Understanding Heat

[thejams]

So recently in a discussion about Petrol generators and heat I was asked this question:

17 hours ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Let's put it differently then if you really want to hold on to this: 500gr of CO2 (in the game) at 270 °K holds  That has 500*270*0.846= 114,210 DTU. Can we get to agree on that and move on?

It's quite common here when people look at mass destruction/creation in the game, they look as if heat was created/destroyed, or at heat as a sum as if the temperature change would happen from 0°K.  This is completely wrong and let me just put this here for whomever is interested to learn more, without going in deeper.

Now let's look at it from in-game perspective - as in real life, the game also tries to reach thermal equilibrium.  In a closed system (as in an isolated chamber or a biome, or ultimately in the whole world if you remove the barriers), the temperature after some time, without any outside input, would equalize for the entire system.  Let's say the temperature at which this thermal equilibrium is reached is 20°C (293,15°K).

So we introduce (create) 500g of CO2 into this system at 0°C (273,15°K).  If what @ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said is true, we have added 114 kDTU to the system, but as we have added colder CO2, we have actually reduced the temperature of the system.  How can it be that if we're adding heat, the system actually gets colder?

Now this is very easy to conceptualize when looking at heat exchange from higher to lower temperatures, but the same is true when using heat pumps like the Aquatuner, which move the heat in the opposite direction.  It would seem that if we pump 1kg/s 40°C water into an oil well and getting out 3,3kg/s 120°C crude oil, we are adding a lot of heat to the world.  But the truth is until this oil interacts with the world, no heat is added or removed from the world.  We can heat the crude oil while an Aquatuner is cooling water so the rest of the world actually losses heat (get's colder).  So who's to say if the oil created actually added or removed heat from the world?

These examples show why it is only appropriate to accept the physics fact that Heat is only the exchange of energy, a part of a process, and not a property of material.

Now the usual knee jerk reaction to this is that the game does not observe mass/energy conservation and therefore physics does not apply.

This is incorrect, the game observes physics laws well enough for the systems it simulates so that we can apply them.  It does not simulate outside factors, so we ignore them.  We don't obsess with the origin of the material and energy that is introduced to the world via geyser or meteors, we just accept it comes from the "outside" world.  So why do we obsess with machines not conserving when they too could just be interacting with the same "outside" world.  Sieving 119°C polluted water into 40°C clean one bothers you - why not accept that it is sent to an infinite cooling basin in the outside world and cooled to 40°C before it is filtered in the sand, just as that geyser is pulling steam from an invisible outside world infinite basin.

So with this in mind, it helps retain one's sanity if you only only observe heat as it is defined in Physics - the transfer of energy and go from there when trying to understand heat in ONI.

TLDR: Heat is not a property of object, it is the process of energy transfer.  So if you want to understand heat in ONI, look at just the heat exchange between objects and ignore creation/destruction of mass. 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

Mate, you have a difficult time of letting go. I understand, upon reflection on my posts, that thermal energy was the better term to use. But I didn't need the physics class. There's no misconception on my part, but a wrongful use lf the word heat. Like people expressing something in kg and calling it weight instead of mass.

I do stand by the point that the game is by no means a correct reflection, even simplified, of real life laws of physics. That's no knee jerk reaction. For instance a petroleum generator would not be able to delete tons of thermal energy magically.

[thejams]

Well, there is quite a lot of game sense and very little physics in the post.  I just hope it helps someone else understand the distinction as well. 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

Right. If you want to use the game to explain physics, then do please explain where the game is wrong. The game does call thermal energy "heat". Again on reflection I shouldn't have called it heat and just called it thermal energy. I am perfectly aware of what you said in above post. It's the same why you theoritically would not burn in space despite particles able to have 120°C, but you would burn in 60°C water filling a bathtub. Better explained here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/traveling-to-the-sun-why-won-t-parker-solar-probe-melt

[thejams]

1 minute ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Right. If you want to use the game to explain physics, then do please explain where the game is wrong. The game does call thermal energy "heat". Again on reflection I shouldn't have called it heat and just called it thermal energy. I am perfectly aware of what you said in above post. It's the same why you theoritically would not burn in space despite particles able to have 120°C, but you would burn in 60°C water filling a bathtub.

