I read that part, and I'm still not clear what part you're actually addressing. Say the thesis in simple terms, then go into detail, so I can get what the point actually is. I'm assuming at least 3 burner inserters for my 19 engine setup, since 2 rows of 1.36 + 1.48 = 2.84. That doesn't work for 5%...

See the rest of that post, "So really, the problem is not the decrease from this threshold to 0%, because it's a very small drop (11%), not far from 0% to begin with. The only real problem, then, is getting a huge engine array running again after it has run out of fuel, which might happen if yo...

That makes the same assumption though, about peak engine output being enough to power the base. But if coal supply drops enough that the engine output goes under that threshold, then it will drop the rest of the way to 0, and won't be able to turn back on unless you put coal into a few of the boiler...

I said several times, that certain calculations assume that the peak engine output is enough to fully power the attached load. With that kind of overload the inserters won't really do anything, even if all the boilers are full. If you plan on deliberately running a base with insufficient power, you ...

So long as the burner inserters can get coal, it should be okay, but I'm not sure what you're describing. And yes, though "10 seconds" isn't in the formulas, I didn't put any intermediate calculations in them. All the numbers are exact except for the 0.866 inserter speed, which is from the...

You can click the times, 5 seconds, 1 minute, etc. to show average values over that time period. The screenshot is an average over 1 minute (the 6.2), and as the graph shows it includes a lot of cycles. Time delay for having burners in the back, is maybe 6.4s on average because yellow belt speed is ...

It uses 6.2 kW in that example, chest-to-chest, which is less than half of it's listed rate. Half would be 6.5 kW. And by the way you really only need 2 burner inserters to refuel boilers from no power to full power, not 3 (I overestimated). Or more precisely 1.365 burners with (14-1.365) electric, ...

You can make electronic circuits using assemblers, that's what I do. And I don't know how I can explain the thing with the mining drills any more clearly, it seems like you're deliberately misunderstanding. Even if you ignore the major advantage burner inserters give, i.e. NOT needing to manually di...

edit: Some of this stuff is wrong, it was assuming that inserters use their indicated power while working. But really their maximum is much less. You are right about each boiler using about one coal every 10 seconds (~10.98s=14/(1.275/s)). And being used for steam, 14 burner inserters to 10 engines,...

As for that downward spiral I mentioned with (14) electric inserters into (10) boilers, the threshold is ~10.96% (510*10/8000*2/.831/14). That is, if power supply drops under 10.96% of power demand, it can drop the rest of the way to 0 further because the inserters don't get enough power. With one b...

I edited units into the formulas, so they make sense. Also I forgot to include the half efficiency of boilers in both calculations (because boiler power isn't used) but it's there now. It just occurred to me, that a useful calculation can be made about the downward spiral with orange inserters fueli...

Eh, no need to use math to prove this one. As long as the inserter pulls faster than boilers burn them, it's fast enough :P It's cause the burner inserters use so much energy, it was more to see how many engines you can put on a yellow belt with them, I was just making sure yellow belt throughput i...

You should still be able to do 100 engines on yellow belt even with burner inserters. Update: These numbers are wrong, because inserters use much less than the listed power during continuous operation. Orange: uses 0.49% of power produced, 24.93 kW per 10 engines 24.932kW/(510kW*10)~=0.00489 / power...

and turns don't reduce throughput at all any more Holy shit, really? No need to belt logic and splitter merge anymore? Awesome! Well there's still complicated belt balancers ( like these ; but those are old too), and splitter merging, but it's more direct without the turn limitation. You still need...

And darn, they removed the ability for inserters to pickup items from a belt diagonal from it since last time I played. No wonder you had that belt on the end. This will probably force a fugly u-turn on the splitter to be able to compact it then. How much does that drop throughput compared to just ...

Patric20878 wrote:And heh, I see you share my tendency to make a post, then make 200 more edits on it thanks to proofreading and forgetting to say stuff

I do. I just try to make them fast enough that it doesn't reveal all my edits at the bottom, hah.

Would you clarify also, does 100 engines per yellow belt mean 10 engine rows? If it is, that's pretty decent, so I'll just put yellow belts instead of red ones by default. Yep. I did a test, just to make sure the calculation was correct, screenshots in the TDT thread (100 engines at full throttle i...

I guess, I like small poles because they're so cost effective, and cost effective is important since steam is the first source of electricity you get. I use small poles almost exclusively in all of my premade designs, because they're so cheap, and they craft so quickly, and these designs are mostly ...

One thing I can see about that layout is the furnaces at the end will be a lower priority when it comes to coal. The first line will get half while the third one down will get like 1/8th. Other than that it's a good layout, I'll be sure to add it to the TDT That should be okay. By my calculation, i...

Keep in mind, part of the mechanics behind this limit the sorting to two items, any more and the sorting will not work quite like it's meant to. You can sort any number of items with splitters. To sort out n item types, you need a minimum (n-1)*2 splitters. Really? because from what I've seen in th...