Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Power Plants, Energy Storage and Reliable Energy Supply. All about efficient energy production. Turning parts of your factory off. Reliable and self-repairing energy.
mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:57 am
No. That division is just correcting when you cheat. You are breaking the "how short a train can you fuel without the reactor overheating when burning fuel without pause?" part of the rules.
oh i see it's breaking the rule that is not written explicitly, it's considered cheating but i couldn't tell beforehand because the rules are not clear, when do you divise train lengh? saying "when i cheat" is just a way to avoid the question. "When is it considered cheating ?" if you prefer.
Not sure how more explicit I can write the part I quoted in bold than it already being written white on black in the first post.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:57 am
Neither the distance or the max speed matters as that would just offsets the time when the first steam arrives. If you assume there are enough trains and you load a train every 10 seconds then a train will arrive every 10 seconds no matter the distance of max speed.

And I'm not measuring at the delivery site, that was just an attempt to get you to see that the infinite train is a non-go. I can describe it another way: The infinite train will never leave the reactor and a second train can never stop at the reactor. It will only ever fill one train and then the reactor is dead weight.

Or this way: You can't build an infinite train, the map isn't infinite. You don't have enough ram for it. It doesn't fit into a blueprint string or savegame. There are so many way that an infinite train is impossible I didn't put it in the rules. But I guess just for you I will have to.
So where do you measure then ? ( let say for you it doesn't matter, but for my design it's important what can i do ?).
Just for you if the reactor has N nuclear reactor entities I will measure (N % 100)% of the distance between reactor and the hypothetical consumer before said consumer.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 am
If a train receive 250 steam per second/wagon, be it an infinite train, it would still be filled up in 100 second.

You say now infinite train are impossible, but the previous post you said they will be judge on density, so what is the truth here ?
I never said an infinite train would be measured on density. It can't be measured, it can't be build, it can't be put in a blueprint, it can't be put in a savegame, it can't be submitted here at all.

I said tileable designs would have to be compared on density if in doubt. But you seem to be reading very selectively so no matter what I write it says what you want it to say.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
What I wrote was it would be like 1 wagon with 1 steam/s. Same steam output, shorter train. And you've got it the wrong way around. If it is artificially elongated then I would cut it down for the count. Or maybe just not bother to judge it at all. To get 2 wagons to fill at 1 steam/s you have to split the output from a heat exchanger 200 ways. Which you can't with the heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon rule anyway. Or keep it really cool by having a extremely long heat pipe that just barely reaches 501Β°C at the heat exchanger. So I guess it doesn't have to break any rules, it could also just be stupid.

Steam/s/wagon and steam/s/train for trains with the same number of wagons doesn't change anything. The comparison will be the same. Use whichever you like better.
that's exctly what i said, you will divide the long train to judge them as smaller train that where elongated. This means the metric is steam/s/wagon. not steam/s/train, because in this case you divide the long train per their number of wagon. You can say " use whichever you like better", but that doesn't make sense, it's not me who judge the design, you just explained that infinite train take infinite time to load, which is wrong, maybe you will also use other wrong reasonning to judge a design as "artificially elongated and thus needing to be divided so we can measure steam/S/wagon." That's why i'd like to know precisely beforehand.

the bald part is wrong, i was only taking made up number, now if you use a heat exchanger per wagon but you make it so that the temperature is >500Β° only 1/3 of the time due to moderatly feeding the nearby reactors, then it will only produce 1/3 of its max output, no need to split it between wagon, no need for extremly long heat pipe, that totally respect the rules HEAT EXCHANGER=>PUMP=>WAGON, will the train be divided then ? yes ? no ?

Is that what you call stupid ?
Ignoring that part where you claim 1 == 1/2. Or where you confuse "load" with "leave". More selective reading I guess.

