-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
nobody said its not allowed, I don't care.
my original (non edit) was tord, edited to nojr and now back to tord, for reasons we've talked about.
my original (non edit) was tord, edited to nojr and now back to tord, for reasons we've talked about.
By my calculations (thanks for the Maple license, university! Also, floating-point math is SO much faster than fixed-point when the numbers get big), the maximum BigInteger is about 1.722569512 * 10^20686623774, which has about 2.068662377 * 10^10 decimal digits- 20 billion digits, by the American meaning (other parts of the world would call that 20 thousand million because a billion would be a million million rather than a thousand million, if I remember correctly).
ooooOOOOoooo math is fun oooooOOOOoooooo...
Also, I've always had numerous problems with GregTech/IC2 cables and superconductors in particular. In older versions of the mod, I never thought the full-block superconductors made any sense because, since they have no resistance, there would be no reason to make them any thicker than absolutely necessary. After all, the only reason why thick cables in real live are thicker than other cables is because they have less resistance, because there's more ways for the electrons to travel through them. Since superconductors have ZERO resistance, there's no reason to make them anything other than as thin as possible. Note that the superconductors that are known to exist currently all only work at extremely low temperatures, so what might appear to be a very thick cable may actually be a very thin wire surrounded by a lot of insulation, liquid nitrogen plumbing, more insulation, etc. The insulation is only to keep heat from the outside from warming the actual wire above the threshold of superconductivity- since the power lost to heat is equal to the current squared times the resistance of the wire (P = I^2 * R), and the resistance is zero, superconducting cables will never produce any heat.
Now that I think about it, this may be exactly what Greg was going for with the full-block superconductors. Hmm. But then again, those cables (as well as the new version of superconductors) have no insulation at all. Huh.
Anyway, I don't much like the Greg's new cables, either. As I noted before, the only reason that cables are made thicker in real life is to reduce resistance, just like how larger pipes (GT and IRL) can transfer fluid faster. Therefore, doubling the thickness should halve the resistance, yet this does not seem to be the case with Greg's cables. Also note that the maximum current that can be passed through real-life wires before bad stuff happens is determined by the power dissipated as heat (I^2 * R = I * V = V^2 / R), the rate at which that heat is removed from the cable, and the melting point of the cable itself. Which, come to think of it, is probably why transmission lines in the US (at least) aren't insulated- insulating them would just trap the heat in, both worsening sagging and further increasing the lines' resistance. Granted, insulation on wires does have its place- when there's anything nearby that the electricity could spark to. Which is probably why Greg and IC2 both make insulated cables more efficient.
Also, I don't really understand why a cable made of any given metal should have a maximum voltage. The maximum voltage applied to a cable before bad things happen should be a function of the breakdown voltage of whatever's surrounding it and the distance between the surface of the cable and the nearest gounded conductor. If you apply a high voltage to a piece of uninsulated metal and try to touch it, you're going to get zapped, but I don't see why it would matter if that piece of metal was made of tin, silver, or any strange alloy. The answer, I guess, is power tiers, which is a valid point in the context of an addon for a game. But that's little consolation for the physics nazi that evidently exists in my brain.
I feel that neither the current nor the voltage passing through any given cable should have a hard limit. Rather, their product- power- should, and that limit should be based on the resistance (resistivity * length / cross-sectional area, so a thin silver cable would be on par with a thicker copper cable or a very thick tin cable) of the cable, the melting point of the material (here's where tungstensteel excels), how much rubber insulation there is on the cable itself, and maybe even the surrounding blocks. Higher voltages require more rubber insulation or airspace around the cable to prevent arcing. However, more insulation will increase the temperature of the cable as it dissipates energy to heat. Airspace helps reduce the temperature, and adjacent water helps more (but will definitely arc without insulation). Increasing temperature increases both the resistance and the likelihood of the cable melting.
Hrrm. There's got to be some way to pull that off without having to store a "temperature" variable in every single cable block and otherwise make everything super confusing. Let's see... Voltage has got to be constant at the input end, and be taxed by current * resistivity / cross-sectional area for each length (meter, say) of cable traveled. Current has to be constant through the length of the cable because conservation of charge and depends on the input voltage and the combined resistance of the cable and the machines running off it. Which means that I really don't want to mess with changing the resistance dynamically due to the way that GT and IC2 machines already work, which means that I can't make insulated cables less efficient when hot in the same way as it works IRL. Hrmph. Anyway, the heat produced per unit time = power lost = I^2 * R = current^2 * resistivity / cross-sectional area. Which goes up considerably faster than the voltage drop as current increases. Interesting... I guess if this number * thickness of insulation * thermal resistivity of rubber / (constant * number of nearby air blocks + bigger constant * number of nearby water blocks) exceeds the melting point of the material (in I have no clue what units), it melts. Or something like that, I don't really know what I'm talking about at this point. And if there's anything other than a few types of insulating blocks within constant * voltage / (thickness of insulation + small constant) meters of a charged cable, it gets zapped.
