ChickenStealer Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 This revolutionary design can filter out over 100 grams of carbon dioxide per second and costs merely ~1.8 joules per gram of carbon dioxide!! Leave this at the bottom of your base and you can burn as much coal as you can get mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispershade Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 Unless I have my sums wrong, (excluding the opportunity cost of the water conversion to Hydrogen) I'm pretty sure that's more energy expensive than using an air scrubber and without the bonus benefit of being able to turn the polluted water product into natural gas. If you include pump time for the water in the energy equation with some napkin math from memory I think the cost for an airscrubber is like ~0.5j per gram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 2, 2017 Author Share Posted July 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Whispershade said: Unless I have my sums wrong, (excluding the opportunity cost of the water conversion to Hydrogen) I'm pretty sure that's more energy expensive than using an air scrubber and without the bonus benefit of being able to turn the polluted water product into natural gas. If you include pump time for the water in the energy equation with some napkin math from memory I think the cost for an airscrubber is like ~0.5j per gram. The PCCA doesn't consume any water and does not have any opportunity costs! That is what's epic about it. It does not require water pumps or hydrogen coolers. This one is dirt cheap and polluted water is generally an unwanted product because you can always make more with a gas gayzer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispershade Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 To be clear, air scrubbers don't require hydrogen coolers either. They do require water. But that water also becomes a useful product for energy production or food production. Could you explain what's happening in your example? Without a gas flow overlay it isn't precisely clear to me what you're trying to do. I feel like you might be using some type of exploit to dispose of CO2. I don't know if I find that particularly epic, honestly. I prefer solutions more durable to future changes if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 How about with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risu Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said: How about with? So... it's an expensive bridge/valve loop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Risu said: So... it's an expensive bridge/valve loop? The PCCA clears out all the CO2 in your base. No idea what part of this looks like a bridge/valve loop to you, sorry xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterpintsman Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 20 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said: It clears out all the CO2 in your base. Only as long as you can rely on the fully defective gas pipe tile still tranporting gas while bleeding out the fluid CO2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moggles Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 This just looks like a broken mess to me can someone explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 54 minutes ago, Masterpintsman said: Only as long as you can rely on the fully defective gas pipe tile still tranporting gas while bleeding out the fluid CO2... It doesnt xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 53 minutes ago, Moggles said: This just looks like a broken mess to me can someone explain? The two most plausible explanations to why it looks like a mess to you is that either the machine is either too complicated, or that you have a habit of seeing thinks like a broken mess. Does this answer satisfy you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rezecib Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 @Moggles CO2 is coming into the system from the valve above, and being dumped into the middle chamber. For no apparent reason there's then a pump and a filter in this chamber, which then sends CO2 again to the thermo regulator loop in the bottom chamber. The thermo regulator repeatedly cools the gas until it's a liquid, and this damages the pipe segment at the output, dripping out the liquid CO2, which then evaporates, absorbing the heat from the thermo regulator. This is using a exploit in that the gas pipe should stop functioning after being broken, instead of acting as a separator for the liquid and gaseous CO2. And yes, design-wise this is a broken mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispershade Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Ok, so from the looks of it you're using a gas filter to feed a loop that will condense CO2 causing it to break the pipe and leave the the system out to an enclosed room you hope never gets accidentally opened because you haven't destroyed CO2 you've packed it into an incredibly small space. You actually don't need to spend any energy at all on condensing to exploit this type of overpressuring. You can just put a gas vent with a tile containing a few grams of liquid right under it and an empty tile above and just pump all the CO2 through the vent that'll never get overpressured because the water will trick it. So even for an exploit, there are better. Oh, since I was in the game, I looked at the numbers and napkin mathed the energy value of a CO2 scrubber's polluted water production. 1 scrubber running at full capacity produces 1000g/s of polluted water, which is enough to feed 6.666... Fertilizer factories. Those fertilizer factories then produce 155.333... g/s of natural gas. This is enough natural gas to power 2.3 Natural Gas generators. Which is 1.84kw. Let us subtract 24w for the water pump to feed the system. 120w for the scrubber and 800w for the 6.666 factories, we're left with more than 900w in surplus. It PAYS energy to to use a scrubber rather than cost us to use your exploit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, rezecib said: @Moggles CO2 is coming into the system from the valve above, and being dumped into the middle chamber. For no apparent reason there's then a pump and a filter in this chamber, which then sends CO2 again to the thermo regulator loop in the bottom chamber. The thermo regulator repeatedly cools the gas until it's a liquid, and this damages the pipe segment at the output, dripping out the liquid CO2, which then evaporates, absorbing the heat from the thermo regulator. This is using a exploit in that the gas pipe should stop functioning after being broken, instead of acting as a separator for the liquid and gaseous CO2. And yes, design-wise this is a broken mess. Apparentness lies with the beholder. That pump and filter are crucial to the design of the PCCA. Whether something should or should not is up to the game designer. If you think this one is a broken mess, then make one that isn't! xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rezecib Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said: If you think this one is a broken mess, then make one that isn't! xD I already did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Whispershade said: Ok, so from the looks of it you're using a gas filter to feed a loop that will condense CO2 causing it to break the pipe and leave the the system out to an enclosed room you hope never gets accidentally opened because you haven't destroyed CO2 you've packed it into an incredibly small space. You actually don't need to spend any energy at all on condensing to exploit this type of overpressuring. You can just put a gas vent with a tile containing a few grams of liquid right under it and an empty tile above and just pump all the CO2 through the vent that'll never get overpressured because the water will trick it. So even for an exploit, there are better. Oh, since I was in the game, I looked at the numbers and napkin mathed the energy value of a CO2 scrubber's polluted water production. 