Yes, such a design I would call stupid. Why would you purposefully only fuel the reactor moderatly if the heat exhcnager aren't getting enough heat? A simple change to the design to throw in more fuel would beat it. Those cases should eliminate themself. No artificial elongation happening there.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
I modified the infinity pipe between heat exhcnagers rule because it's equivalent to having an offshore pipe there. Or a better wording would be: You can place an infinity pipe anywhere an offshore pump would fit. Having to waterfill and landfill tiles any time you try something different is a pain. The infinity pipe is just for your convenience.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't intend to post any sensible reactor anyway and by now you've scared away everybody else. Job well done.
yes some rules needed be modified because they clearly had HUGE loopholes/faulty logic. like not allowing infinitypipe, but allowing waterhole+offshore pump was stupid ( that's where i use this word), since it's the same thing at the end taking up same space on blueprint, just more annoying to do. ( also that's why other contest propose a map, so that the water area is definite and finite maybe you could get some inspiration there.)

Also the rule saying steam/fuel was to be maximized, THAT CLEARLY CONTRADICTS the fact that train can be finite. Maximizing steam/fuel require infinite reactor. You said in your initial post " that only allow 2N design i think" Which is not true it only allows infinite 2N design in theory. You needed to clarify that in fact it didn' t matter if steam/fuel wasn't maximized. Otherwise it would have disqualified every N-1 design, with N infinite.

Yet some other rules still need be modified because they have faulty logic, but it seems more difficult for you to realize. like not precisely explaining what you considered "elongated train" or how does the rating system function precisely ? how will you do measurement ?

Those are also points that are detailled beforehand in other contest i"ve seen in case it help.

Why would i spent so much time trying to understand the rules if i didn't plan to post a design ? You think i'm going into such details for what reason if not winning the contest ? like annoying you ? what if i say it's pretty clear you didn't want to make a real contest just posted a random halfway-thought idea and now refuse to go in details enough for it to be potentially a real contest because that would mean recognizing it wasn't a serious contest in the first place ?

what is scary here ? again something where you decide because you feel the intentions of everyone else ?
maximized != maximum. should != must. More selective reading.

That only 2xN reactor designed would give the best results is just a prediction by me. Could be wrong. it's not a rule. Maybe an U shaped reactor is better and allows for longer trains?

I have no idea why you keep on it. Probably because you like to hear yourself talk as they say and must have the last word in any discussion. You might have noticed that there isn't a single submission so far. So no matter what you submit you would already win no matter how many points I would dedact for rule breaking.

This wasn't supposed to be a contest to crown the mister nuclear reactor 2021. The point was to get to see some crazy reactors and one-up each other by improving on each others designs.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
Not sure how more explicit I can write the part I quoted in bold than it already being written white on black in the first post.

"how short a train can you fuel without the reactor overheating when burning fuel without pause?"
mrvn wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:02 pm
I was going for maximum speed so 3 pumps per fluid wagon. But if you can produce more trains per minute with less ... No idea what is ideal.
if you mean the part in bald,me neither but since it's your contest it's up to you to find a suitable non-ambiguous way to explain when do you consider a train will be divided in
piece for measuring steam output. For me it seems like all the trains fits in the category, because everytime you can say "but my train produce more steam with less wagon" and then it's just a matter of steam/S/wagon, then everytime train should be divided to count, and then i don't understand why it's called a "longest train contest".

i wish you find a way to be more explicit.
like 1 pump per wagon => ok not considered elongated artificially not cheating,
1 pump per wagon 50% of time => not ok should be /2 because cheat
2 pump per wagon 50% of the time => count as 1 pump per wagon ?
if heat exchanger is far away from core and only output 80% output on 10 wagon, and other 10 wagon are 100%. does that count 18 wagon ?

how can i measure the performance of my design to compare them and submit the best ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
Just for you if the reactor has N nuclear reactor entities I will measure (N % 100)% of the distance between reactor and the hypothetical consumer before said consumer.


I'm happy you take in consideration my observations. Unfortunatly i do not understand what this mean ? maybe it's the notation. Say i have 100 core-reactor 2X50 for example, all in a line, and it's tileable so that if you copy another blueprint it makes a 2X100, then 2X150 then 2X200 and so on. How do you plan to measure the steam/S ?

Isn't that a case where the density would matter more ? since the design is infinite. i'm just asking questions !

mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
I never said an infinite train would be measured on density. It can't be measured, it can't be build, it can't be put in a blueprint, it can't be put in a savegame, it can't be submitted here at all.

