DaClown

  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About DaClown

  • Rank
    Junior Member
...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. Due to the nature of running discrete programs on discretely classical machines, the physics of ONI are not like the physics of classical mechanics except as a reasonable approximation in some cases. Classical mechanics relies on notions of continuity, smoothness, and strict consistency of systems of equations. ONI physics can not replicate exactly continuity or smoothness and the consistency of local mechanics with global mechanics is hit and miss in a lot of cases due to the nature of the tractability problems of the ONI programmatic world and the realities of corporate development. As such, ONI's mechanics despite some appearances otherwise are fundamentally discrete and quantized. Some quantities are pseudo-continuous and are represented by floats or doubles in code with precision set by hardware constraints of CPUs and GPUs. Given this reality it is some what perplexing to me that the mathematical physics theories of ONI do not include or identify the quanta of the ONI system. Two of the biggest differences between ONI physics and real world physics is in the space-time of the game world; it is an unknown problem in real world physics as to whether or not space or time are quantized, but in ONI, we have definitive answers to this problem. ONI space-time is quantized, and one of the most basic quanta of the game is the tick which is roughly 0.2 seconds on a standardized machine in real time. The tick is the quantum of time in the ONI universe; this is a really important notion because time underlies mechanics for things like velocity and acceleration and thermal transfer or any force/action mechanics. We know for a fact that space in ONI is also quantized; the most obvious examples is the square grid of the game world tiles, but space is also quantized in many cases in terms of storage or containers. This immediately implies the quantization of velocity in the ONI mechanics as distance/time = velocity. Given that the tick is the minimum unit of time for any given action or transformation of the game state and the tile is the minimum possible distance then the quanta of velocity is the ONI equivalent of the speed of light or the limit of signal speed through tiles; the rough consistency of the ONI system results in significant differences between this quantum of velocity and the real world c in particular with things like circuit networks and power transmission, but the acknowledgement of this fact can facilitate the development of a class or group of such speed limits and experimentally derived quanta. Of tremendous interest to the general community including both devs and players is the notion of the thermodynamics of ONI; Thermal transfer of energy from one body to another is the primary mechanics of the game, but the exact documentable statement of those mechanics in a comprehensive sense has been elusive. I propose that there exists a thermal quantum of energy and there exists a thermal quantum of wattage; these represent the minimum non-zero value of energy that can transfer from one body to another. Also of general interest, ONI's fundamental mechanics do not strictly conserve mass and many other quantities like heat as would be conserved in a closed real world physical system. As such, the first law of ONI thermodynamics concerns some other set of invariants which immediately seem to me to be closely related to ONI space-time mechanics; the identification of what quantities are specifically and strictly consistently conserved across the whole game world at every step of the simulation would be of great interest and use for the player base and the devs.
  2. I've been playing since shortly after Early Access around the Thermal Upgrade. Way back when, the duplication or deletion of liquids over lengths of tiles or configurations of tiles was a known issue. Liquids have had different flow rates compared to recent patches as far as I am aware. So when I am saying "got more viscous over subsequent patches" I am not making a claim about recent patches; I am making a claim relative to my own experience of play testing ONI from near the beginning. Sorry if I was unclear about my quantification there. Also what I mean by viscous here has to do with how many tiles the different fluids will move out before stopping for a given test unit of mass. Water used to I think divide pretty much infinitely in any given direction resulting in significant mass losses. There was also the water duplicators that exploited droplets, so water would variously duplicate to fill a base or split away to nothing.
  3. This is the same mechanic. In this case, you are using moving solids to create a dynamic hollow then sealing the hollow with the outer doors creating a strict confinement condition for the gas or liquids trapped in the hollow. You then close the door on the hollow; the gas or liquid is unable to tunnel through the surrounding solids (in most cases), so the gas or liquid is simply destroyed. I have now seen a mechanism that does the same thing my machine does but with liquids on the ground. So we have three general classes of mass deleting mechanisms which all operate according to strict confinement of the degrees of freedom of some tile type with respect to the adjacent tile types or the emitter/creator type.
