H2O to PH2O?

[Mariilyn]

On 11/26/2018 at 4:33 AM, JDL said:

Petroleum: 1.2kg polluted water per kg of petroleum

Natural Gas: 2.75kg polluted water per kg of natural gas

But a third of the mass is lost during the conversion from sour gas to natural gas (converted into sulfur), therefore 1kg of petroleum would be transformed into 0,67kg of natural gas and generate 1,06kg of polluted water. (Did you mixed the carbon dioxide and pwater output of the natural gas generator? Because that's the only way I can get to that 2,75kg amount. The outputs are 22,5g/s carbon dioxide and 67,5g/s pwater). The net gain would be 150kg per cycle for oil to petroleum cooking and 400kg per cycle for oil to methane.

[Iriswaters]

14 minutes ago, Mariilyn said:

But a third of the mass is lost during the conversion from sour gas to natural gas (converted into sulfur), therefore 1kg of petroleum would be transformed into 0,67kg of natural gas and generate 1,06kg of polluted water. (Did you mixed the carbon dioxide and pwater output of the natural gas generator? Because that's the only way I can get to that 2,75kg amount. The outputs are 22,5g/s carbon dioxide and 67,5g/s pwater). The net gain would be 150kg per cycle for oil to petroleum cooking and 400kg per cycle for oil to methane.

Are you sure a full 1/3 is lost?  It seems much, much less than that is lost.  My estimate is more around 10% loss.

[JDL]

32 minutes ago, Mariilyn said:

But a third of the mass is lost during the conversion from sour gas to natural gas (converted into sulfur), therefore 1kg of petroleum would be transformed into 0,67kg of natural gas and generate 1,06kg of polluted water. (Did you mixed the carbon dioxide and pwater output of the natural gas generator? Because that's the only way I can get to that 2,75kg amount. The outputs are 22,5g/s carbon dioxide and 67,5g/s pwater). The net gain would be 150kg per cycle for oil to petroleum cooking and 400kg per cycle for oil to methane.

That's useful to know! Is this ratio confirmed? I can't find documentation on the wiki or testing on the forum, but someone else might know more.

Also, yes, my calculations assume 100% conversion of carbon dioxide to polluted water via carbon skimmers to get an equivalent output between the two systems.

[avc15]

On 11/26/2018 at 2:44 AM, Iriswaters said:

Getting oil up to 400C but not 540C without using thermium is a major pain, cooking methane is actually a bit easier are that point. 

You don't have to use temperature sensors at all for a petrol cooker design. My favorite way is to use pressure detectors and the fact that petroleum has lower per-tile density than oil. (in other words, pressure goes down when the phase change happens)

It's a bit tricky to get right because during the "boiling" you can wind up with a partial tile of oil left over that gives you a false positive. But fiddle with your sensors and logic just a little bit to work out the kinks.

[Mariilyn]

1 hour ago, Iriswaters said:

Are you sure a full 1/3 is lost?  It seems much, much less than that is lost.  My estimate is more around 10% loss.

40 minutes ago, JDL said:

That's useful to know! Is this ratio confirmed?

I'm unsure but I haven't seen any indication it has been changed since it was introduced.

Edit : But I opened the game and did a quick test and yes.

 

[Iriswaters]

Hmm.   Fascinating.   Well, that's good to know. 

2 hours ago, Mariilyn said:

 The net gain would be 150kg per cycle for oil to petroleum cooking and 400kg per cycle for oil to methane.

400kg? 
600kg in, 2000kg oil out.  Lose 1/3 to sulfur exchange and 1/3 again to natural gas generator(gives off 1/3 CO2, 2/3 PW).   I get a net gain of only 288.8 kg/c

(2000*2/3*2/3) = 888.888.  

[JDL]

Don't forget to convert the natural gas generator carbon dioxide output to polluted water via carbon skimmers in the calculation of polluted water return from oil.

[Mariilyn]

19 minutes ago, Iriswaters said:

400kg? 
600kg in, 2000kg oil out.  Lose 1/3 to sulfur exchange and 1/3 again to natural gas generator(gives off 1/3 CO2, 2/3 PW).   I get a net gain of only 288.8 kg/c

(2000*2/3*2/3) = 888.888.  

