k charge inside will always generate heat.... duplicants standing idle vs running the wheel definitely doesn't feel energy conserving either.

  Reveal hidden contents

• Conserves energy (tie: if two or more buildings gives the same element different energies and we cannot minimize the energy differential because there is multiple solutions, the one that makes less energy is considered as a non-conserving energy thing, except if one one them is made of neutronium or genetic ooze)

Hm, why not consider both of them non-conserving, since 1 generates and 1 deletes ?

In this case if we compare the 3 batteries you might say 1 of them is energy conserving, although they all generate heat out of the blue cosmos?

 

 

• Yes, I knew that it would be a mess.
• Tie has been updated. (But they generates heat from the loss of electricity I'd say.)

On 14/07/2018 at 7:55 AM, ICKA said:

Algae terrariums output polluted water at around 30 C, even if the clean water feeding it is hotter. 

 

On 14/07/2018 at 7:57 AM, Sevio said:

The relationship between electrical power and heat energy in the simulation is a.... rather loose one. Prime example here is the Tepidizer, although its potential for self-destructive high temperature heating has been curbed, when running it still produces something on the order of 4000 times the heat energy compared to the input power taken. But this goes for pretty much any building that produces heat. That's just a fact of the game, which I like to rationalize with the idea that cycles actually take much longer for duplicants than for us and that the heat numbers are "time warped" but power numbers are not.

I think for this topic it's better to ignore the conversion of power/work into heat but on the material conversions done.

• Used a different color for buildings that destroy/create energy due to electricity or heat.

On 14/07/2018 at 9:33 AM, ICKA said:

Did some additional testing with deodorizers, everything in a sealed room was at 500 C. The sand inputted into the deodorizers was 500 C, so was the polluted oxygen. Even the deodorizers started at 500 C. But somehow the clean oxygen came out at a much much lower temperature. Around 180 C or so. I tested it again with sand and deodorizers at a much lower temperature and polluted oxygen still at 500 C and the oxygen temperature was cool enough to pump. Might try this with a hot polluted oxygen vent sometime.

The informations have been updated.

[tasauge]

On 14/07/2018 at 12:09 AM, martosss said:

• Pipes - I'd argue they don't conserve energy, since you can move things for free with them. If you consider the alternative - using duplicates, that costs you time and wastes the duplicant's calories, so ... no conservation in both of them.

I think that pipes conserves energy, as to put gas/liquids in them you must use pumps, that uses energy. To my sense they do not lose/gain energy because they move gases. (By the way in the real life gases moves without anyone/anything to move them, to equilibrates the gases composition. To me it might be a phenomen like this that is happening.)

[heckubis]

pipes loss and gain potential energy depending on the medium in transit and the medium its transiting through. they would be too variable to on this list but a whole structure built with them could be viable for it

[tasauge]

5 minutes ago, heckubis said:

pipes loss and gain potential energy depending on the medium in transit and the medium its transiting through. they would be too variable to on this list but a whole structure built with them could be viable for it

I think I do not understand your point.

To me, you are saying that depending on what's in the pipe and its surrounding, we can create/delete energy, right? But I think what's happening is that what's inside the pipes is transferring its energy to what's outside the pipe, according to:

• the thermal conductivity between the in and the pipe, and the pipe and the out;
• the heat difference between the in and the pipe, and the pipe and the out

because what's inside is heating the pipe, then the pipe is heating what's outside (assuming of course that what's cooler is the gas/liquid inside the pipe). It also uses the heat capacity to calculate the heat change.

[heckubis]

12 minutes ago, tasauge said:

I think I do not understand your point.

To me, you are saying that depending on what's in the pipe and its surrounding, we can create/delete energy, right? But I think what's happening is that what's inside the pipes is transferring its energy to what's outside the pipe, according to:

• the thermal conductivity between the in and the pipe, and the pipe and the out;
• the heat difference between the in and the pipe, and the pipe and the out

because what's inside is heating the pipe, then the pipe is heating what's outside (assuming of course that what's cooler is the gas/liquid inside the pipe). It also uses the heat capacity to calculate the heat change.

well it comes to the pipes themselves or the how they are used if they are energy conservative or not. they individually have a base stat based on the material they are made of that will impact the consumption/conservation of the energy in them.

a badly done set of pipes and/or vents can leak energy in heat before its intended to or not when it is based on the design and the material of the stucture.

so when it comes to them being energy conservative it would depend on the build

if we looked at them from just being the base pieces then insulated should be energy conservers the others wouldn't but that would still depend on what its made of and what is passing through them and so on

[Lazy-Anemic]

No critter conserves energy.