  4. The tiles have preference and priority for making valid (dis)placements. Existent tiles displace; they swap positions rather than creating new tiles unless a vacuum tile is present and not bugged. Gases in particular will split mass to fill a vacuum tile. Liquid tiles will displace gas often forcing mergers of gas tiles with other similar gas tiles. Liquid tiles divide their mass as they spread along the ground; usually the mass deletion from this is small, but it becomes very noticeable when slow low mass flows are spread out over long distances, and it seems they have increased the viscosity of fluids over time to reduce how far liquids will tend to spread and how high (compared to when I tested this back before the oil/rocketry updates). When a tile of one type transitions to a tile of another type then a creation event occurs. The usual displacement mechanics are not primary in this case; so water transitioning to steam will end up creating a new tile and that tile will be displaced to the same or adjacent tiles with preference and priority for valid placement of the tile; this often means merging with an existing tile of the material like other tiles of steam. However, if the tile is in a condition of strict confinement or its transition from one phase to another results in the consequent phase being in a state of strict confinement then it is possible at that transformation for the tile to be deleted due to no valid placements. The fact that liquids produce a vacuum tile when transitioning to a gas or gases create a vacuum tile when transitioning to a liquid often means that there are sufficient degrees of freedom in the transformation for the system to avoid most strict confinement conditions that would result in no valid placement of the resulting consequent. This is not statistically ensured; there exists generally conditions in which the vacuum tile can reduce the effective degrees of freedom in race conditions between droplets, gases transitioning to liquids, liquids transitioning to gases, or solids transitioning to liquids. It is compounded in rarefied multi-liquid setups in particular, and in some edge cases for multiple types of rarefied gasses near their phase transition temperature particularly in contact with some heat or cold reservoir depending on the specific configurations. When you have mono-liquids they tend to just stack and stack and stack with the mass of the bottom most tiles increasing first before growing up or out; when you have two or more rarefied liquids mixed with each other then they tend to have different dynamics than liquid-on-solid tiles that tends to spread one or both thin and long. When you add temperature extremes or heat deletion engines to this then you can get very chaotic and rapid vacillation of liquids to their gas states and back resulting in a mix of conditions that make rare events or configuration spaces more frequently occuring Creation and annihilation operators are generally not mass-conserving in this case whereas displacement can be relatively safe.
  5. This one is similar to my hydrogen deleting experiment but in the opposite direction. Process is roughly as follows: Oil is a liquid and denser than steam, so it is below steam and must displace downward relative to it, and steam must displace upward of oil if possible. Vent emits water; the vent must emit if permitted and the condition checked is the pressure of the tile in front of the vent; the oil has insufficient mass to block the vent; therefore, water is emitted into the tile occupied by the oil. The oil must displace because oil and water and steam can not occupy the same space; none of the oil, water, or steam can displace the solid tiles and have insufficient pressure to burst the tile, therefore, the oil must displace to a non-solid adjacent tile. The only valid tile is above the vent and on top of the water; the tile is only valid because it is occupied by a gas with many degrees of freedom. One of four things happens at this point. 1) water transitions to steam. 2) water transitions to a droplet. 2) the vent emits water. 3) oil and steam or water swap via displacement with the oil returning to its starting position. There exists a race condition at this point. In your video specifically, I am pretty sure what happens at the moment of the oil deletion is that there is a nearly invisible layer of water on top of the oil. The vent emits; emission does not itself cause displacement; vent emission is insensitive to displacement conditions of the adjacent tiles; it tries to displace the tile in front of it, but it has no awareness or direct interaction it seems with any of the adjacent tiles. At this point, the oil is in a strictly confined state. There is water above it; there is three solid blocks on its other degrees of freedom. The vent must emit water. The oil can not displace the water above it, so it is simply destroyed and replaced with the emitted water. At 0:19 in the video you can see the race condition manifest between the oil droplet and the water droplet. Droplets while in motion seem unable to phase change, so a droplet of water can potentially fall an unlimited distance without ever transitioning to steam; the droplet has to hit a valid tile to transition to a tile of liquid at which point it can phase change as far as I know. The oil ends up hitting the ground first which