The natural gas generator gives off 1/4 CO2 and 3/4 PW, so the right calculation would be (2000kg/c*2/3*3/4) = 1000kg/c instead

[Iriswaters]

43 minutes ago, JDL said:

Don't forget to convert the natural gas generator carbon dioxide output to polluted water via carbon skimmers in the calculation of polluted water return from oil.

That isn't included on the -net- output.   It is included for the purposes of the OP(conversion of clean to polluted), but carbon skimmers have 0 net water production.

4 minutes ago, Mariilyn said:

The natural gas generator gives off 1/4 CO2 and 3/4 PW, so the right calculation would be (2000kg/c*2/3*3/4) = 1000kg/c instead

Ah.   Huh.   I have no idea why I had that wrong.   Ok, well, thanks for your patience, this has been enlightening.

600kg of water makes 2000 kg of oil, which is 1333kg of gas, which cooks to 1000kg of PW and 333kg of CO2, which converts another 1111kg water into PW.
So 1711 water becomes 2111 PW.  
I think.   Lol.

[Nickerooni]

On 11/14/2018 at 10:37 AM, Soulwind said:

There used to be a way that you could pass clean water through polluted water and convert the clean into more polluted. 

As far as I know,  that method of conversion has been removed. 

Is there any remaining method of converting clean water into polluted water in a large scale manner?

Other than generator, distillery,  or carbon skimmer (all of which are either too small of amounts or use up other resources)?

An algae terrarium produces 290 g/s PH2O from 300 g/s water. And, 30g/s algae is easy to come by. That’s as much as 15 natural gas generatirs

[JDL]

1 hour ago, Iriswaters said:

That isn't included on the -net- output.   It is included for the purposes of the OP(conversion of clean to polluted), but carbon skimmers have 0 net water production.

But if you're calculating how much polluted water is produced per unit of oil, it's important to consider the carbon dioxide production as a source of polluted water. It might not create a net surplus of water, but we're more interested in the volume of polluted water potential per oil unit anyhow, not water loss.

Assuming you intend to use polluted water as a source of polluted dirt, the net water required for the carbon skimmers is neutral in the equation anyhow, since at some point you'd simply be cycling the exact same amount of water in a loop after dirt extraction.If you're feeding it to your farms with the polluted water instead, then simply note the loss of water from the equation.

So long as you don't make the mistake of forgetting to note the water loss if you're planning to build a device out of the conversion, it should be fine to include converted carbon dioxide as a polluted water source when calculating generator output.

[Iriswaters]

56 minutes ago, JDL said:

But if you're calculating how much polluted water is produced per unit of oil, it's important to consider the carbon dioxide production as a source of polluted water. It might not create a net surplus of water, but we're more interested in the volume of polluted water potential per oil unit anyhow, not water loss.

In that case the number is 2.111/2.     Or ~1.06.   Because 2000kg/c oil makes 2111kg PW.

 

Interesting.  So in terms of PW production, thanks to the loss from sulfur and the lower ratio of CO2 production, petroleum cooking is the better bet.  It gives a LOT less power, and less net water production(important if you don't have much on your map), but for pure PW it's the way to go.

1 hour ago, Nickerooni said:

An algae terrarium produces 290 g/s PH2O from 300 g/s water. And, 30g/s algae is easy to come by. That’s as much as 15 natural gas generatirs

One natural gas generator creates 67.5 g/s PW, plus 22.5 CO2, which produces another 75 g/s PW.   Even just going from the direct production that's only 4.3x.   Including the CO2 skimmers it's about double.   And has an input of algae which is actually quite a pain to produce sustainably, since that involves pufts which involves using PO2.  Which unless you have a supply(like a PO2 vent) generally requires the expenditure of PW to produce.    That 30 g/s algae costs at least  120 g/s PW, assuming a lossless cycle(180 PW vents PO2 at 1:1, puft converts to slime at 2:1 for 90, distiller converts to algae and PW, 30 algae and 60 PW back into the system).  And requires some 3.6 pufts to do it.

It can be done, and it is certainly easier to set up than oil wells and cookers and etc, but managing pufts and algae terrariums and etc requires dupe activity, and lots of micromanagement, whereas NG is pretty fire and forget.

Or you can use morbs, but morbs are blech.

