Use for hot steam vents?

[Oozinator]

51 minutes ago, AndreyKl said:

There is no such thing as useless water ..

And why i started freezing my excess water and transport it into space biome, to evaporate?
As soon as pet gens used, there is no "not enough" water..

[GemeinerJack]

8 hours ago, Hellshound38 said:

Challenge Accepted.....

 

Ill see you in 40 cycles to see how this works out............ maybe

......

 

 

:Edit:: The funniest part of this I was trying to do the math and I think this thing makes enough water for 1 Bristle.....

but I think with the specific heat of steam being higher then hydrogen, and the total heat of 400 degrees vs 10 with this ****ty output to condense is actually less total heat.... this might work.... The question is will this setup (the layer of water + the gas already inside), allow the wheeze to not overheat before it condenses all the steam....

i would put them in a extraroom seperated with row of metal tiles, a row of doors and another metal tile row and with some automation to prevent them from overheating (temp sensor in wheezroom with "below 80°C") so the doors open and cut off the heat source, just to be save then sorry

[Hellshound38]

Left it on overnight, 300-400 ish cycles.... worked fine

[psusi]

16 minutes ago, Hellshound38 said:

 

Left it on overnight, 300-400 ish cycles.... worked fine

Is that polluted oxygen I see in there?  With the amount of steam being that small and other gas in the room, it probably won't overheat the wheezies, but there's a bug if you leave other gas in the room, the steam tends to transform into those other gasses and build up crazy pressure over time.  Though that's probably slow enough with that little amount of steam that you don't have to worry about it for for 1000 cycles.

[AndreyKl]

53 minutes ago, Oozinator said:

As soon as pet gens used, there is no "not enough" water..

Have you tried hydrogen rockets? Two hours of non-SPOM elecrolyzer work for full tank.

You certainly can make pet-gens make more and more water, but you similarly can make more and more rockets.

[Oozinator]

Just now, AndreyKl said:

Have you tried hydrogen rockets? Two hours of non-SPOM elecrolyzer work for full tank.

Tried yes, but because of lategamelag only used twice and it was not a real problem, had stll excess water.
I had two water geysers one slush and one untouched water geyser on my map.
Map gen is random and perhaps i was lucky but last two plays i had no water problem, when switched to pet gen / oil well..

[Jumpp]

It does seem to take an awful long time to fuel my rockets. I see people automating rockets, but I'm wondering: Are people mostly playing toward a late-game in which rockets are running continuously to keep the base alive? Or are they (like me) mostly playing toward an end state where the rockets fall silent after bringing home the exotic materials necessary to build a perfectly sustainable base? (I haven't ever gotten there. I speculate that it's possible, and I speculate that the exotic stuff you can bring back from space make it easier, but I don't know that either is true.)

[Zarquan]

8 hours ago, suicide commando said:

@Zarquan I consider the CO2 geyser more useful as you can just let that go down into your oil biome for your slicksters to eat. no need for much in the way of industry for that, unless it's somewhere at the top.

 

Slickters?  Plural?  One CO2 geyser gives, on average, 17 g/s CO2 (when I last checked).  That is about 10 kg/cycle, or about half of a slickster's needs.

[psusi]

1 hour ago, Zarquan said:

Slickters?  Plural?  One CO2 geyser gives, on average, 17 g/s CO2 (when I last checked).  That is about 10 kg/cycle, or about half of a slickster's needs.

Holy crap.  Did someone misplace a decimal point when configuring CO2 geysers?

[crypticorb]

6 hours ago, Iriswaters said:

They have far more energy than a volcano, due to the longer erupt period and higher SHC. 

Nope, and here's some math to prove it. The units for SHC are DTU/g/^oC, and when worked into the equation for g/s output, it's just DTU/s, or just DTU added.

All metal volcanoes output about 350g/s averaged over the dormancy and idle/active periods. Minor/Major volcanoes output average of 500g/s and 1000g/s respectively, and hot steam vent average over the entire dormancy/activity period is about 50g/s.