All wild critters live out their lifespan fully as they can't starve to death and continue to produce eggs until over-crowed.

Shine bugs only emit light and light doesn't effect the temperature of any material. Wild shine bugs will constantly power S. Panels as long as they live fairly comfortably.

Morbs produce P. O2 despite not eating anything ever. Critters that eat and produce waste either delete mass (They don't incorporate the mass they eat into themselves) or shouldn't be gaining energy from eating (Sage Hatches convert food into coal at 100% efficiency.)

[tasauge]

9 minutes ago, Lazy-Anemic said:

Critters that eat and produce waste either delete mass (They don't incorporate the mass they eat into themselves) or shouldn't be gaining energy from eating (Sage Hatches convert food into coal at 100% efficiency.)

I disagree with this point: they can incorporate the mass they eat (like our food) and output waste (like we do, except we don't output coal), so the output mass can be lower than the input mass, but instead of storing it they may transform it immediately into weightless energy.

Of course that doesn't work for the sage hatch, and they can still produce eggs without eating.

The informations have been added.

[martosss]

I'd argue critters aren't energy conserving, since different diets produce different results. However, those diets in many cases can be converted to one another in a different ratio. That means either hatches should consume much less slime/dirt, or the other conversions are non-energy conserving.

Here are 2 cases:

1. you feed a (sage)hatch 140kg of slime - it is happy for 1 day
2. you feed a (sage) hatch 0.3kg of mushrooms - it's happy for 1 day.

However, if you plant mushrooms and grow them, they consume 30kg slime/ 1kg mushroom ( or even less if you have a greenhouse, but that requires other resources, so let's assume greenhouses are energy conserving just for the sake of the argument)

So what is wrong here ? Sage hatches produce exactly the same result(in terms of waste), but can consume different amounts of material for it - 1/3 mushroom(which is 10kg of Slime), or 140 kg of Slime.

The same argument goes for Meal lice:

1. Hatches eat 1.2 kg of Meal lice
2. Hatches eat 140kg of Dirt.

However, Mealwood consumes 30kg of Dirt/ 1kg Meallice

So better feed your hatches with Meal lice!( I ran out of Dirt recently, so  I'm particularly salty about the 140kg Dirt remark )

 

1PS. 2 more critter examples

1. Balm lily grows without consuming any resource(it only requires the right conditions) => non energy conserving(and you can feed dreckos with that, but we shouldn't count them as non energy conserving just yet, I'm sure they have their own reasons)
2. Morbs produce Polluted Oxygen without consuming anything => non conserving.

2PS The 1PS got me thinking, we should discuss each thing in isolation, since if we arrive at the conclusion that, say, dupllicants are non conserving, we shouldn't use them as an element in other arguments, since they might be the reason for the non-conservation in that other example. So in the Hatch example you should Either count 2 plants as non conserving, or the critter. I'm not sure what the "real conversion" is supposed to be, probably there isn't one, as all this is invented

 

[tasauge]

2 minutes ago, martosss said:

I'd argue critters aren't energy conserving, since different diets produce different results. However, those diets in many cases can be converted to one another in a different ratio. That means either hatches should consume much less slime/dirt, or the other conversions are non-energy conserving.

Here are 2 cases:

1. you feed a (sage)hatch 140kg of slime - it is happy for 1 day
2. you feed a (sage) hatch 0.3kg of mushrooms - it's happy for 1 day.

However, if you plant mushrooms and grow them, they consume 30kg slime/ 1kg mushroom ( or even less if you have a greenhouse, but that requires other resources, so let's assume greenhouses are energy conserving just for the sake of the argument)

So what is wrong here? Sage hatches produce exactly the same result(in terms of waste), but can consume different amounts of material for it - 1/3 mushroom(which is 10kg of Slime), or 140 kg of Slime.