[Carnis]

On 26.11.2018 at 11:44 AM, Iriswaters said:

Fair enough. I find myself generally just leaning toward methane cooking in any situation where I feel a need for more fuel than petroleum refineries offer.  Getting oil up to 400C but not 540C without using thermium is a major pain, cooking methane is actually a bit easier are that point.  And once you have thermium they are both fairly easy.  Petrol definitely easier, but not so much easier that it matters.  To get thermium you have to build all manner of dealing-with-space nonsense, and a methane cooker is really easier than all that rigamarol

@Iriswaters here you discuss methane cooking.

Impyre says its easy.

I Ask For pics of methane cooking.

@impyre links petroleum cooking.

*

Please don't tell me what I asked?

[Iriswaters]

No, Impyre says petroleum cooking, without space materials, using magma to cook the petroleum and NOT going to sour gas is easy.  
ie: Me: " ...Getting oil up to 400C but not 540C without using thermium is a major pain... "  

Impyre "...No it's easy..."

You responded to that in particular asking for pics.   It may not be what you wanted, but it is what you asked for.

Go back and read the post you quoted saying 'pics?'

[Carnis]

16 minutes ago, Carnis said:

  On 26.11.2018 at 11:44 AM, Iriswaters said:

Fair enough. I find myself generally just leaning toward methane cooking in any situation

Read bolded txt.

[impyre]

@Carnis @Iriswaters

It's possible there was some misunderstanding.

Iriswaters and I were on the same page as far as I understand it. Iriswaters said methane was easier than petrol due to temperatures and material limitations. I said petrol wasn't all that difficult. All you said was "pics?". Unfortunately it was entirely unclear what or who you were referring to, although since you quoted me (and I was saying that petrol cooking was doable), I assumed you were asking for pics of my petrol setup. I think perhaps I misunderstood you and you misunderstood me. That makes it doubly fun lol. In any case, I've never used a methane system... I tried once but the cooling was difficult for me to get down... so no pics there.

 

 

[Iriswaters]

16 hours ago, Carnis said:

Read bolded txt.

But you didn't respond to that though.   You quoted impyre saying petrol was easy.  I know that -I- was talking about methane, and if you had quoted me talking about methane in your request, we'd have known you were asking about methane.   But you didn't.   

Shrug.   And yeah, this has gotten a bit silly.   A misunderstanding.  Let's have it done.

[cpy]

How to cook oil? Aqua tuner? Anyone have good setup? I don't have any volcano and using lava from bottom seems like a bad idea.

[JDL]

28 minutes ago, cpy said:

How to cook oil? Aqua tuner? Anyone have good setup? I don't have any volcano and using lava from bottom seems like a bad idea.

From the first page:

On 11/27/2018 at 4:57 AM, impyre said:

  Reveal hidden contents

@Carnis

Temperature is maintained by controlling the amount of oxygen in the lower part. There's an access tube that runs over to a cooled room with a gas pump, vent, and atmo sensor. Right now it's set to 500 grams of oxygen per tile. The metal blocks are steel, and the temp-shift plates are diamond. I think I can make this more compact, but I haven't bothered. This processes one oil well continuously. The petroleum drops into a cooling tube, where I cool it before pumping it off to the storage area. The more oxygen in the lower area, the faster heat can be transferred, and the higher the throughput.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot. The upper channel, the one that seems useless filled with petroleum... the reason I had to build it was because for some reason when oil changes to petroleum, it occasionally likes to teleport through the tile directly above it. It was flooding my hallway with hot petroleum constantly, so I built this channel to redirect it. I had to raise the whole floor. It wasn't a pressure problem, as you can see above, the selected tile only has 17kg of petroleum in it.

Edit2: over the last 180 cycles or so, (since I built it) I've processed about 364 tons of petroleum in this installation. Most of it is stored in a large tank, but I like using it as a coolant too. The magma is still good... I estimate another 250 cycles or so before I have to consider moving it.

Have fun!

[cpy]

I don't have lava

I only have limited supply of bottom hellpit.

[Neotuck]

8 minutes ago, cpy said:

I don't have lava

I only have limited supply of bottom hellpit.

You'll have to wait untill you get advanced materials from space industry then use an aquatuner

[cpy]

Already have those! Time to spend some thermium.

[Iriswaters]

The concept impyre discussed was using the magma at the bottom of the map, I believe.