• Gold: SHC of 0.129 at 2629.9^oC, which totals to 118.7kDTU/s, a fairly low amount.
• Copper: SHC of 0.386 at 2226.9^oC, which totals to 300.9kDTU/s, now we're talking.
• Iron: SHC of 0.449 at 2526.9^oC, which comes out to 397.1kDTU/s, that's a bit better.
• Volcano: SHC of 0.2 at 1726.9^oC, which totals to  345.4kDTU/s, not quite as good as an iron volcano
• Minor volcano: same as major volcano, but half the output, at 172.7kDTU/s, barely better than gold volcano
• EDIT: Corrected numbers for volcanoes with 1.0 for the SHC of magma: 1,726.9kDTU/s and 863.5kDTU/s, which is FAR more than any other vent or volcano by a factor of 1000.
• Hot steam vent: SHC of 4.179 at 500^oC, but at only 50g/s it totals to 104.5kDTU/s, which is slightly worse than a gold volcano.

If you had to pick a volcano to harness, choose an iron, copper, or major volcano, and sink the heat to the turbine with a heat exchanger. The other big component of why a hot steam vent is worthless for energy harnessing is because the steam vent has to be isolated and steam pumped away from it, to keep from overpressurizing, whereas volcanoes don't have this problem, you can simply use auto-sweepers and robo-miners to clear waste material away as it cools. If you use an iron volcano, you can even get free metal from the setup.

 

Some additional numbers for fun, hydrogen vents output only 32.4kDTU/s for an average of 27g/s, which makes them easy to cool and harness for free hydrogen. Hot CO2 geysers are even easier, at only 12.6kDTU/s, and hot PO2 vents add 50.5kDTU/s.

[Zarquan]

35 minutes ago, crypticorb said:

Nope, and here's some math to prove it. The units for SHC are DTU/g/^oC, and when worked into the equation for g/s output, it's just DTU/s, or just DTU added.

All metal volcanoes output about 350g/s averaged over the dormancy and idle/active periods. Minor/Major volcanoes output average of 500g/s and 1000g/s respectively, and hot steam vent average over the entire dormancy/activity period is about 50g/s.

• Gold: SHC of 0.129 at 2629.9^oC, which totals to 118.7kDTU/s, a fairly low amount.
• Copper: SHC of 0.386 at 2226.9^oC, which totals to 300.9kDTU/s, now we're talking.
• Iron: SHC of 0.449 at 2526.9^oC, which comes out to 397.1kDTU/s, that's a bit better.
• Volcano: SHC of 0.2 at 1726.9^oC, which totals to  345.4kDTU/s, not quite as good as an iron volcano
• Minor volcano: same as major volcano, but half the output, at 172.7kDTU/s, barely better than gold volcano
• Hot steam vent: SHC of 4.179 at 500^oC, but at only 50g/s it totals to 104.5kDTU/s, which is slightly worse than a gold volcano.

If you had to pick a volcano to harness, choose an iron, copper, or major volcano, and sink the heat to the turbine with a heat exchanger. The other big component of why a hot steam vent is worthless for energy harnessing is because the steam vent has to be isolated and steam pumped away from it, to keep from overpressurizing, whereas volcanoes don't have this problem, you can simply use auto-sweepers and robo-miners to clear waste material away as it cools. If you use an iron volcano, you can even get free metal from the setup.

 

Some additional numbers for fun, hydrogen vents output only 32.4kDTU/s for an average of 27g/s, which makes them easy to cool and harness for free hydrogen. Hot CO2 geysers are even easier, at only 12.6kDTU/s, and hot PO2 vents add 50.5kDTU/s.

What temperature are you cooling the stuff to?  It looks like you are cooling all outputs to 0 C.

42 minutes ago, psusi said:

Holy crap.  Did someone misplace a decimal point when configuring CO2 geysers?

I feel that a lot of the geysers are far too weak, it's not just the CO2 geyser.  I should point out the CO2 vent is a bit better at 27 g/s, which is almost enough for a single slickster!  Wow!

I personally don't like that if I get a CO2 geyser, that is essentially a wasted geyser slot.  It could have been a water geyser or a slush geyser.

I think the geysers that are currently weak should receive a major buff, maybe be made 50x times better.  If they did this and kept the current system, the geysers would all be pretty good and encourage different playstyles to adapt to the resources you have and make it so that maps aren't essentially doomed from the start.

There should be a guarantee that you get a certain number of good geysers.  Or maybe we get one of each geyser (my favorite option, I feel RNG on that level should be avoided). 

