yes this still hold true, reading a % of max troughput on the power graph is the same as reading the % of timer you need to add except inverted ( 1/x).
If you put timer at 362 sec for a 480MW plant that would max out with timer of 200s, this means you plan for 265 MW. (1/[362/200])x480.
362 /200= 1.81 , that would make 2 for timer of 400 sec, this means when you use 1/2 power, timer are x2 make sense intuitively right ?, then you get 1/1.81, this is 0.55245... this is the ratio compared to max power 55.25%. If you do 0.55245x480 MW, you get the 265MW.
Really in the game though you do it the other way around when using the clock thing. You red you energy consumption as say an average of 120MW after an hour. This means it was 120/480= 0.25 times the max. or 25% capacity. 1/4=120/480. So then you take (1/X), wich is 4. and multiply by the 200 base fuel, for 800 timer.
You picture a blackbox that start with unknown quantity or energy after you initialized it, you measure what leaves it during 1 initial cycle of arbitrary amount of time, then next arbitrary amount of time you refill exactly as much while also measuring the consumption of that 2nd interval. At the end of 2nd interval, you "set timer" based on consmption during the 1st interval.
That's something you CAN do, you can also don't check every interval because you could know the consumption, if it's your base and everything is stopped, or if you just take 12 stack of blue belt in the mall you may have an easy way to predict the future consumption, as long as you do so you don't even need to worry about changing the timer.
Or if it's an ON/OFF power plant that activate in time of emergency when your solar need to be extended for example.
you don't have to measure you just have to click a power power .
How does automated power plant react during the 2nd alien wave ? just feed max fuel.
How should you set timer if uncommonly big 2nd wave occur ? just set them to minimum.
You can't know what WILL happen, but neither can an automated plant, you can always humanly react the same way as the automatic plant would react when you see the wave or plan on making more land available for your factory haha. Think about it, you can even have a little lamp indicator that turns red when timer are minimum, to set the mood for when you make a new artillery outpost.
It's not prediction of the future, only reaction to present. The reactivity from an automated power plant comes partly from the fact that production increase immediatly, that's due to the inherent nature of the steam turbine & heat exhanger function. This also goes true for a clocked design, you start consuming your buffer faster immediatly, you handle the early phase of the spike. Then automated react by changing timer for the current cycle making it shorter when noticing no energy is left in the buffer. You can quickly have a look on map view if the pipe are still glowing strong or not. see the temperature of the system, if it can absorb the spike when you see it or not.
Again this stress out the importance of buffer for those design, if you store 20 cycle of fuel, you can decide wether to refuel faster or not due to the unusual spike much later than if you were to only store 1 cycle or 2.
With this kind of design you don't refill when the buffer is empty by default, so you don't run the same risk of black out caused by a spike happening like 30 sec before the planned refuel. automated power plant ,adapt by skipping those 30 second of waiting time because it measure the buffer empty or closed to be. With a clock design instead the average temperature of the system is lowered a bit but it doesn't necessarily cause shortage as it would have with the other.
Again that's completly unecessary if you use the power plant for rocket launching or science or their mining outposts, since the consumption in those case would average easily despite the periodic spike and valley.
I'm just saying it functions if you do it properly, not that it's what everyone should do, this is "all the different ways to increase efficiency", you can call it the manually-controlled power plant that still could be an efficient power plant. Wether or not YOU want to measure consumption is your own personnal liking
That' still a 1 cycle delay somewhat . What you are measuring when you measure steamflow is how fast your buffered energy is consumed. Wether the buffered energy is under the form of heat/steam/already-inserted-fuel-cell doesn't matter. Then when all/most of it is consumed, the refuel happens. You measure "actual" consumption but it is only updated when the energy is all gone, after 1 cycle of measuring/consumption on the previous fuel.
that's the same thing as measuring the amount of water in the glass or the amount of non-watermrvn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:03 amSo the better use of the measurement is to determine when it is safe to put in another fuel cell. Only use the measure of how much additional energy you can buffer right now. If that is less than 1 fuel cell generates then throw in one fuel cell. Most of the designs shown so far use that method. If you predict power usage you can potentially insert fuel cells earlier (or later) and use fewer steam tanks or accumulators. But if you guess wrong you either waste fuel or have a brownout. And steam tanks are cheap and you only need like 2 tanks to be on the safe side.
In order to know if it's safe to insert a new fuel cell you need to know how much energy you can buffer, which is the same amount as the amount of energy you have consumed since the previous refuel.
But you are correct saying a wrong prediction can lead to brown-out or black out, that's if when refilling the amount of energy lost in previous cycle you run out of buffer, like running out of memory to write the debt of energy from one cycle to another. In practice though you just need a few accumulator ringing and alarm when not 100%. They would make you notice if the timer need to be reduced if you don't check it as accuratly as the manual recommend. Depending on how you implement your clock the inserter could be instant inserting fuel when you reduce time to a smaller duration than the one already passed since previous refuel, that's something i'll consider
I try to make sure what i want is my concern hehe, i'm saying you CAN buffer 20 cycle of fuel . Your idea of assuming a base load on a reactor to spare some buffer is something i understand that's assuming a certain set of conditions which then lead to design neglecting some factors.mrvn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:03 amWell, if you really do want to buffer 20 cycles of fuel.... Normal design shown so far buffer 1-2 cycles only. Mine (1 tank per reactor) doesn't even buffer 1 cycle because I assume a base load on the reactor that consumes the rest.
And there you go again saying "if you put the timer to 400 sec". Me? I don't want to put anything. The reactor should run itself. Or do you mean have some combinator construct that calculates the time to 400 sec? Please be precise.
my reflexion is just saying that you could designs mechanism to be efficient with others sets of conditions making them very viable where they would be bad with some others set of conditions.
you could use anymeans to change the timers :
Time and manual human intervention, where you hard code the number of tick for refuel everytime.