rapidly bumps the water droplet up for a split second. Then almost immediately there after the vent emits and the oil is destroyed. Not sure where to put this, but it is relevant that oil must displace downward relative to water and water must displace upward relative to oil. This in effect pushes the oil into the solid tile below the vent which is invalid. The sum total of the invalid conditions by strict confinement of degrees of freedom is the mass deletion condition. The save load issue as far as I can tell is related to inconsistencies in the temperatures of objects that are "preloaded" during the initialization of a save. The deletion we're seeing in the referred video is due to confinement rather than the model inconsistencies introduced by the improper serialization of the save or improper decoding of that serialization into the playable state of the world on load. I've noticed that you can pause during the loading of a save if the save takes long enough to register and queue the input from the keyboard. You can catch the game in a state where it has rendered the world, but it hasn't quite loaded all the properties and set all the values of the different things, and you'll catch things having absurd temperatures during this brief tick. I think there's also something related though I can't recall exactly what it manifests as with the brief creation of vacua during loads; there are I suspect some problems with saves which capture tiles in transition from one state to another particularly when droplets are in mid air. In this case, I suspect what is happening is that the water droplets are being emitted, hitting the oil and becoming tiles, displacing above the oil then spreading out over the length of the top of the oil. if the tiles of water advance less than 10g at a time then the mass of the liquid is deleted. This combines also with the water converting in part to steam. As you might have noticed, tiles of water will partially evaporate. So say the vent emits 1000g of water. The water displaces to one tile on the top of the oil and in a small amount of time 1000g of water becomes 500g of steam; the 500g water tile spreads out to the adjacent tiles resulting in three tiles with 500g/3 mass or 166 2/3 g per tile. Say half the mass of each tile converts to steam, so each tile now has 83g of water. And again, the water spreads out to adjacent tiles result in 41g mass tiles at the end. Half of that evaporates to steam. A more precise treatment of this is possible using the mechanics outlined by @mathmanican in this thread An exact treatment would require explicitly accounting for the flaking mechanics particularly with the current patch's (419840, Summer 2020 patch) changes. Fix partial melting/partial evaporation heat calculations. Energy used should be the energy required, not the difference of what's available Fix solid flaking temperature deletion. Uses the actual energy required for the melt, as well as the SHC of the transition element Fix gas temperature swapping heat loss So 1000 g of water pops straight above the oil. It would be important on the tic where water has formed a tile either under the oil or on top of it whether flaking takes priority over displacement. I'm going to assume the water doesn't start flaking until after displacement, but the measurements would significantly differ based on order of operations, so this is a non-negligible assumption. We get three squares on top of the oil 1 tick after the water forms a tile. They have from left to right, 250g, 562.5g, and 187.5g of water. The steam above them is approximately 180 C and the oil below them is approximately 185 C. 4.179 SHC for water and steam. 1.69 SHC for oil. The primary conduction of thermal energy is from oil to water and the secondary is from steam to water due to liquid to liquid conduction rates vs liquid to gas conduction rates. As long as the water on top of the vent is less than 5Kg then I guess we don't have to worry about flaking; I might run some tests on that? I am aware of an equation that predicts the final temperature of two blocks in thermal contact, but I am unaware of the specific expression for predicting the amount of temperature or energy transferred per tick. We'd need to know the quantum of thermal energy or the quantum of thermal wattage. Te = (HC1 * m1 * Ts1 + HC2 * m2 * Ts2) / (HC1 * m1 + HC2 * m2) You can see by this process we eventually have water tiles where the mass of the water tile is < 10g and the water is perhaps not guaranteed to turn to steam. Now consider the heat deletion implications of mass deletion in this case. The water cools the steam or the oil. If the steam cools enough it turns to water. If the oil cools then it may prevent vent emitted water from heating quickly or it may reduce the temperature of the steam. This means more time for the emitted water to spread out over the top of the oil or potentially more steam condensation to water on top of the oil and spreading out. Now, consider this as a system where you have a wide length across the top of the oil, and you recursively cycle this through a heat deletion engine. The oil is being cooled. Every time water flows into this system some of it is deleted. The more water deleted the more heat deleted. The cooler the oil. The more likely steam is to condensate and delete more mass and more heat. We have a potential death spiral.
