BUG? 128EU/t thought copper wire without melting

That's some leet wire you got there.

Been explained a hundred times before, you're not sending 128 EU/s, you're sending 1EU/s 128 times over.

The cable leading from the batboxes is receiving 32 EU/s 4 times over.

Currents don't combine, as stated in multiple threads around here. You use 4 BatBoxes to fill the cable with 128EU, that means every packet is 32EU, which is perfectly fine for a Copper cable.

Now if only there was some kinda of intuitive explanation for this that anyone could figure out easily... the current mechanic is not obvious, and the EU reader does not help.

Quote from Ranakastrasz

Now if only there was some kinda of intuitive explanation for this that anyone could figure out easily... the current mechanic is not obvious, and the EU reader does not help.

I think it's a bit counter intuitive.. but if you do your homework on True electrical engineering, then it shows that the Rate of EU transfer is not the same as the Amount of energy running per second (or tick, in this case). In which case, you can have a large amount of electrons 'streaming' at once in a current (thus creating higher voltage) |OR| you can split apart the amount of released energy into timed packets, and reduce the overall voltage of the current...

Interesting, to say the least...

Quote from catt0

Currents don't combine, as stated in multiple threads around here. You use 4 BatBoxes to fill the cable with 128EU, that means every packet is 32EU, which is perfectly fine for a Copper cable.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the EU rating of a cable is the largest EU per packet the cable can accommodate, and NOT actually how much EU per frame a cable can transfer?

Quote from SubIgnition

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the EU rating of a cable is the largest EU per packet the cable can accommodate, and NOT actually how much EU per frame a cable can transfer?

Correct. The EU rating of machines is the same way as well.

That's unintuitive, unexpected, and... makes things much easier, actually.

*goes to wire up insane number of Solar Panels with tin cable*

This 'bug' also applies to tin cables. Wired up 121 solars together into an MFSU and now got 121 EU/t streaming in there through that 'crappy' tin cable that should already melt at 3 EU/t (for what uses is this practical anyways? (I mean if it wouldn't be 'bugged'))

While this is not technically a bug, I really do think that the voltage (eu/t) should be added together for melting threshold as well as machine destruction.

Quote from Ranakastrasz

While this is not technically a bug, I really do think that the voltage (eu/t) should be added together for melting threshold as well as machine destruction.

You are half correct. Taking this to RL terms, electricity is all about pushing/pulling electrons around (which oddly have a 'negative' charge, and in DC flow from negative to positive, but that's an entire different discussion). Voltage is how badly electrons want to move; think of voltage as how high something is relative to something else. Current is the rate at which the electrons are flowing.

Voltage (between two points) == Current * Resistance
Power (in watts electric) == Voltage * Current (and a few other logical identities, but this is the one relevant to our discussion)

At present the resistance of cables is superconductor* but only up to a specific voltage, at which point they instantly turn in to explodium; this means they can handle potentially infinite (really there's a limit due to resistance and possible input points) current over their length.

In reality the /resistance/ of a cable isn't even fixed; it's variant depending on the material's properties including things such as temperature and other forms of environmental radiation. For most common types of wiring though the general rule of thumb is that a given purity of material at a given thickness will have a vaguely stable resistance at a given range of nominal voltages. As more current flows the material, of course, has more flow to resist and thus the rate at which it self-heats rises. The temperature rising typically increases resistance, which makes the cable generate more heat, which increases resistance further, which can begin a fire. This is one thing circuit breakers prevent; cables are given a safety margin so that they never reach that resistance and breakers trip when the draw threatens to reach that safety (soft) limit.

Now, back to your 'added together' thing. Generators are only ever added together at transformers; they each have their own coupling to a shared core; think of this as similar to independent legs running on a gravity incline powered treadmill. The output is mixed together.

Now there's an interesting thing to exploit.

V=IR (I is the term for current; I believe it was inductance, but that class was years ago)
P = IV = I*I*R = V*V/R

Remember that resistance is fixed (it's a property of the cable), Only voltage and current can be played with; further over long transmission distances the resistance tends to be rather large. Large enough that when graphed out, current is almost always the thing to reduce. By 'stepping up' the pressure at the generation area the voltage used to deliver /power/ is increased and the current required to deliver that decreases proportionately; ultra-high voltages allow for a longer transmission sweetspot by selecting the correct balance to minimize losses.

Real life also has other physics that dictate it's most efficient to insulate only on a wire's supports, and to otherwise use air-gap insulation (free) over the rest of the wire. The large distances wires are strung require a high tensile strength material which also happens to conduct fairly well. While I'm not sure what it is exactly, I'm confident that it's at least steal based and maybe an alloy that improves the overall qualities. Also any oxidation on the outside of the cable would service as free natural insulation (but would require an overspeced cable to tolerate the loss of that conductance).