I said tileable designs would have to be compared on density if in doubt. But you seem to be reading very selectively so no matter what I write it says what you want it to say.


waow much aggressivity ! calm down, i thought you considered infinite reactor the same as tileable since you can make tileable pattern that reapeat to infinity, ofc i was not going to try and build infinite train with rails 1 by 1, comon use your brain !

What do you call N nuclear reactor entities and measure (N % 100)% ? if it' not infinite ? You already said tileable were to be judge on density, and now you add this measure of distance, is that also for tileable design ? does it replace the density measure ?

the more you add the more i'm lost mrvn sorry
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
Yes, such a design I would call stupid. Why would you purposefully only fuel the reactor moderatly if the heat exhcnager aren't getting enough heat? A simple change to the design to throw in more fuel would beat it. Those cases should eliminate themself. No artificial elongation happening there.
You fuel moderatly the reactor because otherwise they overheat, you said it was to be avoided in the rules ! Then the heat spread but not as far as if it was overheating constantly, since you throttle the fuel in ordre to comply with the rules, then some reactors used to carry heat will have temperature variation, which means sometimes heat exchanger will not work 100%.
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
maximized != maximum. should != must. More selective reading.
so that's a rule you should follow but you don't have to that says you need to maximize but if you maximize a little that's fine, and if you don't it's fine too since it's not you MUST but only you SHOULD. I don't think this rule is very useful it just adds more confusion.

please explain to me with simple word the difference between maximized and maximum in the context.

mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
You might have noticed that there isn't a single submission so far.

This wasn't supposed to be a contest to crown the mister nuclear reactor 2021. The point was to get to see some crazy reactors and one-up each other by improving on each others designs.
Dude everytime i ask if can do a fun thing you say it's cheating, not allowed, bending the rules or whatever maybe that's why there's no submission so far no ?

There's not much point improving a design HEAT exchaager=>pump=>wagon, it's just something you do for fun i think, but when you put so much restrictions while at the same time being so imprecise in defining a qualifying reactor, i don't expect many people will think it's fun doing it in such conditions. ( me included )

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
i wish you find a way to be more explicit.
like 1 pump per wagon => ok not considered elongated artificially not cheating,


It depends but I probably would consider it elongating the train. Because you can fit at least 2 heat exchangers per wagon. Only reason not to use 2 is probably to make the train longer. Instead of making a longer train so you can move more steam.

You can fit 3 heat exchangers per wagon if you load from both sides. But that might not work with the design. So I can't just require 3 heat exchangers per wagon.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
1 pump per wagon 50% of time => not ok should be /2 because cheat


Again with the selective reading. No, as said already I would call that stupid.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
2 pump per wagon 50% of the time => count as 1 pump per wagon ?


Again with the selective reading. No, as said already I would call that stupid.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
if heat exchanger is far away from core and only output 80% output on 10 wagon, and other 10 wagon are 100%. does that count 18 wagon ?


And there we have the case the rule was aimed for. You made the train longer than the reactor can sustain. So yes, that would probably be an 18 count.

In all my tests on reactors I never got 80% output on 10 wagons and 100% on another 10. What happens in my experience is that you get 100% on the first maybe 12 wagons. Maybe number 12 and 11 stop mid filling because they run out of heat. Then when the first 10 wagons are full those heat exchangers stop, the heat spreads and wagon 11, 12, 13, ... start filling one after the other.

In those cases cutting of the train at somewhere between 10-12 wagons would make the train leave with less dead time on the heat exchangers. It wouln't impact the steam/s produced by the reactor. The pattern shows that you either don't have enough reactors or you exceeded the heat carrying capacity.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
how can i measure the performance of my design to compare them and submit the best ?
Simple. Post it and I tell you.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
Just for you if the reactor has N nuclear reactor entities I will measure (N % 100)% of the distance between reactor and the hypothetical consumer before said consumer.


I'm happy you take in consideration my observations. Unfortunatly i do not understand what this mean ? maybe it's the notation. Say i have 100 core-reactor 2X50 for example, all in a line, and it's tileable so that if you copy another blueprint it makes a 2X100, then 2X150 then 2X200 and so on. How do you plan to measure the steam/S ?

