Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Hellburn!
#1
The magic ratio of 66/33 has the foundation of hellburning forever. It's the mix that anyone who wants to hit the best digits uses. It's reliable, easy to do, and extremely fast.

But is it the fastest? With the fancy new engine tools on Cog1 and Cog2 we can do some pretty neat stuff with the combustion chamber and engine. One of the new monitors lets us control exactly what mix we put in the combustion chamber. We can do any pair of integers that add up to 100, that's 101 mixes at the touch of a finger.

Now listen up, I'm not a hellburn expert. I'm a solid mediocre at best. But is it possible that 66/33 is just a product of being the best mix that is easy to make in 2 steps? Is it really the absolute best? I have a hunch that the real answer is close to 66/33 but was such a pain to create that nobody ever bothered. What do you think?
Reply
#2
Considering we had a round last night where someone hellburned the engine so bad we all burned to death on the fucking shuttle, I would think yes.

Believe me I tried to keep as many people aliveas I could. It was not possible.
Reply
#3
(02-04-2018, 01:14 AM)Eibel Wrote: Considering we had a round last night where someone hellburned the engine so bad we all burned to death on the fucking shuttle, I would think yes.

Believe me I tried to keep as many people aliveas I could. It was not possible.

I believe I may have been there for the round, but the reason why I can't quite say for certain is because the hellburning and not venting thing has been spiking in it's existence, which is seriously annoying to deal with, cause escape and the shuttle will turn into Lava Moon without the fucking lava.

also, if something works every fucking time, why change it?
Reply
#4
Yes you were there that round Drago, it's the one where you we're the only survivor not in crit on the shuttle, and you set up a singularity in the chapel
Reply
#5
(02-04-2018, 01:14 AM)Eibel Wrote: Considering we had a round last night where someone hellburned the engine so bad we all burned to death on the fucking shuttle, I would think yes.

Believe me I tried to keep as many people aliveas I could.  It was not possible.
On Cog1? If so, then that used to be a fairly common occurrence. The best worst was when things heated up and vented in just the right way to create space magic: a negative pressure wave that froze people to death in a torrent of invisible molasses. That said, a hot engine isn't necessarily a powerful one.

Anyways, here? I kinda avoided it because a) it might not be relevant as gas changes were going on around the leak, and b) reading the code sucks a lot of the fun out of things. Of course that doesn't count things like vent distance, chamber shape and lag spikes.
Reply
#6
(02-04-2018, 02:04 AM)Drago156 Wrote: Also, if something works every fucking time, why change it?

50/50 works every time too. It's just really bad. The purpose of moving beyond 66/33 is to see if there is anything better.
Reply
#7
So I've done SOME experimenting since they added the mixer to cog1, and diagnostic tools in general. 66/33 still SEEMS to be the most effective, but so far my testing has only really involved 60/40-70-30, the inverted set of that (ranging around 33/66 instead) and 50/50.

EDIT: And vent your floors people! Escape gets unpleasant enough by the end of a 50 minutes round WITH floors vented in a hellburn, holy COW I don't wanna imagine it unvented.
Reply
#8
(02-04-2018, 12:10 PM)Cyfarfod Wrote: So I've done SOME experimenting since they added the mixer to cog1, and diagnostic tools in general.  66/33 still SEEMS to be the most effective, but so far my testing has only really involved 60/40-70-30, the inverted set of that (ranging around 33/66 instead) and 50/50.

EDIT: And vent your floors people!  Escape gets unpleasant enough by the end of a 50 minutes round WITH floors vented in a hellburn, holy COW I don't wanna imagine it unvented.

I think the best ratio is very close to 66/33 too. Hell, it might even be exactly 66/33 if the space gods smile. It would take tests of very close numbers to know for sure.

The big problem with tests of very close numbers like 65/35 or 68/32 is variability. Every time the engine is started slightly differently. Every tick in the game that isn't done precisely the same will change what happens even if by a little bit. Something slightly faster might appear slightly slower depending on loads of different factors like lag, misclicks.. anything really. 