1 scrubber running at full capacity produces 1000g/s of polluted water, which is enough to feed 6.666... Fertilizer factories. Those fertilizer factories then produce 155.333... g/s of natural gas. This is enough natural gas to power 2.3 Natural Gas generators. Which is 1.84kw. Let us subtract 24w for the water pump to feed the system. 120w for the scrubber and 800w for the 6.666 scrubbers, we're left with more than 900w in surplus. It PAYS energy to to use a scrubber rather than cost us to use your exploit. Sir, natural gas is abundant in gas geysers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, rezecib said: I already did. Yours consumes over a thousand times more water than this one and requires a lot of high tech parts. How is mine a broken mess and yours not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispershade Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 1 minute ago, ChickenStealer said: Sir, natural gas is abundant in gas geysers. So you're saying you don't want more free energy? Curious. You would rather brag about the energy efficiency of your solution to CO2 then get paid energy abundance for disposing of it? I find that odd. Incidentally one Natural gas Geyser is enough to power 1.6 Natural Gas generators which produces 1.28kw. (Not including the gas pump) It isn't that much more than what you get from 1 full time scrubber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rezecib Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, ChickenStealer said: Yours consumes over a thousand times more water than this one and requires a lot of high tech parts. How is mine a broken mess and yours not? All research can be completed in under 15 cycles. There is no real distinction between high and low tech. Water is cheap; a geyser produces 4 kg/s. A scrubber has way more capacity and beneficial side-effects, and only consumes 25% of that at maximum capacity. Yours is broken because you could be handling twice the throughput with a 60% reduction in energy costs if you used a mechanical filter and removed the middle room. Also, you keep posting designs here without any explanation, rationale, or whatever, then claim parts are essential to the design without saying why. So it's really not surprising that they're interpreted as broken jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, rezecib said: All research can be completed in under 15 cycles. There is no real distinction between high and low tech. Water is cheap; a geyser produces 4 kg/s. A scrubber has way more capacity and beneficial side-effects, and only consumes 25% of that at maximum capacity. Yours is broken because you could be handling twice the throughput with a 60% reduction in energy costs if you used a mechanical filter and removed the middle room. Not really, the system would break if you removed the middle room. Even if it did not, it will use multiple times the amount of energy that this PCCA needs. Or you would have to operate it manually which sucks! Have I posted another design where "I claim parts are essential to the design without saying why"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolthulhu Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Filtering CO2 looks pretty useless as mentioned above, but the same setup could possibly be used to get rid of polluted oxygen. Possibly turning it into clean oxygen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasuha Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I don't see anything groundbreaking on this design. It's an exploit and unlike the flooded vent exploit, it uses power. Plus it's unnecessarily complicated, even if we stick to the broken pipe exploit the whole vent/pump/filter combo could be replaced by a single bridge or valve in my opinion. 1 hour ago, Coolthulhu said: Filtering CO2 looks pretty useless as mentioned above, but the same setup could possibly be used to get rid of polluted oxygen. Possibly turning it into clean oxygen. Yes, that's true. Less power efficient than when using hydrogen but more compact. The only problem is that polluted oxygen has just a tiny bit greater specific heat capacity so the regulator won't cool itself. Though with how tiny the difference is, it would probably take long to even notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChickenStealer Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Kasuha said: I don't see anything groundbreaking on this design. It's an exploit and unlike the flooded vent exploit, it uses power. Plus it's unnecessarily complicated, even if we stick to the broken pipe exploit the whole vent/pump/filter combo could be replaced by a single bridge or valve in my opinion. Sir, how would you want to replace the filter? I can't figure out what you would replace it with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimgaw Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 ITT an obvious troll getting fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispershade Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Grimgaw said: ITT an obvious troll getting fed. I personally think it is wrong to say he's a troll. I don't mean to talk as if he's not going to read this, but I get the very strong vibe that he's a young person who has a sincere desire to participate and contribute with his own discoveries and tricks but is easily defensive and lacks a certain level of maturity to properly communicate his ideas and take criticism effectively. I can't really blame him for wanting to be noticed for his creativity and cleverness. I would be a hypocrite if I did. Regarding the middle room. I think the question people don't understand is why are you venting into that middle room when you could pipe the CO2 directly into the regulator. The filter isn't even filtering as it has no second connection. If you're using it to force larger packet sizes, there are probably better ways to do so that don't require the energy hit of an additional jump and filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.