Isn't that a case where the density would matter more ? since the design is infinite. i'm just asking questions !


Since 100 % 100 == 0 I would measure it at the consumer by the above formula. And I would count fluid wagons. If there is a tie then the density would come into play. It really doesn't matter if you count trains per minute when enlarging both reactors to the same size or fuel cells per minute or heat converted per steam per second or the time the heat exchangers and pumps work vs not work. While all different figures one will always be bigger than the other. One reactor will outperform the other.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
I never said an infinite train would be measured on density. It can't be measured, it can't be build, it can't be put in a blueprint, it can't be put in a savegame, it can't be submitted here at all.

I said tileable designs would have to be compared on density if in doubt. But you seem to be reading very selectively so no matter what I write it says what you want it to say.


waow much aggressivity ! calm down, i thought you considered infinite reactor the same as tileable since you can make tileable pattern that reapeat to infinity, ofc i was not going to try and build infinite train with rails 1 by 1, comon use your brain !

What do you call N nuclear reactor entities and measure (N % 100)% ? if it' not infinite ? You already said tileable were to be judge on density, and now you add this measure of distance, is that also for tileable design ? does it replace the density measure ?

the more you add the more i'm lost mrvn sorry


More selective reading. I never said tileable and infinite reactor are the same. A tileable reactor is very much finite. You can build it to any size but it is never infinite. And a tileable reactor will have a fixed train size with many trains. The inifinite reactor with an infinite train is very much a different beast. Which is why you can build one but not the other.

(N % 100)% means "N modulo 100" taken as percentage. The last 2 digits of your reactor count say where I measure. As I already explained it makes no difference where you measure because at all points along the rails the throughput of trains will be identical. But you wanted to know because aparently for your design it makes a difference. Somehow you must have more trains leaving the reactor than would arrive at the consumer or vice versa. Or your fluid tanks are leaking steam. Can't fathom how you manage either.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
Yes, such a design I would call stupid. Why would you purposefully only fuel the reactor moderatly if the heat exhcnager aren't getting enough heat? A simple change to the design to throw in more fuel would beat it. Those cases should eliminate themself. No artificial elongation happening there.
You fuel moderatly the reactor because otherwise they overheat, you said it was to be avoided in the rules ! Then the heat spread but not as far as if it was overheating constantly, since you throttle the fuel in ordre to comply with the rules, then some reactors used to carry heat will have temperature variation, which means sometimes heat exchanger will not work 100%.
But then the heat exchangers aren't lacking heat because you fuel moderatly, which was your example. Your reactor has plenty of heat. That is a totally different case. If you can't get the heat to the heat exchangers than no amount of fueling will fix it. It's just sensible to not waste the fuel if the reactor is already hot.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
maximized != maximum. should != must. More selective reading.
so that's a rule you should follow but you don't have to that says you need to maximize but if you maximize a little that's fine, and if you don't it's fine too since it's not you MUST but only you SHOULD. I don't think this rule is very useful it just adds more confusion.

please explain to me with simple word the difference between maximized and maximum in the context.
The maxium steam/fuel you can get would be an infinite reactor, which we already discussed is purely theoretical. But you can get infinitely close the larger your reactor. But you do not have to produce the maximum steam per fuel cell. But you should maximize the steam per fuel cell you do produce. So don't overheat the reactor, that just wastes fuel.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:51 pm
You might have noticed that there isn't a single submission so far.

This wasn't supposed to be a contest to crown the mister nuclear reactor 2021. The point was to get to see some crazy reactors and one-up each other by improving on each others designs.
Dude everytime i ask if can do a fun thing you say it's cheating, not allowed, bending the rules or whatever maybe that's why there's no submission so far no ?

There's not much point improving a design HEAT exchaager=>pump=>wagon, it's just something you do for fun i think, but when you put so much restrictions while at the same time being so imprecise in defining a qualifying reactor, i don't expect many people will think it's fun doing it in such conditions. ( me included )
Apart from your first suggestion to spread the heat to both sides of the reactor and have locomotives in the middle of the train all you did was talk about hypothetical designs with made up numbers that all sound specifically made up to find loopholes in the rules. 90% of the time the numbers simply don't make any sense so all I can assume is a gross cirumvention of the rules set in the first post.