So the average time to hit a target (100 GW for example) using a close mix of 68/32 (for example) must be lower than the average time to hit the same target with 66/33. And not only lower, but lower by an amount of time that is greater than the uncertainty, otherwise it could just be a fluke engine speedrun!

But! Imagine a long line of identical engines where the only difference is the mix ratio. Then through some magic like commands, all the valves were opened on the same tick to start the engines. The combustion igniters all triggered at the same time. Then I believe the true best mix would be able to be found.
Reply
#9
hi,

the 2:1 ratio is not always ideal, it's too rich lean of a burn for most relevant engine states

there is a tool that will help you discover exactly what you are looking for, you can read about it here


i created it to answer exactly the kinds of questions you're asking

if you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to ask

secondly, be very careful at how much you read into one line of source code from a year ago. the way this thing works is not straightforward and very prone to misunderstandings and misconceptions. i can promise you, that even if you read all of the FEA source, you still would not have a clue what is going on in a hellburn
Reply
#10
(02-04-2018, 04:26 PM)kremlin Wrote: hi,

the 2:1 ratio is not always ideal, it's too rich of a burn for most relevant engine states

there is a tool that will help you discover exactly what you are looking for, you can read about it here


i created it to answer exactly the kinds of questions you're asking

if you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to ask

secondly, be very careful at how much you read into one line of source code from a year ago. the way this thing works is not straightforward and very prone to misunderstandings and misconceptions. i can promise you, that even if you read all of the FEA source, you still would not have a clue what is going on in a hellburn

Kremlin your new computer is excellent. I've been watching the accelerations mostly and I noticed that injections of mix into the chamber occur every 3 ticks or something like that. It causes the accelerations to oscillate.

On a side note, I think that the engine's power output is exponential during a hellburn. The time it takes to go from 1 MW to 1000 MW is the same time it takes to go from 1 GW to 1000 GW etc... 
So it probably follows a form like Output (Watts) =  1000 (Watts) ^  (Ticks / TickConstant). And the better the burn is, the lower the TickConstant is. 

Maybe I'm wrong though, and it just looks similar to an exponential. The most important thing to do is to keep peeling back the layers until we find a variable that remains constant during a hellburn (or just repeats a constant pattern over 3 ticks). Cause once we find that variable, we can compare it against everything else. It can be the 'Score' of the burn. I haven't played around with your device long enough to see what values can be used to describe a burn, but accelerations look promising.
Reply
#11
(02-04-2018, 05:34 PM)Prichard Wrote:
(02-04-2018, 04:26 PM)kremlin Wrote: hi,

the 2:1 ratio is not always ideal, it's too rich of a burn for most relevant engine states

there is a tool that will help you discover exactly what you are looking for, you can read about it here


i created it to answer exactly the kinds of questions you're asking

if you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to ask

secondly, be very careful at how much you read into one line of source code from a year ago. the way this thing works is not straightforward and very prone to misunderstandings and misconceptions. i can promise you, that even if you read all of the FEA source, you still would not have a clue what is going on in a hellburn

Kremlin your new computer is excellent. I've been watching the accelerations mostly and I noticed that injections of mix into the chamber occur every 3 ticks or something like that. It causes the accelerations to oscillate.

On a side note, I think that the engine's power output is exponential during a hellburn. The time it takes to go from 1 MW to 1000 MW is the same time it takes to go from 1 GW to 1000 GW etc... 
So it probably follows a form like Output (Watts) =  1000 (Watts) ^  (Ticks / TickConstant). And the better the burn is, the lower the TickConstant is. 