Can't say I can parse this non-sense, but do please show where exactly does the game call thermal energy heat?

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

Just now, thejams said:

Can't say I can parse this non-sense, but do please show where exactly does the game call thermal energy heat?

Heat capacity to start off.

[thejams]

2 minutes ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Heat capacity to start off.

Heat capacity = Heat capacity or thermal capacity is a measurable physical quantity equal to the ratio of the heat added to (or removed from) an object to the resulting temperature change.

Try again.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

3 minutes ago, thejams said:

Heat capacity = Heat capacity or thermal capacity is a measurable physical quantity equal to the ratio of the heat added to (or removed from) an object to the resulting temperature change.

Try again.

No you try again. This is info from a wikipedia reflecting on real life physics. Get me info from the actual game, like code. Then we'll talk. #nonesence.

Will it perhaps calm your mind if I simply say "you are right, I am wrong"? Not that it is going to be sincere, but you are being patronizing in an unneeded fashion the whole time. 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

Why, you were doing so well with the completely unneeded discussion and being all patronizing. Common, keep going. I know you want to.

[SakuraKoi]

Welp, I guess every forum has that kind of toxicity the bigger it gets. Opening an extra thread to mock someone, it should be obvious how immature, childish and malicious this is yet...

 

anyway, for anybody who is here to understand thermodynamics in ONI, it can simply be summed up in a much better fashion, like this perhaps:

1. Objects will exchange temperature, heat, energy, whatever one may call it, it does not matter (I prefer DTU), with objects adjacent to it based on their temperature.
2. The bigger the difference, the quicker the exchange with the rate being 0 at 0 difference.
3. Each different object stores different amounts of DTU per K/°C and per gram.
4. The more capacity or more mass an object has, the more needs to be exchanged to change the temperature by the same amount.
5. The final temperature a closed system would go for is pretty much a damn mess to calculate but...
6. If everything in a system is 100°C and something with less than 100°C is added, the mass increases but the temperature falls.
7. It is "easier" to cool 100g at 100°C to 20°C than the same object with 30°C but 100kg to the same temperature (even 21°C would require more).
8. Conservation of Mass and Energy is not part of ONIs objectives and only implemented if it suits the balance, like in case of Electrolyzers 112 and 888 split which perfectly mirrors at least how much mass two H/one O in H2O have.
9. Electrical Energy and Thermal Energy/DTU are unre(eeeeeee)lated.
10. Radiation does not exist.

Any questions? Corrections? Or just sophistry&semantics perhaps?

by the by, the debug tool can perfectly* measure how much mass, DTU** and how much on average there are in a selected field. Somebody eager*** can test with that which complex interactions/processes increase or decrease the DTU of the world under which circumstances (and when it is balanced). 

 

 

*does not count for buildings and pipe contents, atm not quite sure about debris

**still called joules

***not me, for now

[Angpaur]

3 minutes ago, SakuraKoi said:

The final temperature a closed system would go for is pretty much a damn mess to calculate but.

Yeah, that is why I created a calculator to estimate final temperature of 2 materials. You can try it here: http://www.oni-heat-calc.cba.pl/

[Oozinator]

Just now, SakuraKoi said:

Welp, I guess every forum has that kind of toxicity the bigger it gets

Nope and here in the forum i noticed it perhaps 3 months ago first time, spreading out. Fun was replaced with aggression.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

1 minute ago, SakuraKoi said:

Welp, I guess every forum has that kind of toxicity the bigger it gets. Opening an extra thread to mock someone, it should be obvious how immature, childish and malicious this is yet...