[crypticorb]

1 minute ago, Zarquan said:

What temperature are you cooling the stuff to?  It looks like you are cooling all outputs to 0 C.

Not cooling at all, just calculating the amount of thermal energy added into the game from a given input material type, mass, and temperature.

Assuming I did the math correctly, the thermal formula for calculating thermal energy added (Q=mass*SHC*temperature) is the same as the thermal energy transfer equation (Q = mass*SHC*[T2-T1]), but since we aren't transferring heat, just adding it, the delta T part of the formula is simply the temperature of the volcanoes output.

[Zarquan]

8 minutes ago, crypticorb said:

Not cooling at all, just calculating the amount of thermal energy added into the game from a given input material type, mass, and temperature.

Assuming I did the math correctly, the thermal formula for calculating thermal energy added (Q=mass*SHC*temperature) is the same as the thermal energy transfer equation (Q = mass*SHC*[T2-T1]), but since we aren't transferring heat, just adding it, the delta T part of the formula is simply the temperature of the volcanoes output.

The delta-T is the change in temperature.  That means that there is a temperature that is changing from one value to another.  It looks like your Tf is 0C (or 273.2 K (in ONI, absolute 0 is -273.s C)) and the Ti was the temperature the geyser emitted.

[crypticorb]

3 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

The delta-C is the change in temperature.  That means that there is a temperature that is changing from one value to another.  It looks like your Tf is 0C (or 273.2 K (in ONI, absolute 0 is -273.s C)) and the Ti was the temperature the geyser emitted.

Hmmm... sure? It's irrelevant, because the formula would still work the same.

Q = m*c*(Tf - Ti) is the same as Q = m*c*T if one of the values is ==0, but logically since we cannot get a negative change when adding material, so |Q| = m*c*(Tf - Ti) would be more accurate.

I'm not sure if I'm working the formula correctly, or even if it matters, because the original question was "Does a hot steam vent add more energy than a volcano?", and even if the numbers are somewhat off, the ratio comparison is still going to be greatly in the volcanoes favor.

[Nickerooni]

Your calculations for the volcano is way off. Once it turns into igneous rock, the SHC is higher. Also, as other said, the delta T is important. If you’re running a steam turbine, you want the output temp to be ~230. That said, your conclusion is right. Steam vents suck for heat output. Volcanos are the best.

[Ixenzo]

The delta T is irrelevant in a sense that there is no temperature transfer between existing objects, the volcanoes spawn heat out of nowhere. 

[crypticorb]

5 minutes ago, Nickerooni said:

Your calculations for the volcano is way off. Once it turns into igneous rock, the SHC is higher. Also, as other said, the delta T is important. If you’re running a steam turbine, you want the output temp to be ~230. That said, your conclusion is right. Steam vents suck for heat output. Volcanos are the best.

Whoops, you're correct on the volcano calculation. Thanks for pointing out my error.

The SHC of magma and igneous rock are both 1.00, which is WAY higher than I assumed. That would skew the calculations incredibly in favor of a magma volcano by a huge margin, let me recalculate and correct the original post.

[Nitroturtle]

37 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

There should be a guarantee that you get a certain number of good geysers.  Or maybe we get one of each geyser (my favorite option, I feel RNG on that level should be avoided). 

This 100%.  It's not fun putting a significant amount of time into a map, only to find out the geysers are horrible or that an essential one is missing.  That's why I've just resorted to picking seeds beforehand.  I'd prefer if it was random, but there's way too much variation and the possibly to be completely screwed on a certain map.

[Zarquan]

8 minutes ago, Ixenzo said:

The delta T is irrelevant in a sense that there is no temperature transfer between existing objects, the volcanoes spawn heat out of nowhere. 

It's not irrelevant, it is just being applied incorrectly.  When 1 gram of gold appears out of nowhere at around 2000 C, then thermal energy got added is based on Q = m * c * delta-T, as well as any phase change energy (e.g. enthalpy of vaporization), down to a temperature you can reasonably achieve.  The more heat, the more you can do with it.

The point is that the delta-T starts at 2000 C and ends at some other temperature.  The number will be negative, but that just means energy is leaving the gold (or whatever) and heating something else.