It's odd that you still argue about this when it isn't even fun. I for one am sick of it. Either post a reactor or go away. I won't explain why any made up hypothetical design with made up numbers doesn't follow the goals set out in the first post anymore.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:49 pm
It depends but I probably would consider it elongating the train. Because you can fit at least 2 heat exchangers per wagon. Only reason not to use 2 is probably to make the train longer. Instead of making a longer train so you can move more steam.

You can fit 3 heat exchangers per wagon if you load from both sides. But that might not work with the design. So I can't just require 3 heat exchangers per wagon.


me: can you be more explicit, does this work ?
you :"probably" " it depends"

And then the bald sentence.
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:49 pm
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
1 pump per wagon 50% of time => not ok should be /2 because cheat


Again with the selective reading. No, as said already I would call that stupid.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
2 pump per wagon 50% of the time => count as 1 pump per wagon ?


Again with the selective reading. No, as said already I would call that stupid.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
if heat exchanger is far away from core and only output 80% output on 10 wagon, and other 10 wagon are 100%. does that count 18 wagon ?


And there we have the case the rule was aimed for. You made the train longer than the reactor can sustain. So yes, that would probably be an 18 count.

In all my tests on reactors I never got 80% output on 10 wagons and 100% on another 10. What happens in my experience is that you get 100% on the first maybe 12 wagons. Maybe number 12 and 11 stop mid filling because they run out of heat. Then when the first 10 wagons are full those heat exchangers stop, the heat spreads and wagon 11, 12, 13, ... start filling one after the other.


i'm sorry but it's not because you don't have it in your test that someone else can't have it. That's the point of the contest no ? that everyone comes with a unique idea or try to ?
Now you're like : this no this no, this yes, but for what reason ? what if my train is 50 wagon, and only 75% of them are loaded with 3 pump and 25% with 2 pumps, because those 25% are very close to heat, so 2 are working 100% oftime, but 75% of my wagons gets loaded with steam only 90% of the time, because just before the refuel it's too cold ?

You say some case are stupid but at the same time you tried to open 2 train double headed train station at the same time, and complained that 2 trains were called in another post, see the definition of stupid is not very precise and an opinion. Like making a contest without being able to define the rules is also stupid imo. Why don't you explain rationnaly when you consider the rules should apply, and when it shouldn't. Because saying you didn't have it in your test is a stupid argument if go this way, you started with a U shape design and said the train was to be made smaller to qualify since your example was bad while at the same time asking for tips to make it longer. Now you are adding rules like if the train is long it must have its wagon filled by at least 2 pumps because you're not sure it's possible with 3 but if you use only 1 then it's cheating, but not always, it depend probably.

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:48 pm
how can i measure the performance of my design to compare them and submit the best ?
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:49 pm
Simple. Post it and I tell you.


What part of the question did you not understand ?

I would like to have a way myself to audit/test my design before i make them public to make sure i've not overlooked something.

I cannot post the best if i don't know which one it is that's simple logic. I asked for the method you will use to judge things, which i can understand you try to avoid the question since i suspect you to have 0 idea about this.


mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:49 pm
Since 100 % 100 == 0 [long rumble about the new rule]
(N % 100)% means "N modulo 100" taken as percentage. The last 2 digits of your reactor count say where I measure. As I already explained it makes no difference where you measure because at all points along the rails the throughput of trains will be identical. But you wanted to know because aparently for your design it makes a difference. Somehow you must have more trains leaving the reactor than would arrive at the consumer or vice versa. Or your fluid tanks are leaking steam. Can't fathom how you manage either.
i know you can't that's why i'm asking for a rationnal/ non-ambigous / non-interpretative rule that i could test my design against myself, not something like "send me".

so if i have 102 reactor you only measure the last 2 right ? or the first 2 ? or you are going to measure 2% of the total ?

you can explain like if i'm stupid, you already do most of the time


mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:49 pm
Apart from your first suggestion to spread the heat to both sides of the reactor and have locomotives in the middle of the train all you did was talk about hypothetical designs with made up numbers that all sound specifically made up to find loopholes in the rules. 90% of the time the numbers simply don't make any sense so all I can assume is a gross cirumvention of the rules set in the first post.