Time and manual human intervention, where you slide a slider on a combinator that is just the % of max energy you used last hour because you can buffer more than 20 fuel cycle and you made a contraption that auto-calculate the timer from the value you set in the slider.
You could also imagine reading that some science is going on a belt as the condition to trigger an ON/OFF power plant with preset timer of 362 second that only powers some beacons to speed up science when some of it is already running on the belt.
The thing though is that using heat pipes you can't read precisely the amount of buffer you infer it due to consolidated previous value. which could require correction once in a while, setting the timer lower than usually to lower the buffer during a cycle or higher than usually to refill the buffer.mrvn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:03 amNote: If you have 20 cycles buffer then you can just throw in a fuel cell whenever the buffer is below 15 cycles. At most 5 fuel cells get inserted so even if consumption stops the most you reach is full buffers. No need to measure times and estimate consumption. Just set the inserters to "steam < 15 cycles". No combinators needed, which safes energy and therefore is more efficient.
what you describe is how classic power plant would function if designed with gigantic buffer to make up for the quantity inserted when using max stack size, using heat pipes only without measuring steam is a "different way to increase the efficiency of a nuclear power plant". The combinators is you ! You push the buttons ! ( not in the case of on/off plant that powers beacon only functionning when science is running, then no button )
I was forgetting the drain, i admit. but look i think that's the post you mentionned :mrvn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:03 amYou are forgetting that inserters drain energy while idle. If you have 1000 reactors or 2000 reactors the power per swing basically doubles. The cost of the swing doubles. But at the 480MW consumption rate the time between refuels basically doubles. So that balances out. The tiny bit more is near 0. It's there but near 0. The time of the swing compared to time between swings is, well, rounding error . So you have double the number of inserters and twice the time they are idle. That means the inserters consume 4 times as much power per cycle.
It's easier if you do the math with a fixed fuel cells per second value. Then 2x2N reactor will swing half as often as a 2xN reactor. Keeps the numbers simpler. Don't compare cycles as the fuel input per cycle isn't constant. Twice the number of inserters means double the power drain if you ignore the swing. The problem is that "a tiny bit more than doubled" has to make up for the double power drain of the inserters. That works going from 4 to 8 reactors. I don't know where it stops working but I suspect 1000 to 2000 won't make up the increased drain.
Earlier someone suggested using burner inserter and showed the math how much energy the inserters consume and how much burner inserter would safe. So my suggestion would be to scroll back to that and use that math.
Note: If you use burner inserter then there is no drain, only the swing. All the above is for electrical inserters. With burner inserters the bigger the better unless you have a combinator per reactor or other drain.
With those ideas you don't have drains. Since the only inserter that stay awake for logic is a burner inserter who has no drain. The ejecting inserter is only consuming energy for a fix amount of ticks the strict minium which is then constant, and not doubling over time as drain. "Rounding errors" you said, but if we were to be super precise, even those little ticks wouldn't count.quyxkh wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:46 pmIs it bad that I feel no guilt?mmmPI wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:21 pmBecause of you I was playing around with trying to use 3 burner inserter, one for fuel injection one for fuel ejection, and another one to fuel the 2nd. If you put nuclear fuel, because that's what is done in nuke plant, you have 1210000kJ/70kJ=17285.7143 swing per nuclear fuel. Counting for fuel ejection and fuel injection every 200 second, that means 1 nuclear fuel would last 3457142.86 second in those 2, ( around 40 days ).
Which means the burner inserter that refuel the ejection inserter will do a swing every 40 days, which means it will need to confiscate one fuel to refuel itself every:
17 285.7143 x 3 457 142.86= 59 759 183 772.245 sec, 5.9E10 sec, that's 691 657 days, or 1894 years.
If you keep your power consumption in a 1GW range you can have just one steerable 1GW reactor, everything else always-on. Gut check says very, very few bases have to worry about long-term power cycling in excess of 1GW, am I just too pedestrian here?
That means for almost all your power generation you can use stacked load/unload, one loading swing every 600s, with a loading inserter wired read-hold to the power switch on the unload circuit. Use fast inserters for unload, they can take 3 spent cells in the half-swing the power switch is closed, and you get ten minutes per swing, basically zero power consumption for the unload, 17285 swings is 120 *days* per fuel cell. One in the tank, one in the buffer, that's 240 days. Or I suppose it would be even cheaper to use just one burner for one reactor's reload, and use fast-inserters-powered-for-46-ticks-every-ten-minutes for all the rest.
At that point, you might as well just not bother with a refueling supply, your solstice festival can include a reactor-service-inserter-refueling celebratory ritual with lots of pomp and circumstance, maybe even an inserter dance!
if you take 1 reactor and 1 inserter. The ratio [cost of inserting the fuel/energy worth of 1 swing] is biggest.
if you take 2 reactor and 2 inserter. The [cost of inserting the fuel] has doubled, [the energy worth of 1 swing] a bit more than doubled.
if you take 4 reactor and 4 inserter. The [cost of inserting the fuel] has doubled, [the energy worth of 1 swing] a tiny bit more than doubled.
This means If you remove drain from the equation it holds true no ?
Also this is another consideration, this is also about the inner solar grid to try and immunize the inserters and their logic from power shortages.
If we consider the most efficient power plant, it would be a solar field, with a little nuke power plant somewhere haha. but staying at the scale at which we wouldn't consider it a solar plant, when the solar pannel is embedded in a tilable design for example, the implementations details becomes what could makes the difference between an optimal existing or the biggest the best.
using only burner inserter is similar to using solar as you rely on energy from outside the nuclear plant to remove the energy cost of some part of the process.
as you said i agree combinators act like drain.