 

anyway, for anybody who is here to understand thermodynamics in ONI, it can simply be summed up in a much better fashion, like this perhaps:

1. Objects will exchange temperature, heat, energy, whatever one may call it, it does not matter (I prefer DTU), with objects adjacent to it based on their temperature.
2. The bigger the difference, the quicker the exchange with the rate being 0 at 0 difference.
3. Each different object stores different amounts of DTU per K/°C and per gram.
4. The more capacity or more mass an object has, the more needs to be exchanged to change the temperature by the same amount.
5. The final temperature a closed system would go for is pretty much a damn mess to calculate but...
6. If everything in a system is 100°C and something with less than 100°C is added, the mass increases but the temperature falls.
7. It is "easier" to cool 100g at 100°C to 20°C than the same object with 30°C but 100kg to the same temperature (even 21°C would require more).
8. Conservation of Mass and Energy is not part of ONIs objectives and only implemented if it suits the balance, like in case of Electrolyzers 112 and 888 split which perfectly mirrors at least how much mass two H/one O in H2O have.
9. Electrical Energy and Thermal Energy/DTU are unre(eeeeeee)lated.
10. Radiation does not exist.

Any questions? Corrections? Or just sophistry&semantics perhaps?

by the by, the debug tool can perfectly* measure how much mass, DTU** and how much on average there are in a selected field. Somebody eager*** can test with that which complex interactions/processes increase or decrease the DTU of the world under which circumstances (and when it is balanced). 

 

 

*does not count for buildings and pipe contents, atm not quite sure about debris

**still called joules

***not me, for now

Thanks. He really went out of his way to mock me. Yes, I should not have called thermal energy "heat", in the same way people shouldn't technically call x kg a weight but a mass. That doesn't mean those people don't know the difference between mass and force, just like I damn well know the difference between heat as a transfer of energy, and thermal energy. I acknowledged that in this thread and just explained he should also explain what the game does get wrong because the game does not care about the law of conservation of energy. Then he starts another debacle. I do want to apologize for my part in this; I shouldn't have been dragged into it.

For the record, I think NASA has a good explanation in real life and which IS applicable to ONI (I'd stay very careful though): https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/traveling-to-the-sun-why-won-t-parker-solar-probe-melt

Everything you said is true for the game, just so you know. The discussion was about the thermal energy of polluted water and co2 of a petroleum generator bring into the game. Of course that can actually cool down stuff, or heat it up. If the average thermal energy held by the objects drops, the temperature will drop. You still have to involve it though when talking about heat or cold.

[thejams]

43 minutes ago, SakuraKoi said:

Welp, I guess every forum has that kind of toxicity the bigger it gets. Opening an extra thread to mock someone, it should be obvious how immature, childish and malicious this is yet...

 

30 minutes ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Thanks. He really went out of his way to mock me...

Well it was never my intention to mock you and I do apologize if mu initial post came in as such.  I did try to make it solely about ingame mechanics and pointing where you are wrong without ever going into any previous discussion we had.

My goal was explaining with clear in-game examples why Thermal energy does not equate Heat, but I obviously failed miserably as this thread is still going into how there is "total Heat" of an object, or the world even.  That is just simply not a correct view, both in-game and in real life.

43 minutes ago, SakuraKoi said:

by the by, the debug tool can perfectly* measure how much mass, DTU** and how much on average there are in a selected field. Somebody eager*** can test with that which complex interactions/processes increase or decrease the DTU of the world under which circumstances (and when it is balanced).

There is no magic there - all heat energy transfer in ONI adheres to the same very simple physics formula (save for rounding errors), and pretty much all heat interactions in the game can be predicted with great accuracy by calculations.

[PhailRaptor]

33 minutes ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Thanks. He really went out of his way to mock me.

This is entirely true and totally uncalled for, but at the same time you are not blameless in this.  You continued to engage and argue with someone who you knew was out to get you for a whole page here, and who knows how long wherever this started.  You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

7 minutes ago, thejams said:

Well it was never my intention to mock you and I do apologize if mu initial post came in as such.  I did try to make it solely about ingame mechanics and pointing where you are wrong without ever going into any previous discussion we had.