The same argument goes for Meal lice:

1. Hatches eat 1.2 kg of Meal lice
2. Hatches eat 140kg of Dirt.

However, Mealwood consumes 30kg of Dirt/ 1kg Meallice

So better feed your hatches with Meal lice! (I ran out of Dirt recently, so I'm particularly salty about the 140kg Dirt remark )

So bad for your lack of dirt . If your calculations are right, you should really post a new bug/upgrade suggestion about it. I'll assume that there is some non-standard mass energy hiding in this (meaning 1kg of dirt has the same energy as 9/35kg of meal lice).

The informations has been updated.

[Lazy-Anemic]

Something worth mentioning is that Duplicant traits can affect how much Duplicants consume and produce and that Printing Pods generate Dupes (30 kg of Ooze at 310 K) from nothing but time.

[martosss]

21 minutes ago, Lazy-Anemic said:

Something worth mentioning is that Duplicant traits can affect how much Duplicants consume and produce and that Printing Pods generate Dupes (30 kg of Ooze at 310 K) from nothing but time.

+ the Printing pod emits 5 tiles of light. But hey, it's exceptionally advance! And it doesn't use Power.

[tasauge]

13 hours ago, Lazy-Anemic said:

Something worth mentioning is that Duplicant traits can affect how much Duplicants consume and produce and that Printing Pods generate Dupes (30 kg of Ooze at 310 K) from nothing but time.

 

13 hours ago, martosss said:

+ the Printing pod emits 5 tiles of light. But hey, it's exceptionally advance! And it doesn't use Power.

The informations have been updated.

(By the way, did you know that the printing pod was mainly made of Iron Ore? I would've thought it would be made of neutronium...)

[Hedning1390]

I think the game is too unrealistic to even consider this topic. I mean practically nothing conserves anything. A real life coal generator would burn coal, but this one turns C into C02 without using 02. How do you even begin to calculate energy conservation if you have no idea how the process even works? None of the generators burn their fuel. It's just magicked into energy with what seems like random byproducts. That carbon scrubber turns CO2 and water into polluted water, but polluted water isn't carbonated water. There's 120kg water in a bristle blossom because evaporation doesn't exist, yet the duplicants only pee little over 10kg over the time it takes them to consume one. A mealwood similarly contains 60kg dirt but where is it going? Outhouses doesn't produce extra mass, but lavatories do. Digging a block returns half of the material, the other half vanishes. etc.etc.

A useful list however would be to see if the machine outputs their product at a fixed temperature, eg sieve 40 degrees, their own temperature eg the NG generator, or a relative temperature, eg the metal refierney.

[martosss]

1 hour ago, Hedning1390 said:

A real life coal generator would burn coal, but this one turns C into C02 without using 02. How do you even begin to calculate energy conservation if you have no idea how the process even works?

.... None of the generators burn their fuel. It's just magicked into energy with what seems like random byproducts.

It's just a more efficient coal generator that doesn't use O2, just like the printing pod.(lol ).  What matters in the calculations isn't the inside of the black box, but the input and the output: coal => x*heat + y*Watts+ z*CO2

1 hour ago, Hedning1390 said:

That carbon scrubber turns CO2 and water into polluted water, but polluted water isn't carbonated water.

True, Polluted water contains dirt + water, so effectively the scrubber turns CO2 + some water into dirt(not sure what the % dirt in P.Water is though). In the same time it uses 120W of Power and generates 5W of heat so the "equation" is 120W + 1kg Water + 300g CO2 => x kg Dirt + (1-x) kg Water  + 5W of heat. Also not sure what the output temperature is(if it doesn't depend on input parameteres then it's definitely not conserving).

1 hour ago, Hedning1390 said:

There's 120kg water in a bristle blossom because evaporation doesn't exist, yet the duplicants only pee little over 10kg over the time it takes them to consume one.

That water is converted into kcal and heat that duplicants generate?

1 hour ago, Hedning1390 said:

Outhouses doesn't produce extra mass, but lavatories do.

What about Polluted dirt that comes from Outhouses + 1.25W of Heat?