Hmm. Idea: Increase the per-cable voltage tax a bit if the "temperature" gets too high without actually messing with the temperature calculations. Would make people not want to insulate transmission lines without messing with current, but doesn't provide the same self-limiting feedback that occurs IRL.
oooOOOOoooo physics....
Anyway, the GT5 cables that make the least sense to my brain would have to be the Superconductor and Red Alloy cables. The red alloy cables actually have no resistance (defined as voltage loss per amp per meter), yet melt at a rather low current and voltage. Which makes no sense- as I've stated before, no resistance implies no heat generation implies no melting. And the superconducting cables... actually aren't. Yes, they have no maximum voltage, but in my system, that's true of any cable. However, they have resistance, which defies the very definition of a superconductor. Does explain the melting when overamped, though.
oooOOOOOOooooo
*fades into background*
ooooOOOOoooo math is fun oooooOOOOoooooo...
Also, I've always had numerous problems with GregTech/IC2 cables and superconductors in particular. In older versions of the mod, I never thought the full-block superconductors made any sense because, since they have no resistance, there would be no reason to make them any thicker than absolutely necessary. After all, the only reason why thick cables in real live are thicker than other cables is because they have less resistance, because there's more ways for the electrons to travel through them. Since superconductors have ZERO resistance, there's no reason to make them anything other than as thin as possible. Note that the superconductors that are known to exist currently all only work at extremely low temperatures, so what might appear to be a very thick cable may actually be a very thin wire surrounded by a lot of insulation, liquid nitrogen plumbing, more insulation, etc. The insulation is only to keep heat from the outside from warming the actual wire above the threshold of superconductivity- since the power lost to heat is equal to the current squared times the resistance of the wire (P = I^2 * R), and the resistance is zero, superconducting cables will never produce any heat.
Now that I think about it, this may be exactly what Greg was going for with the full-block superconductors. Hmm. But then again, those cables (as well as the new version of superconductors) have no insulation at all. Huh.
Anyway, I don't much like the Greg's new cables, either. As I noted before, the only reason that cables are made thicker in real life is to reduce resistance, just like how larger pipes (GT and IRL) can transfer fluid faster. Therefore, doubling the thickness should halve the resistance, yet this does not seem to be the case with Greg's cables. Also note that the maximum current that can be passed through real-life wires before bad stuff happens is determined by the power dissipated as heat (I^2 * R = I * V = V^2 / R), the rate at which that heat is removed from the cable, and the melting point of the cable itself. Which, come to think of it, is probably why transmission lines in the US (at least) aren't insulated- insulating them would just trap the heat in, both worsening sagging and further increasing the lines' resistance. Granted, insulation on wires does have its place- when there's anything nearby that the electricity could spark to. Which is probably why Greg and IC2 both make insulated cables more efficient.
Also, I don't really understand why a cable made of any given metal should have a maximum voltage. The maximum voltage applied to a cable before bad things happen should be a function of the breakdown voltage of whatever's surrounding it and the distance between the surface of the cable and the nearest gounded conductor. If you apply a high voltage to a piece of uninsulated metal and try to touch it, you're going to get zapped, but I don't see why it would matter if that piece of metal was made of tin, silver, or any strange alloy. The answer, I guess, is power tiers, which is a valid point in the context of an addon for a game. But that's little consolation for the physics nazi that evidently exists in my brain.
I feel that neither the current nor the voltage passing through any given cable should have a hard limit. Rather, their product- power- should, and that limit should be based on the resistance (resistivity * length / cross-sectional area, so a thin silver cable would be on par with a thicker copper cable or a very thick tin cable) of the cable, the melting point of the material (here's where tungstensteel excels), how much rubber insulation there is on the cable itself, and maybe even the surrounding blocks. Higher voltages require more rubber insulation or airspace around the cable to prevent arcing. However, more insulation will increase the temperature of the cable as it dissipates energy to heat. Airspace helps reduce the temperature, and adjacent water helps more (but will definitely arc without insulation). Increasing temperature increases both the resistance and the likelihood of the cable melting.