You called out another individual by name, twice, in a long-winded post where you described in an extremely condescending manner the very basic premise of heat mechanics in the game.  You then went on, at length, to explain why this person was wrong.

Frankly, your ruse is pathetic.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

17 minutes ago, thejams said:

 

Well it was never my intention to mock you and I do apologize if mu initial post came in as such.  I did try to make it solely about ingame mechanics and pointing where you are wrong without ever going into any previous discussion we had.

My goal was explaining with clear in-game examples why Thermal energy does not equate Heat, but I obviously failed miserably as this thread is still going into how there is "total Heat" of an object, or the world even.  That is just simply not correct a correct view, both in-game and in real life.

There is no magic there - all heat energy transfer in ONI adheres to the same very simple physics formula (save for rounding errors), and pretty much all heat interactions in the game can be predicted with great accuracy by calculations.

Ok. my apologies again. And yes, I was wrong about the heat capacity as well (I just wanted the discussion to end). Let's just shake hands and next time try communicate in better fashion, me and you. Let's get some anti-toxins poured into the thread!

This also the thing about the concept of heat: everybody probably uses the wrong term, but everybody is also right about the underlying concept that is meant.

(For the record, ONI does use magic. Let me take an other example that's more black 'n white: the water sieve outputting water at a fixed 40°C no matter if the input polluted water is -20°C or 90°C.)

7 minutes ago, PhailRaptor said:

This is entirely true and totally uncalled for, but at the same time you are not blameless in this.  You continued to engage and argue with someone who you knew was out to get you for a whole page here, and who knows how long wherever this started.  You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

You called out another individual by name, twice, in a long-winded post where you described in an extremely condescending manner the very basic premise of heat mechanics in the game.  You then went on, at length, to explain why this person was wrong.

Frankly, your ruse is pathetic.

I know. I was wrong too, Again, let's turn back to the essence and make something positive out of this. No need to call him pathetic; let's all get along again.

@moderators: please don't close this topic. Let us work out our own problems. I'm saying this because an other topic got closed after the personal issues were already worked out.

[thejams]

23 minutes ago, PhailRaptor said:

You called out another individual by name, twice, in a long-winded post where you described in an extremely condescending manner the very basic premise of heat mechanics in the game.  You then went on, at length, to explain why this person was wrong.

Frankly, your ruse is pathetic.

And I thought I wrote a pretty nice essay on understanding heat for a misconception that I encountered multiple times recently.

I guess I need to work on my social skills as well 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

3 hours ago, thejams said:

So we introduce (create) 500g of CO2 into this system at 0°C (273,15°K).  If what @ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said is true, we have added 114 kDTU to the system, but as we have added colder CO2, we have actually reduced the temperature of the system.  How can it be that if we're adding heat, the system actually gets colder?

 

Just going to steer the topic back to the content. I'm probably going to make a mistake here with my explanation here, do feel free to correct me, but heat and cold are merely 2 sides of the spectrum of the concept of heat transfer. Of course 114kDTU can cool or heat depending on the surroundings. We should try to factor it in regardless.

We do need to set a few constant variables else we will get nowhere. Specifically:

-The generator's temperature

-The room base temperature and size (assume it is perfectly insulated)

-The petroleum's temperature that's being put into the generator (assume also when it moves to the generator it is not transferring heat)

-How we deal with the polluted water and carbon dioxide

[crypticorb]

2 hours ago, SakuraKoi said:

Electrical Energy and Thermal Energy/DTU are unre(eeeeeee)lated.

Made me chuckle with this.

I agree that this thread started out a mess, and your post cleared up a lot of the confusion.

2 hours ago, SakuraKoi said:

Conservation of Mass and Energy is not part of ONIs objectives and only implemented if it suits the balance, like in case of Electrolyzers 112 and 888 split which perfectly mirrors at least how much mass two H/one O in H2O have.