[crypticorb]

2 minutes ago, Zarquan said:

It's not irrelevant, it is just being applied incorrectly.  When 1 gram of gold appears out of nowhere at around 2000 C, then thermal energy got added is based on Q = m * c * delta-T, as well as any phase change energy (e.g. enthalpy of vaporization), down to a temperature you can reasonably achieve.  The more heat, the more you can do with it.

If I've applied the equation incorrectly, can you give a demonstration of a correct application? The two most relevant heat sources for the topic are magma volcano (1000g/s average, 1.0 SHC, 1726.9^oC) and the hot steam vent (50g/s average, 4.179 SHC, 500^oC).

I don't think we're actually looking at cooling the material down, as the result of that use of the formula would be how many DTUs it would require to reach that temperature. We're only interested in how much the starting point DTU total is added for the given amount of material per second, to compare energy potential for different vents/geysers.

[Zarquan]

Just now, crypticorb said:

I don't think we're actually looking at cooling the material down, as the result of that use of the formula would be how many DTUs it would require to reach that temperature. We're only interested in how much the starting point DTU total is added for the given amount of material per second, to compare energy potential for different vents/geysers.

Reach that temperature from where though?  0 C?  50 C?  Items have original temperatures.  Also, the math will be identical heating up and cooling down except one would be negative.

21 minutes ago, crypticorb said:

If I've applied the equation incorrectly, can you give a demonstration of a correct application? The two most relevant heat sources for the topic are magma volcano (1000g/s average, 1.0 SHC, 1726.9^oC) and the hot steam vent (50g/s average, 4.179 SHC, 500^oC).

I will do this in a few hours, as I am just getting off my break and need to get back to work.

[Ixenzo]

It doesn't matter what happens to the heat after it's created. If a kilogram of matter with SHC of 1 spawns at 1000C, that's 1 MJ of heat added to the entire system. What do you do with it later is not relevant in this context.

My only point is that the delta T is not relevant in this particular scope and context.

[Hellshound38]

7 hours ago, psusi said:

No, no, no.  That won't work.  The wheeze worts stop working at around 100 C, so direct exposure to the steam will shut them down.  Also when the steam stops and all condenses, your room should be in a vacuum, leaving the wheezies stopped again.  You want to put them in a hydrogen filled room thermally coupled to the steam room via metal tiles.

Have you actually tested it? Because it worked for 400+ cycles before I gave up.

The steam has a higher specific heat of hydrogen making it actually better than hydrogen if you can prevent the weeze overheating, the gas inside was just to mix with the steam to force it condense, and to create a temp buffer after the steam has condensed, (keeping the weeze temp down).

Ideally I should have filled it with small amounts of hydrogen instead of the polluted oxygen I had in the area to work even better but I was tired and this took  1 cycle to build.

There was probably some gas replacement but that is a programming bug I hope is fixed eventually, as long as you don't use TOO much hydrogen it should work as planned.

 

It also only works because of the very low output of this geyser, when i mathed it was like 3.6ish weezes to accomplish this in ideal gas times, I used 4 due to the estimating of the % of time it would be in steam vs the buffer gas. Although my math was with hydrogen and steam not polluted oxygen, so in like 5,000 cycles this would have overheated (oh no).

 

Keep saying it doesn't work... Ill make you a time lapse video  maybe (probably not).

6 hours ago, psusi said:

Is that polluted oxygen I see in there?  With the amount of steam being that small and other gas in the room, it probably won't overheat the wheezies, but there's a bug if you leave other gas in the room, the steam tends to transform into those other gasses and build up crazy pressure over time.  Though that's probably slow enough with that little amount of steam that you don't have to worry about it for for 1000 cycles.

It output like 98% of the expected water (still only enough for 1 damn bristle). So yes there was probably some gas transformation but that really should be fixed and is an independent issue.

 

 

[avc15]

18 hours ago, crypticorb said:

Leave them.

They don't have even a fraction of the potential energy a metal or magma volcano has, and the mass of steam they produce is laughable if you want water.

I'm with this, I always have something more useful to do with the next few cycles than build some system to put away a few kg of steam per cycle.

[psusi]

1 hour ago, Hellshound38 said:

Have you actually tested it? Because it worked for 400+ cycles before I gave up.

I'm not sure why you are responding to this again.  You already did and I conceded that it would work if you leave some gas in the room and given that the output of the hot vent is so dang small.  It won't work with a cool vent though.