It can be boiled to an equation for each machine. Now the question is can you reach a non-zero equation(0 => 5kg of Dirt ... or 5kg of Dirt => 0) using all those equations. I'd say for pretty much everything you can Maybe Tempshift plates and pipes are kind of OK in terms of heat, but most things either generate heat or remove heat or have fixed outputs, meaning they can be used for both!

My logic would be to cross out 1 equation as non-conservating for each system of equations that produces a non=zero equation. ( hm, so my remark about crossing both things as non-conserving earlier might not be the right thing to do after all).

That way you can reach a system of equations(a set of machines/oozes) that only converts 1 thing to the other, i.e. an energy conserving system.

 

Again, note that Watts_heat are not necessarily equal to Watts of Power, so 120W of Power and 5W of Heat should be abbreviated differently from each other as not to be mixed(e.g. Wh and Wp)

[Hedning1390]

The problem with that way of thinking is that heat and electrical energy becomes completely irrelevant, because the mass contains almost all the energy, hence you won't get any useful information about whether a machine consumes or produces energy, at least not for the purposes of gameplay. For example "That water is converted into kcal and heat that duplicants generate?" No, the kcal and heat is negligible compared to the energy of 110kg mass. It is essentially 0 so the mass lost is still 110kg. It makes comparisons between items in the game completely useless: For example:

-A petroleum generator produces 2000W, A NG generator produces 800W, but that's completely irrelevant, because the petroleum generator destroys 750g mass per second (=6.74*10^16 W) while the NG generator doesn't destroy any mass.

-A cold NG generator can take scalding NG and turn it into cold pwater and co2. A hot NG generator can take cool NG and turn it into hot pwater and co2. Hence the NG generator is more energy efficient than itself.

Edit: Another thing you mentioned; the polluted dirt. Why say that the carbon scrubber creates some dirt? Why lay that mass on the scrubber rather than the sieve? The sieve uses some sand so maybe that is the source of the dirt? If left alone polluted water turns into polluted oxygen and doesn't leave any dirt.

Edit2: And a correction: The outhouse doesn't produce polluted dirt. It turns regular dirt into polluted dirt, and polluted dirt turns back into dirt of the same mass in the compost. There is no net gain or loss in dirt.

[tasauge]

7 minutes ago, Hedning1390 said:

The problem with that way of thinking is that heat and electrical energy becomes completely irrelevant, because the mass contains almost all the energy

Well, yeah, but that's in the real life. A game is not reality. Disclaimer added.

(Note that my goal is also to find how much energy have a gram of everything...)

10 minutes ago, Hedning1390 said:

• A petroleum generator produces 2000W, A NG generator produces 800W, but that's completely irrelevant, because the petroleum generator destroys 750g mass per second (=6.74*10^16 W) while the NG generator doesn't destroy any mass.

That may want to mean that natural gas has more energy than the NGG's outputs. (By the way is the 6.74*10^16 W the energy for 750g of petroleum IRL?)

9 minutes ago, Hedning1390 said:

• A cold NG generator can take scalding NG and turn it into cold pwater and co2. A hot NG generator can take cool NG and turn it into hot pwater and co2. Hence the NG generator is more energy efficient than itself.

Wait what? the natural gas generator is more efficient than the natural gas generator? It may simply mean that the NGG heats/cools the NG before processing it.

36 minutes ago, martosss said:

It's just a more efficient coal generator that doesn't use O2, just like the printing pod.(lol ).  What matters in the calculations isn't the inside of the black box, but the input and the output: coal => x*heat + y*Watts+ z*CO2

True, Polluted water contains dirt + water, so effectively the scrubber turns CO2 + some water into dirt (not sure what the % dirt in P.Water is though). In the same time it uses 120W of Power and generates 5W of heat so the "equation" is 120W + 1kg Water + 300g CO2 => x kg Dirt + (1-x) kg Water  + 5W of heat. Also not sure what the output temperature is(if it doesn't depend on input parameteres then it's definitely not conserving).

What about Polluted dirt that comes from Outhouses + 1.25W of Heat?

Or the machines are just nuclear fusion/fission devices . (Note: I'll assume not.)

51 minutes ago, martosss said:

My logic would be to cross out 1 equation as non-conservating for each system of equations that produces a non=zero equation. ( hm, so my remark about crossing both things as non-conserving earlier might not be the right thing to do after all).