  6. That comports with my observations. The cold carbon dioxide packets fail to condensate because they are below the threshold of mass for doing so, but when they collide and briefly form the correct threshold some of the mass appears to be lost as the gas transitions to a small amount of liquid, but the gas mass then falls below the threshold, so the whole packet doesn't quite become enough liquid for the mass to be conserved. This repeats with collisions until a very small remainder of cold gas remains. Near as I can tell little to none of the hot hydrogen gas was lost in the experiment, but I can't say that none was lost; it would be difficult without debug enabled to account for the total mass over that area or to pump it in a way that wouldn't itself be potentially lossy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that Tony's water deleting gas pump is an example more like my first experiment where it is less about the size of the drop of water being put into the system and more about the confinement of drop of liquid such that it must be emitted but it can not form a proper block anywhere in the system, so the gas and the oil droplet end up deleting the water in a flicker displacement. --------------------------------------------- Oh, and the rule about liquid masses under 10g being deleted leads to a very problematic and common situation for liquid deletion. I'd need to test it under current conditions; it seems like fluids have gotten more viscious with subsequent patches, but if you fill a n by m open pool with a liquid and the width, n, of the container is sufficiently large then the way the packets at the front of the fluid divide results in deletions of the fluid. If the flow is insufficient to rapidly bring the front block of fluid to a high enough threshold then over a long enough period of time the pool will fail to fill and the pool will end up deleting the entire mass of fluid pumped into it. This has practical consequences when digging around the map and causing fluids to fall into long corridors. The only saving grace being the possibility of vents/geysers to supply a theoretically infinite quantity of the substance.
  7. A lot of the player base treats these kinds of things as "normal" mechanics, but these "normal" mechanics make a number of systems that should be relatively simple and make them not work or work very counter intuitively with all kinds of patch fixes that would be unnecessary if the systems conserved mass, energy, and other "fundamental" quantities. While I've only specifically tested this with gas, I know with relative certainty that it also effects liquids. Tony Advanced demonstrates this to my satisfaction in this video: I am pretty sure that the combination of mechanisms that result in the deletion of the water also result in the deletion of the hydrogen in my model and results in deletion of small quantities of gases that condensate to their liquid forms in certain conditions. I didn't happen to record the entirety of this experiment, but this room is full of hydrogen in the final state. The room is large in area relative to the gas that I placed at the top and bottom respectively. I put two packets of gas of equal mass, 1Kg. Carbon dioxide on the bottom and Hydrogen at the top. The carbon dioxide is at or below its condensation point; the hydrogen is "hot" enough to not reach near its condensation point. At first, the gasses expand into the vacuum of the chamber until they have about equal share of the area, but over the course of about a cycle or two, the carbon dioxide packets will spontaneously start changing into liquid form and simply disappear; the state changes seem to mostly occur when packets of carbon dioxide collide. I figure due to the mass changing near to the 100 gram threshold. Eventually, that black packet in my screenshot here will probably just disappear as well. I measured it in the micrograms; I think it only stuck around as long as it has because it is such a low amount of mass. A chamber a quarter of the size of this one doesn't demonstrate quite as stark of problems, so I am not entirely certain what the mass-area relationship has to do with the deletion of the gas, but it happens, and this is of great concern for sufficiently large and relatively ventilated bases. In my opening example, I watched 2 Kgs of hydrogen get deleted in pretty short amount of time. That 2Kg would power a hydrogen generator for 20 generator-cycles or would power 20 hydrogen generators for a tick. The quantity of mass that could be deleted routinely by this kind of mechanism is arbitrary; the gas packet can be pushed to whatever mass and deleted. And I have to emphasize that I expect the deletion to work across liquid and gases, so it isn't just that gases are being deleted by gases but that gases are being deleted by liquids. The carbon dioxide experiment would seem to demonstrate that in some edge cases the gases are deleting liquids. It is one thing for the mass to be deleted when it vents to free space. It is another thing for there to be dozens of relatively undocumented but relatively commonly occurring cases where mass is just disappearing. Controlling for the former is presumably a major part of playing the game of surviving inside an asteroid. Controlling for the latter is users chasing and trying to anticipate programmatic bugs that get in the way of playing the game as presented.