It's odd that you still argue about this when it isn't even fun. I for one am sick of it. Either post a reactor or go away. I won't explain why any made up hypothetical design with made up numbers doesn't follow the goals set out in the first post anymore.
i feel your frustration, i can understand you are disappointed that no-one else except me seems interested in the contest, but you don't have to blame me for it 90% of things you did was adding rules to fordbid stuff you overlooked while saying the rules don't need change and avoiding detailing how you plan to evaluate the design precisely.

I already did 1 nuclear reactor that may or may not follow the rules depending on your arbitrary decision during the process of inventing the system of notation, here it is : viewtopic.php?f=208&t=100376 maybe you can study it , maybe it will give you idea to make your own power plant with tanks-on-wheel :)

Maybe you can use it to work on your evaluating method, because it is functionnal, contrary to the 5-min lazily built example that doesn't qualify you used in the first post.

With such evidence of low investment in you own contest it would seem if i go away, there would probably be nobody left to care and you could hastly try to burry this embarrassing story.


here's my island for you to take refuge :
island.png
island.png (853.1 KiB) Viewed 1016 times

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

Congratulation, you are the winner with a 4x 4 fluid wagon train design.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

Depending on the distance from reactor where you measure it require more or less than 4 train with each 4 fluid wagon mind you, in case it's hard to understand it's because if you measure far away you need more trains. This means the steam/s/wagon is higher overall when the distance is low, because you have less train to divide the same total steam output hence less wagon hence more steam/s/wagon which i thought was the deciding factor after your explanations.

Nonetheless I'm very happy you say i win, i think it's rewarding the pugnacity that was required to go through all the tortuous and arbitrary regulations you kept adding and changing over the course of the contest.

However, now that you say this old design won because it was 4x4 fluid wagon, i'm not sure i understood your method of evalution anymore, I thought it would be easier to understand with a good example but i suspect you say that to get rid of me for some reasons.

Still thank you for organizing this great contest mrvn, i'm a bit biais now that you said i've won, but you know what it is hehehe :)

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

No, the distance does not matter. You do indeed need more trains for greater distances but it always takes the same time for a train to enter the reactor from the waiting spot, fill up and leave. Nowhere in "steam/s/wagon" does the distance or number of trains total figure in. Steam is always 100k, wagons is always 4 and the seconds only depend on the heat exchangers and the time for the train to enter/leave the bay.

The only reason any of this was tortuous or seemed arbitrary was that you made up imaginary non-sense designs and simply didn't listen. No regulations have changed apart from the relaxation on infinity pipes and it's always been about the wagon count. So that's what I counted, 1...2...3...4. And all the heat exchangers work all the time while a train is being filled and you even have 3 of them per wagon. Can't ask for more than that. So none of your made up nonsense that confused you so much applies.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

you forgot to count the steam/s which you said was a deciding factor and only counted the wagon which is not what you said in the first post and confusing.

You say steam is always 100K which is wrong since it's 82395.8 per train.

I understand now why you say distance doesn't matter, given how bad is your evaluation method.

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

Sorry, forgot your trains leave early. So it's always 82395.8. Doesn't matter if there are 20 trains or 2000. it's not going to change.

You are right, I said the steam/s is the deciding factor. Google it or grab a dictionary from the shelf if you have one.
deciding
/dΙͺˈsʌΙͺdΙͺΕ‹/

adjective

serving to resolve or settle something.
But with no other design having 4x 4 fluid wagon trains there is nothing to resolve. If there is a second submission with 4 fluid wagons later then the steam/s for each can be looked at and compared. For now there is nothing to compare it to so I didn't bother measuring.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

I thought you could use the only submitted design to demonstrate your method of calcul with a functionnal example. This way i could then apply the same method to my other designs and submit the best.

Specifically, how the rule that say "1 pump is bad, 2 pump per wagon is good 3 is better but you don't know if it's possible." applies in this context.

Is that a situation where you count 82% of 4 wagon ? since they are not full.

How is that different from a situation where pump do not work 100% of time but only 82% ? ( situation in which you said it would probably count 18 wagons since some of them aren't always being filled).

