This is one of the best showcases of why this game is so awesome. Multiple ways of achieving the same outcome and which one to choose depends entirely on your needs. It helps keep the game from being monotonous.
If your whole point is to get first steel if you go with the full start you get a canister of fuel that’s how I did it but if your going for long game your a smart man! I’ve been racking my head on this problem for a while now I guess I should play more before trying Venus. Also love your videos I’m glad I found you last year!
4:15 spare potato's?! Isn't that a luxury with the plants and nutrients mod early on?😬 You have got me thinking now and that can be dangerous.😂 Regarding the charcoal I am wondering if it's worth to use the extra volatiles to make solid fuel out of the charcoal. Need to math it out to see how much mol of volatiles solid fuel actually takes to make. If it's less then the 30 mol extra to make a stack of biofuel out of the stack of charcoal it's a winner. Maybe the power generated from the solid biofuel can go towards powering AC's for the initial cooling stages. Yes you will end up with the same amount of water but alot more power then just using the composter. Told you thinking was dangerous, thanks for the video and happy building 👍
This is great! In stage 1 of the Arc furnace for every 50 stack processed you get 400 mols of volatiles + 200 mols of pollutant at 0 degrees, If you let the pressure go up over 5 MagaPascals you end up with low temp pollutant liquid (for cooling the water?) and about 30 degree Vol for mixing. Also for you graphing issue, could you use a stacker to release 1 unit into the furnace per second? Great video it really shows the differences in efficiencies between them. Thanks
To tap into slightly cheesy territory, you can just degas the biomass in a regular furnace at 100°C to 300°C (or whatever the temperature for carbon from biomass is), then compost the degassed biomass
great vid mick! its really nice to see the numbers via a side-by-side comparison! correct me if im wrong. the composter will take any temp water 370 to 0.1C, as long as its water? so would it better to go with a composter at, first biomass later after you have a more robust water-cooling sys? Personally, i would have no shame off gassing iron, nickel, silicon with Venus air, then smelt them with steam to get the water temp down. then cool it more with lead bars. Another great thing about the biomass way is it can be made in a reg/advanced furnace at 307C min. in a sense biomass will become "8 mol vol ice" Edit, or use the steam to make steel, with off gassed coal
The biomass doesnt take any water, so I would start with the biomass. And with the biomass being worth 8 cobalt for furnace heating, it will be handy early game before the furnace heating has been established.
Solution: use a stacker to only feed 1 biomass into the centrifuge at at time. That should spread out the production so its not as bursty for the graph!
I prefer the arc-furnace route, it doesn't use water in the process, if you use a combustion centrifuge it will process massive amounts of biomass very quickly with very little fuel used, and the resultant charcoal can be fed into a solid-generator which makes the process energy positive on top of the volatiles you gain. Also the CO2 from the solid gen can be used to feed your plants after removing the pollutant. I will still set up a composter after that just to produce N2 for me.
Oh wait. Did they fix the composter - or the H2 combustor? Because until recently it took an awful ammount of water to process stuff - which left barely enough to create excess water. However with the combustor having just an efficiency of 50% or so - it was a net loss on water.
i knew biomass gave more hydrogen, but i'm surprised the difference isn't greater than that. but a couple of points to add: the water you make to be consumed in the composter only needs to be liquid. So you only need to cool it down to Venus storm temp (365°C). and the nitrogen you gain from the composter is already cold, which removes the need to cool down nitrogen from the atmosphere. condensing 198 moles of water from 737°K is 2.981.088 Joules (free if you use storm help) and cooling down 490 moles of nitrogen from 737°K to 316°K is 4.167.058 so it's 30% cheaper (in terms of heat energy) to cool down the water the composter consumes, than it is to cool down nitrogen equivalent to what the composter outputs.
Suggestion for graphing: Cant it be graphed on the avg rate of 'centrifuging' done by the centrifuge + chute + arc furnace time? Just checking the time for the centrifuge to open and how much charcoal was produced, added to when vol's are produced? Too lazy for MIPS rn, but there's a solution there somewhere, for the batching problem.
One gives you more but with less plant speed since your missing the fertilizer, which "should" translate to a slow grouth over time? But once you are happy with how many plants and fertilize you have, then the excess should then go to the coal generation instead.... Would be some work to actually graph it over time, start with the 3 stander potatos, then checking how long to get to like 30, then a plus maybe 1 or 2 weeks to actually have some good numbers to compare with.
So if you're growing plants to make volatiles for water then the composer is the way to go, but if you're making volatiles for fuel then *maybe* the "dry" recycler process is better? The question then: at the point where the composter process has achieved water parity, how much volatiles are left? Is it more, less, or the same as the recycler process? Is it actually a better way to make fuel also?
I hated using water for composter. Unless you have a ton of overheated water, you'll feed it your precious drinkable reserves in exchange for a few spare drops in form of 2000C fog.
This is one of the best showcases of why this game is so awesome. Multiple ways of achieving the same outcome and which one to choose depends entirely on your needs. It helps keep the game from being monotonous.
If your whole point is to get first steel if you go with the full start you get a canister of fuel that’s how I did it but if your going for long game your a smart man! I’ve been racking my head on this problem for a while now I guess I should play more before trying Venus. Also love your videos I’m glad I found you last year!
So glad you are putting up these easy to follow videos!!! Cannot wait to see what the next series you have in store for us.
4:15 spare potato's?! Isn't that a luxury with the plants and nutrients mod early on?😬
You have got me thinking now and that can be dangerous.😂
Regarding the charcoal I am wondering if it's worth to use the extra volatiles to make solid fuel out of the charcoal.