  8. The predicted thermal equilibrium is around 490 C. The actual result is around the boiling point of the water, 100 C. This state of equilibrium is reached very very rapidly too. Taking significantly less than a cycle to be reached between 1000 Kg of water and 1000 Kg of abyssalite. In fact it reaches equilibrium in about 30 seconds running at normal speed with the water starting at 0 C and the abyssalite starting at 1000 C. In fact, there is very little difference in rate between solid thermium and abyssalite in this experiment. The thermium comes out a lower equilibrium temperature, but they take about the same amount of time to get there. I am confident that heat is not conserved in this model as the lower equilibrium temperature than predicted necessitates that the total thermal energy of the system reduces below the input. The temperature of the insulation insulted tiles does not increase above the 20 C starting temperature.
  9. I am aware of that though that is effectively not documented in game and something that had to be read on a wiki. Also, the more detailed information about the specific parameters and functionality is buried on some obscure forum posts by some of the more extreme exploiters. The issue is the thermal transfer between abyssalite and liquids however. This gets exacerbated by the rapid change from gas to liquid resulting in a kind of thermal acceleration or speed up. And it is unclear from my experiments what precisely the sequence of transformations are which make it extreme. It seems to me that it might be more specifically the interactions between liquid drops rather than liquid tiles which is responsible for the flashing of liquids to gases in contact with hot abyssalite. This setup better demonstrates the dynamics of the problem. The water tile will drip off the block onto the abyssalite flashing to gas; in a non-lab setup, there is likely to be a gas already near or on the abysallite which would be conducting heat to the water, but it is negligible in the determination of the issue; the issue is specifically in the thermal conductance between the liquid and the abyssalite. With water and enough degrees of freedom like in the experimental setup shown here, the liquid will cycle to a gas state and back to a liquid state rather rapidly until the system comes to an equilibrium. I am not sure that heat or energy is conserved in this system.
  10. In this case, it is caused by a combination of rules including the "one element per tile" mechanic. I am exploiting the rising property of Hydrogen (hydrogen generally can't move down except to fill an empty space or merge with another hydrogen packet). The specific combination of how hydrogen is allowed to move and the mutual exclusivity of elements in a tile results in an impossibility condition for the hydrogen packet. In real world physics, the hydrogen packet has a path to escape, and if it were confined by an infinite well, it would end up engaging in quantum tunneling to escape. The sum total effect would be that it would spontaneously move from the confined location to the mass of hydrogen on the left as if it had taken a different path. Besides a lack of a universal conservation of mass law in the game mechanics, the problems is the total confinement of the solid blocks. In real world physics, the solid blocks are actually in some sense porous even under the best of conditions; the conservation of mass and fundamental quantities as well as path of least resistance wins out over the confining ability of a physical boundary. Solid block containers in Oxygen Not Included aren't leaky which results in these deletions. This machine demonstrates one particular case of gas deletion, but we can demonstrate this with doors and other machines, and it is presumable and likely provable that it happens "naturally" all the time due to similar conditions being reached by combinations of rules resulting in contradictory conditions that necessitate the mutual exclusivity of the mass of a packet on the one hand and the total impermeability of tile on the other hand.
  11. A bulk gas deletion system can be demonstrated simply by forcing upward mobile gases into this cap such that they are confined from moving up or side to side and confined from combining with gas packets below them; an alternative mirrored system with a vent on the ground to delete heavy gases is expected though I haven't tested it yet. The system is unable to displace the gas covering the vent and just deletes it regardless of mass or temperature. I do not believe this only occurs with high pressure vents, but I think it is easy to demonstrate with them.
  12. Abyssalite's behaviors are somewhat inconsistent with the belief that it has a 0 thermal conductivity. Abyssalite's thermal conductivity is very very low but non-zero and higher than Insulation. However, there is a strange behavior with abyssalite at least when it interacts with gas or liquid specifically.