In this case my design should compete in the category of 3.2958 wagon no ? Maybe when there is another design with 3.2958 wagons per train you could measure the steam/s as the deciding factor, that would be interesting to understand then how it is a deciding factor.

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

It's usually quite trivial to look at a design and see if there is a hole where an extra pump could be or if it was impossible to place more pumps. 2 pumps are always possible in my own experience and from the posts by other people about the best pattern earlier in the thread. 3 pumps require heat pipes/reactors on both side of the track, like in your case, and is not always possible.

Leaving holes where pumps could go is bad.

Not commenting on a hypothetical imaginary ridiculous design where pumps work 82% of the time.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

my design has the pump filling in up to 82395 steam, then stop during train down time, then pump again.

let say they take 82 second to fill in 1 train, and then 18 second for another train to replace the 1rst one.

compare it to the same design except 98 000 steam per train, pump takes 98 second to fill in 1 train, and then 18 second for another train to replace the 1rst one.

ohohho what is the difference ? i one design the pump work around 82% of the time, and in the other one (98/98+18) around 85 % of the time.

let say i want to submit my design, and i don't know if it's better with 12 trains with 82K steam for refuel more precise, or 10 train with 98 K steam for less train down time.

I submit the same design with 12x82 and then 10x98 , but also why not 24x41, and 41x24 ?

It's not a hypothetical design, it's the design that won the contest, maybe it is better with a different parameter, because seriously if you go with 41 train carrying each 24K steam, the design procude less steam/s despite the same 4 wagon. just more train. However one such design would fare better if the distance is larger, because more trains so more of them can be used at the same time.


now its setup with 82K steam, and 12 trains per load, but with 100K steam like you wrongly assumed at first, then the pump are active a bigger % of time.

i'm not asking for a hypothetical design i'm asking for the one you have already, how it was ranked to compare for example :

WITH YOU THINKING 100K YOU COUNT 4 WAGON

IF YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING 100K STEAM , NOW YOU NOW ITS 82K HOW DOES THAT CHANGE RATING ?

WHAT IF SUBMIT SAME DESIGN BUT WITH 100K LIKE YOU WRONGLY ASSUMED ?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

If you change your design to fill the fluid wagons more then there would be 2 designs with 4x 4 fluid wagons. As said then the steam/s comes into play. The full fluid wagons have more steam/s so they win.

And this also shows why steam/s is important. Driving around a half filled train? Nobody would do that given a choice. There is some sense in using 12x82 or 10x98 because the math then lines up but reducing that further? Your 24x41 or 41x24 suggestion is just stupid. Needlessly cripples your design.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

haha that' so stupid, if i make a 90000000 wagon long, then there's no other design to compare with, i just have to put 1 or 2 steam here and there and it's the longest train. Or you gonna try saying you already explained it's forbidden ?

while you just said a design with wagon at 80% capacity should be judged as a 4 wagon design, no matter the amount of steam in it, first look at wagon count.

but when it's a 4 wagon with 82K steam it's ok, it's not ok when it's 90000000 wagon with 1 steam in each wagon, because that would be abusing a the rule right ?

but the rule is so poorly written that you need to keep adding things here and there to patch the stuff you overlooked.

Since steam/s is deciding factor, only in case of a tie in train lengh, train with 900000000000 wagon, with 1 steam/wagon are the best hahaha.

that's how your rating function right ? given what you just explained ( which keeps changing ).

I'm gonna try to take a simple example for you because at this point it seem required: it's like a constest of the biggest and heaviest potato. Someone has the heaviest, and another one has the biggest, and your metric is "we only look at the size if the weight is the same". Which is dumb because then each potato is its own weight class, and then the size doesn't matter.


You say each train is to be judged on number of wagon, without being capable of explaining how you count wagons. You said earlier if the heat exchanger is not functionning 100% or time it's artificially elongating the trains and wagon need to be discarded, which is stupid, because every train if they move will have their heat exchanger non functionning 100% of time. Such as the train i showed and that you counted as 4 wagon, not 82% of 4 wagon.

since you have decided to make a contest of the longest of something that mathematically is infinite without realizing it: It's funny to see you add little arguments that seem like they make sense but never adress the fundamental flaw of the logic, and you so dishonnest that you don't want to recognize you have proposed a stupid contest and keep justifying like there was really a way to measure what you try.