Need to math it out to see how much mol of volatiles solid fuel actually takes to make.
If it's less then the 30 mol extra to make a stack of biofuel out of the stack of charcoal it's a winner.
Maybe the power generated from the solid biofuel can go towards powering AC's for the initial cooling stages.
Yes you will end up with the same amount of water but alot more power then just using the composter.
Told you thinking was dangerous, thanks for the video and happy building 👍
The graph won't look bad if you increase the time scale. Instead of v/sec use v/min or v/hour.
You cant change the h-scale of the graph.
This is great! In stage 1 of the Arc furnace for every 50 stack processed you get 400 mols of volatiles + 200 mols of pollutant at 0 degrees, If you let the pressure go up over 5 MagaPascals you end up with low temp pollutant liquid (for cooling the water?) and about 30 degree Vol for mixing. Also for you graphing issue, could you use a stacker to release 1 unit into the furnace per second? Great video it really shows the differences in efficiencies between them. Thanks
So, the deciding factor is if you make a graph for it. Lol
Yep, typical Mick. It's not based on efficiency or survivability, but how pretty the graph is ! ROFL
Graphs are essential for base.
Hello, you should definitely start a new series
I want to go to Venus. This is all part of figuring out how.
To tap into slightly cheesy territory, you can just degas the biomass in a regular furnace at 100°C to 300°C (or whatever the temperature for carbon from biomass is), then compost the degassed biomass
great vid mick! its really nice to see the numbers via a side-by-side comparison! correct me if im wrong. the composter will take any temp water 370 to 0.1C, as long as its water? so would it better to go with a composter at, first biomass later after you have a more robust water-cooling sys? Personally, i would have no shame off gassing iron, nickel, silicon with Venus air, then smelt them with steam to get the water temp down. then cool it more with lead bars. Another great thing about the biomass way is it can be made in a reg/advanced furnace at 307C min. in a sense biomass will become "8 mol vol ice"
Edit, or use the steam to make steel, with off gassed coal
The biomass doesnt take any water, so I would start with the biomass. And with the biomass being worth 8 cobalt for furnace heating, it will be handy early game before the furnace heating has been established.
Solution: use a stacker to only feed 1 biomass into the centrifuge at at time. That should spread out the production so its not as bursty for the graph!
I prefer the arc-furnace route, it doesn't use water in the process, if you use a combustion centrifuge it will process massive amounts of biomass very quickly with very little fuel used, and the resultant charcoal can be fed into a solid-generator which makes the process energy positive on top of the volatiles you gain.
Also the CO2 from the solid gen can be used to feed your plants after removing the pollutant.
I will still set up a composter after that just to produce N2 for me.
On Venus you get a tank of -200C N2. As I use it for cooling, I extract the N2 gas from the liquid pipe to balance my greenhouse atmosphere.
Oh wait. Did they fix the composter - or the H2 combustor?
Because until recently it took an awful ammount of water to process stuff - which left barely enough to create excess water. However with the combustor having just an efficiency of 50% or so - it was a net loss on water.
Not sure, I have been using it sucessfully for quite a few series now.
Can you put the excess fertilizer into the recycler?
Yes you can
@@hadynhaynes78 and then you get more biomass, or what will be the product? If yes, then you can connect both setups and have even more gas?
The fertiliser is destroyed and nothing comes out.
Composter also gives you nitrogen for your soy
Nice!
i knew biomass gave more hydrogen, but i'm surprised the difference isn't greater than that.
but a couple of points to add: the water you make to be consumed in the composter only needs to be liquid. So you only need to cool it down to Venus storm temp (365°C).
and the nitrogen you gain from the composter is already cold, which removes the need to cool down nitrogen from the atmosphere.
condensing 198 moles of water from 737°K is 2.981.088 Joules (free if you use storm help)
and cooling down 490 moles of nitrogen from 737°K to 316°K is 4.167.058
so it's 30% cheaper (in terms of heat energy) to cool down the water the composter consumes, than it is to cool down nitrogen equivalent to what the composter outputs.
There you go being smart again, making me feel like a hammer. :) I use many of you mods in the workshop thank you for making them.
Suggestion for graphing:
Cant it be graphed on the avg rate of 'centrifuging' done by the centrifuge + chute + arc furnace time? Just checking the time for the centrifuge to open and how much charcoal was produced, added to when vol's are produced? Too lazy for MIPS rn, but there's a solution there somewhere, for the batching problem.
Arrived after 22 minutes
One gives you more but with less plant speed since your missing the fertilizer, which "should" translate to a slow grouth over time?
But once you are happy with how many plants and fertilize you have, then the excess should then go to the coal generation instead....
Would be some work to actually graph it over time, start with the 3 stander potatos, then checking how long to get to like 30, then a plus maybe 1 or 2 weeks to actually have some good numbers to compare with.
So if you're growing plants to make volatiles for water then the composer is the way to go, but if you're making volatiles for fuel then *maybe* the "dry" recycler process is better?
The question then: at the point where the composter process has achieved water parity, how much volatiles are left? Is it more, less, or the same as the recycler process? Is it actually a better way to make fuel also?
Is this leading up to a brutal Venus playthrough? Hope so
I hated using water for composter. Unless you have a ton of overheated water, you'll feed it your precious drinkable reserves in exchange for a few spare drops in form of 2000C fog.
cooling water was more interesting :P
thaT WAS A GOOD ONE.. oops caplock, no going back noooooww~!
Using less water is part of the cooling.
In the name of science!
Mick.... Needs....Graphs...... _=*^-#%_=*^-#%_=*^-#%_=*^-#%