That way you could also have multiple sets of machines that are conservative in total, but where some machines used in one may be considered non-conservative in another set of machines (due to energy loss/energy gain equilibrium)... Interesting.

[Hedning1390]

That's how he suggested we calculated it. I have no problem with the game not being realistic, but since it isn't I don't think it makes sense to calculate energy produced/consumed the way he is suggesting.

To know whether or not the NG generators output has more or less energy than the inputs we need a whole lot more decimals. If we assume that the numbers are exact then it depends on the temperature of the input gas and the temperature of the generator, as I mentioned.

That energy is the real life energy produced per second by annihilating that amount of mass per second. 

The NG generator doesn't cool or heat. That would imply some sort of heat transfer. Instead what it does is annihilates the NG it takes in and then completely separately creates the water and co2 from nothing and letting them assume the temperature of the generator.

[martosss]

1 hour ago, tasauge said:

That way you could also have multiple sets of machines that are conservative in total, but where some machines used in one may be considered non-conservative in another set of machines

If you add an equation to another system and it breaks it, then this equation clearly needs to be eliminated, or 1 of the other equations need to be eliminated. That way both systems will remain conservative and you can combine them if nothing else makes conflicts.

1 hour ago, Hedning1390 said:

That's how he suggested we calculated it. I have no problem with the game not being realistic, but since it isn't I don't think it makes sense to calculate energy produced/consumed the way he is suggesting.

To know whether or not the NG generators output has more or less energy than the inputs we need a whole lot more decimals. If we assume that the numbers are exact then it depends on the temperature of the input gas and the temperature of the generator, as I mentioned.

That energy is the real life energy produced per second by annihilating that amount of mass per second. 

The NG generator doesn't cool or heat. That would imply some sort of heat transfer. Instead what it does is annihilates the NG it takes in and then completely separately creates the water and co2 from nothing and letting them assume the temperature of the generator.

So if you use my approach on the generator, it would be something along these lines:

If the generator has variable temp of outputs that depends on its tempertature, then it definitely isn't conservative, as a generator with a certain temperature might produce 2 equations:
1) gen'temp = x, input temperature = a => output has k(x) temperature

2) gen'temp= x, input temperature = b => output has k(x) temperature

Now if you feed the generator an equal amount of the 2 inputs, you'll produce the same output , effectively deleting |a-b| temperature from one of the inputs(i.e. if Input B = input A + 5 J(since B is hotter), and also input B = input A(after the generator), so 5J = 0 ... that's bad ), so you need to consider it as non-conservative and not use it in any other conversions.

That seems like a good(fair/logical?) way to proceed. What do you think? Any better ideas?

[Hedning1390]

The NG generator is one of few items that could conserve energy should all the temperatures be exactly what they need to be.

The answer to the main question of the topic is nothing that consumes and/or produces conserves energy. Tiles that just sit there doing nothing but let heat flow conserve energy. There is also no relation between heat energy, electrical energy and mass energy.

[tasauge]

Just now, Hedning1390 said:

The NG generator is one of few items that could conserve energy should all the temperatures be exactly what they need to be.

Er, I think I don't understand... Do you say that the thermal energy is not conserved, but the mass is?

10 minutes ago, Hedning1390 said:

The answer to your main question is nothing that consumes and/or produces conserves energy. Tiles that just sit there doing nothing but let heat flow conserve energy. There is also no relation between heat energy, electrical energy and mass energy.

The relation missing between heat energy, electrical energy and mass energy, even if it is true, is not really a problem. I'd like to try to figure this out "scientifically", but as there is no thing to create mass from heat/electricity, there is obviously at least one connection missing (or is it? I'd say duplicants are mass to heat converters.).

But at least I can tell that meal lice has about 3.8888 the energy of dirt (because feeding hatches with meal lice needs 3.8888... times less dirt). Maybe that's what you mean? (That for instance the clothes are less/more heavy than what is used to make them?) If no, then I'll clarify my main goal (as I don't understand what you said): I'd like to see what machines to use in order to avoid mass deperdition/creation (ok, maybe that second one is not that much a problem).