Maybe I'm wrong though, and it just looks similar to an exponential. The most important thing to do is to keep peeling back the layers until we find a variable that remains constant during a hellburn (or just repeats a constant pattern over 3 ticks). Cause once we find that variable, we can compare it against everything else. It can be the 'Score' of the burn. I haven't played around with your device long enough to see what values can be used to describe a burn, but accelerations look promising.

no, you're exactly right and it's an outstanding bug
Reply
#12
(02-11-2018, 01:04 PM)kremlin Wrote:
(02-04-2018, 05:34 PM)Prichard Wrote:
(02-04-2018, 04:26 PM)kremlin Wrote: hi,

the 2:1 ratio is not always ideal, it's too rich of a burn for most relevant engine states

there is a tool that will help you discover exactly what you are looking for, you can read about it here


i created it to answer exactly the kinds of questions you're asking

if you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to ask

secondly, be very careful at how much you read into one line of source code from a year ago. the way this thing works is not straightforward and very prone to misunderstandings and misconceptions. i can promise you, that even if you read all of the FEA source, you still would not have a clue what is going on in a hellburn

Kremlin your new computer is excellent. I've been watching the accelerations mostly and I noticed that injections of mix into the chamber occur every 3 ticks or something like that. It causes the accelerations to oscillate.

On a side note, I think that the engine's power output is exponential during a hellburn. The time it takes to go from 1 MW to 1000 MW is the same time it takes to go from 1 GW to 1000 GW etc... 
So it probably follows a form like Output (Watts) =  1000 (Watts) ^  (Ticks / TickConstant). And the better the burn is, the lower the TickConstant is. 

Maybe I'm wrong though, and it just looks similar to an exponential. The most important thing to do is to keep peeling back the layers until we find a variable that remains constant during a hellburn (or just repeats a constant pattern over 3 ticks). Cause once we find that variable, we can compare it against everything else. It can be the 'Score' of the burn. I haven't played around with your device long enough to see what values can be used to describe a burn, but accelerations look promising.

no, you're exactly right and it's an outstanding bug

and now it isn't! (it's fixed) https://forum.ss13.co/showthread.php?tid=10071
Reply
#13
(02-04-2018, 01:07 AM)Prichard Wrote: Now listen up, I'm not a hellburn expert. I'm a solid mediocre at best. But is it possible that 66/33 is just a product of being the best mix that is easy to make in 2 steps? Is it really the absolute best? I have a hunch that the real answer is close to 66/33 but was such a pain to create that nobody ever bothered. What do you think?

33/66 is the most optimal mixture to heat up your gases, any other mixture and you'd essentially be wasting fuel.

However instead of just dumping plasma into both the hot and cold side you could add only a few moles of plasma into the hot side to allow for more expansion before the pipes burst, and then dump the remainder into the pipes when they eventually do burst.
Reply
#14
(03-04-2018, 08:49 AM)Erik Wrote:
(02-04-2018, 01:07 AM)Prichard Wrote: Now listen up, I'm not a hellburn expert. I'm a solid mediocre at best. But is it possible that 66/33 is just a product of being the best mix that is easy to make in 2 steps? Is it really the absolute best? I have a hunch that the real answer is close to 66/33 but was such a pain to create that nobody ever bothered. What do you think?

33/66 is the most optimal mixture to heat up your gases, any other mixture and you'd essentially be wasting fuel.

However instead of just dumping plasma into both the hot and cold side you could add only a few moles of plasma into the hot side to allow for more expansion before the pipes burst, and then dump the remainder into the pipes when they eventually do burst.

It is starting to seem to me that it is a mistake (as long as you practice safe venting) not to ALSO turn your hot pipes into a combustion chamber, although the 33/66 mix burns the plasma too fast. You want more plasma than oxy in yer pipes.

I cannot stress this enough- if you are not 100% sure you know how and where to vent, you are gonna get yourself and others killed doing this.
Reply
#15
The pipes are just conveyor belts for heat. Ideally you'd want the most efficient transfer of energy. Fire in the tubes is great for short term gain, but the generated CO2 is, to scientific terminology, balls.

That being said, this ain't real. This is byond real. If you rub N2 and CO2 together hard enough you might cause the heat death of the Server.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)