Think about for a second, how do measure a difference in steam/second if you don't ask the train to move ?

Then there no way to measure the down time differential of train that would be half filled or fully filled ??

So you just implicitly say there is a need for including a distance measurement.


Otherwise the steam/s is the same in both design.

Why not explain how you measure steam/s ???

You never explained your method yet to measure the steam/s , it may be time no ?

how much time do you think you can play idiot like you don't understand and don't want to admit you are wrong ?
Last edited by mmmPI on Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

quyxkh
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 950
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by quyxkh »

If the direct-to-wagon steam unload requirement is relaxed, I think this method can manage a 4500Γ—2 reactor plant. It's not a full implementation and all the train math here is spitballing but it's at least roughly right; reactor temps stabilize on this 2Γ—8 PoC around 700℃ so there's plenty of headroom, it's just a question of getting trains in and out fast enough. A fully tilable unit would be seven times as many reactors since the rail buffers take 1m more than the reactor lanes, so 2Γ—56 reactors, so some multiple of 40 fluid wagons each side if I did my math right, and I'd think two tracks per side minimum to get the trains in and out fast enough.

40 wagons, 56 reactors@160MW is 56*16 exchangers, *103steam/s / 40 wagons is 2307.2 steam per second per wagon, and you need to both load and unload so call it 5000 fluid/s average, single pump is 3.4s to fill or empty, that's 7300/s so yeah, you can't get trains in and out fast enough on just one track but two should do it, you need a train arrival every 10s or so, 20s per track, 6.8s unload/load so with two tracks the longest train that can clear its own length in 13.2s with a couple seconds for the arriving-train gap, a 5-40 nuc-fueled fluid train can do that easily.


pic

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

quyxkh wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:16 pm
If the direct-to-wagon steam unload requirement is relaxed,
nice attempt x).

but there is no requirement for unloading !, there is no method of unloading mentionned, the steam/s measurement method hasn't been disclosed it's a secret process that only occurs when 2 train have the same size, since you can pick any size of train with your design, you just need to pick one that no-one else has choosen already, and then you skip the steam/S calculation so no need to worry about getting the train in and out.
quyxkh wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:16 pm
I think this method can manage a 4500Γ—2 reactor plant
Why not more ? just double it, and again, and again, it's not a probem if the reactor overheat, sure you'd waste some fuel, but it's only a "should" not a "must".

quyxkh
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 950
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by quyxkh »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:34 pm
is no requirement for unloading !
Huh?
What is the longest train you can fill from a nuclear reactor directly (heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon)?
That's what I was referring to. It meets my definition of unloading, I don't understand what you mean.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:34 pm
Why not more?
A little quick belt math will show how that layout can't feed more, but the real reason is, 4500 reactors in a row is already 22.5km and that's probably more than enough for anything I'll ever build. I'll leave going bigger for anyone who wants to build a map that can find an interesting use for more than 1.4TW. Got any examples?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 8:58 pm
haha that' so stupid, if i make a 90000000 wagon long, then there's no other design to compare with, i just have to put 1 or 2 steam here and there and it's the longest train. Or you gonna try saying you already explained it's forbidden ?
Already did. Say I've already explained that is.
Last edited by mrvn on Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

quyxkh wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:16 pm
If the direct-to-wagon steam unload requirement is relaxed ...
But it isn't for the very reason of that design. There is no challenge there as you can tile that to any train length you want. It can fill any length of train.

At some point fueling gets tricky but I'm sure you can think of at least 3 ways to get some fuel in there other than the blue belt that would scale.

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

quyxkh wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:05 pm
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:34 pm
is no requirement for unloading !
Huh?
What is the longest train you can fill from a nuclear reactor directly (heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon)?
That's what I was referring to. It meets my definition of unloading, I don't understand what you mean.
He means you can just use infinity pipes or offshore pumps and waterfill for the water. Although at those sizes I'm not sure there would be a natural lake to build it in vanilla style.

Locked

Return to β€œEnergy Production”