One problem where ONI breaks with real physics and conservation of mass and energy in a BIG way is found right from the first cycle: digging. You literally lose 50% of the mass, and thus all that (potential?)thermal energy contained in that mass.

I'm a network engineer, not a physicist. I love optimizing systems, but sometimes ONI make me brain hurt ow.

[thejams]

1 hour ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Just going to steer the topic back to the content. I'm probably going to make a mistake here with my explanation here, do feel free to correct me, but heat and cold are merely 2 sides of the spectrum of the concept of heat transfer. Of course 114kDTU can cool or heat depending on the surroundings. We should try to factor it in regardless...

Don't look at the generator operation as inherently adding or removing heat with the surroundings outside of it's 20 kDTU/s operating heat and whatever little heat is transferred from it's contents (which is exactly what happens in a perfectly insulated room).  

Look at the material delivery and output capture as separate processes and calculate the Heat transfer for each accordingly. 

For example, if you use the petroleum before delivery to capture heat from an aqua tuner, that is how much heat you are taking out of the system.  If you cool down the polluted water created, then you add heat to the system.

51 minutes ago, crypticorb said:

One problem where ONI breaks with real physics and conservation of mass and energy in a BIG way is found right from the first cycle: digging. You literally lose 50% of the mass, and thus all that (potential?)thermal energy contained in that mass.

As I said, I like to think of ONI as not being an isolated system, but rather interacting with an "outside" world.  Geysers bring matter from that world and digging sends matter to that world.  So we can ignore this outside interference and keep sanity   

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

38 minutes ago, thejams said:

Don't look at the generator operation as inherently adding or removing heat with the surroundings outside of it's 20 kDTU/s operating heat and whatever little heat is transferred from it's contents (which is exactly what happens in a perfectly insulated room).  

Look at the material delivery and output capture as separate processes and calculate the Heat transfer for each accordingly. 

For example, if you use the petroleum before delivery to capture heat from an aqua tuner, that is how much heat you are taking out of the system.  If you cool down the polluted water created, then you add heat to the system.

As I said, I like to think of ONI as not being an isolated system, but rather interacting with an "outside" world.  Geysers bring matter from that world and digging sends matter to that world.  So we can ignore this outside interference and keep sanity   

Yes, that's why I mentioned to use a constant for the petroleum input. That constant can be determined on how much you want to heat the petroleum. Say we abritrarily decide that at 270°C you pump away the petroleum (the overheat temperature of a steel liquid pump is 275°C). So until that point you can heat the petroleum. Then we do need to set the original temperature of the petroleum as well to calculate how much DTU ultimately gets deleted by the generator. It's important to know this if you want to know how much "heat deletion" is going on.

I don't necessarily agree to look at input and output as separate processes, although I understand that is much simpler, for the sole reason putting the petroleum into the generator will cause those output to be made. Of course output temperature is not dependent on the input, but on the generator itself. And whether it heats, cools or does neither depends on how you use it. But let's go with excluding it for now because why not, we can always see what to do with it afterwards. But in a fully insulated room the output will interact with the 20 kDTU and can provide cooling (to think of it, heating is not possible because the outputs come out at the same temperature as the generator, with the generator heating up due the 20 kDTU). Of course, because that heat is insulated, it will only apply on the devices inside the insulated room and not the world.

[SakuraKoi]

We can actually skip the practical portion since all is already known.

• PGenerator produces 20kDTU
• PG produces 750g Polluted Water
• PG produces 500g CO2
• PG needs 2000g Petroleum
• Output Temperature=PG Temperature, not Petroleum Temperature

So, if PG and Petroleum are both 20°C

• Input: 1,76*2.000*293,15=1.031.888

• Output: 0,846*500*293,15+4,179*750*293,15+20.000=1.062.807

• Difference +31kDTU

120°C / 293,15K

• 1.383.888 vs 1.418.532 = +35kDTU

1K

• 3.520 vs 23.557 = +20.037 DTU 

773.15K (500°C)!