Hrrm. There's got to be some way to pull that off without having to store a "temperature" variable in every single cable block and otherwise make everything super confusing. Let's see... Voltage has got to be constant at the input end, and be taxed by current * resistivity / cross-sectional area for each length (meter, say) of cable traveled. Current has to be constant through the length of the cable because conservation of charge and depends on the input voltage and the combined resistance of the cable and the machines running off it. Which means that I really don't want to mess with changing the resistance dynamically due to the way that GT and IC2 machines already work, which means that I can't make insulated cables less efficient when hot in the same way as it works IRL. Hrmph. Anyway, the heat produced per unit time = power lost = I^2 * R = current^2 * resistivity / cross-sectional area. Which goes up considerably faster than the voltage drop as current increases. Interesting... I guess if this number * thickness of insulation * thermal resistivity of rubber / (constant * number of nearby air blocks + bigger constant * number of nearby water blocks) exceeds the melting point of the material (in I have no clue what units), it melts. Or something like that, I don't really know what I'm talking about at this point. And if there's anything other than a few types of insulating blocks within constant * voltage / (thickness of insulation + small constant) meters of a charged cable, it gets zapped.
Hmm. Idea: Increase the per-cable voltage tax a bit if the "temperature" gets too high without actually messing with the temperature calculations. Would make people not want to insulate transmission lines without messing with current, but doesn't provide the same self-limiting feedback that occurs IRL.
oooOOOOoooo physics....
Anyway, the GT5 cables that make the least sense to my brain would have to be the Superconductor and Red Alloy cables. The red alloy cables actually have no resistance (defined as voltage loss per amp per meter), yet melt at a rather low current and voltage. Which makes no sense- as I've stated before, no resistance implies no heat generation implies no melting. And the superconducting cables... actually aren't. Yes, they have no maximum voltage, but in my system, that's true of any cable. However, they have resistance, which defies the very definition of a superconductor. Does explain the melting when overamped, though.
oooOOOOOOooooo
*fades into background*
I have the feeling you missed the right thread by a little. Just a little.
about the GT cables: They are meant to be practical, not perfectly realistic.
about the GT cables: They are meant to be practical, not perfectly realistic.
No, I just had interesting info about the actual size of the maximum BigInteger, then got carried away.
Sorry.
ooOOooooo...
C
chbachman
Guest
I'm back, baby, yes I'm back!
Imma lay it down for ya'all right quick. I'm a spirit. I can resurrect myself at ANY TIME EVER so long as that time is just one time, and, well, ok my power is useless now.
I see we managed to kill a puppy. Yay! On the off chance there's another puppy (not really unpossible given so many players), new rule: NO PUPPY WORDS. They're now "bad guys" or "poopooheads". They will be incurring imminent "dooms" with lots of "red goo".
If you use puppy words, you'll be on my shitlist.
Fun fact! The following players have used puppy words every day so far:
Please send me a PM with your known role. The "poopooheads" as far as I can tell ALL know their roles. If you don't know your role, I'd love to hear from you anyway because I love you all so much. Even you Squidomatic.
Vote HeilMewTwo. I forget why. Good reasons I'm sure.
My second vote of the game, yay
Imma lay it down for ya'all right quick. I'm a spirit. I can resurrect myself at ANY TIME EVER so long as that time is just one time, and, well, ok my power is useless now.
I see we managed to kill a puppy. Yay! On the off chance there's another puppy (not really unpossible given so many players), new rule: NO PUPPY WORDS. They're now "bad guys" or "poopooheads". They will be incurring imminent "dooms" with lots of "red goo".
If you use puppy words, you'll be on my shitlist.
Fun fact! The following players have used puppy words every day so far:
- Fraction2
- Goreae
- HeilMewTwo
- SpwnX
Please send me a PM with your known role. The "poopooheads" as far as I can tell ALL know their roles. If you don't know your role, I'd love to hear from you anyway because I love you all so much. Even you Squidomatic.
Vote HeilMewTwo. I forget why. Good reasons I'm sure.
My second vote of the game, yay
Damnit I see I broke my own rule already. At least, I assume "wolves" counts as a puppy word.I don't trust you. HOW CAN I KNOW YOU ARE NOT A TRAITOR!?!?!?
I told myself I wouldn't forget to check the forums later. Apparently I was wroooOOOooong.