• 2.721.488 vs 2.770.287 =49kDTU

Er.. strike the last ones since pwater would only be near -20 or 120°C and neither ice nor steam, same applies to having no liquid (or plasma) CO2~

 

Now, what if Petroleum is actually hotter? Way hotter?

If you keep the Generator cool, to 20°C yet the Petroleum is 120°C (should be doable with insulated pipes and plenty of Wheezeworth, even if not, it does not matter), one can infer from the results above that one reduces the DTU by -321.081 DTU (per second of operation). Those DTU are gone forever. If the Petroleum is borderline cookin', then one can expect like 1.7mDTU/s to be done and gone.

[qda]

7 hours ago, thejams said:

So we introduce (create) 500g of CO2 into this system at 0°C (273,15°K).  If what @ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said is true, we have added 114 kDTU to the system, but as we have added colder CO2, we have actually reduced the temperature of the system.  How can it be that if we're adding heat, the system actually gets colder?

I'm really sorry, but after this last sentence, the rest can be forgotten, just a truckload of nonsense mixed up with a few somewhat true facts.

7 hours ago, thejams said:

So who's to say if the oil created actually added or removed heat from the world?

First, you can't delete thermal energy (or, as it is called plain and simply, heat) IRL, you can just move it. In ONI, there are some systems which actually delete heat, which could be interepreted as "something went wrong" in this kind of physics simulator, but anyway, this is still a game and people shouldn't really bother. However, I can understand people being bothered when a system deletes heat AND consequently makes some aspects of the game broken.

7 hours ago, thejams said:

So with this in mind, it helps retain one's sanity if you only only observe heat as it is defined in Physics - the transfer of energy and go from there when trying to understand heat in ONI.

Just to be clear, "as it is defined in physics", heat is an energy, not a transfer of energy, which are two rather different concepts. Being as smart as you are, you could have guessed it simply by the fact that the unit with which one measures heat, is the Joule (used also, for example, in electricity), the universal unit for measuring an amount of energy, and not an amount of energy transferred.

And finally :

- Q: Why does the temperature decrease when I do add heat to my system ?

- A: Because you not only added heat, but also mass.

No need for anything more complicated than that.

So please, I'm kindly asking, could you in the future refrain from reading staring at a Wikipedia article and then copy paste stuff you barely understood (and I'm being gentle) and act all-knowing ?

Thank you.

5 hours ago, SakuraKoi said:

Electrical Energy and Thermal Energy/DTU are unre(eeeeeee)lated.

Works for ONI only, and I'm not even sure that's true.

4 hours ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Just going to steer the topic back to the content. I'm probably going to make a mistake here with my explanation here, do feel free to correct me, but heat and cold are merely 2 sides of the spectrum of the concept of heat transfer.

Cold is nothingness, it is the absence of thermal energy, just as darkness is the absence of visible light. So this is only about energy, an actual quantity of energy. Not to be mixed up with concepts such as "being colder/hotter than", by which someone always refer to the temperature, and thus are purely contextual to your environment and yourself, in general the systems you observe.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

12 minutes ago, qda said:

Cold is nothingness, it is the absence of thermal energy, just as darkness is the absence of visible light. So this is only about energy a quantity of energy. Not to be mixed up with concepts such as "being colder/hotter than", by which someone always refer to the temperature, and thus are purely contextual to your environment and yourself, in general the systems you observe.

Yes, that is correct. It is contextual. I think regarding a petroleum generator, in the game, we'd probably be defining cold and heat  vs a workable range for the generator.

[qda]

6 hours ago, thejams said:

Heat capacity = Heat capacity or thermal capacity is a measurable physical quantity equal to the ratio of the heat added to (or removed from) an object to the resulting temperature change.

Try again.

Never used, both in ONI and in real life. But hey, thanks for the enlightenment.

4 hours ago, thejams said:

And I thought I wrote a pretty nice essay on understanding heat for a misconception that I encountered multiple times recently.

I guess I need to work on my social skills as well 

Focus on science first, a physics high school teacher would laugh at what you wrote.