When to use Extreme Voltage?

1st Official Post

    One thing that would be nice to include on the "cables" page orthe HV transformer page is at what distances using HV cable is the most efficient way to go. I've tried to do the math, unsuccessfully (and that's depressing, I'm in AP Calc), but I can't figure out what point using HV cable is better than using gold cable. Thanks!

    As RawCode has demonstrated elsewhere, he doesn't know what he's talking about.


    Yes, gold loses less per block on a "raw" basis, but that loss is per packet. Here's an in-game example: I have a 16-mill wind farm above my house, I need to run a cable 60m down to my house. If I use gold, I will lose 24 EU out of every 128 EU packet (meaning I get 104/128 ). If I step the output up to EV before running it down and use fully insulated HV cable, I lose 48 EU out of every 2048 EU packet (meaning I get 2000/2048 ).


    Now, if Einstein here had "learn2match" (you misspelled "math" there, buddy), he would realize that gold cable means you only get about 81% of your actual power output over that distance, while EV means you'll get over 97% of it!
    And it's a lot cheaper than using 15 diamonds to make glass fibre cable for the job.

    48 of 2048 0,0234375 loss
    12 of 128 0,09375


    nearly 4 times more energe wasted if gold used, energy loses is better?


    also learn2play


    LV cables 0-40 batbox copper 42-48 and you will end without bottleneck and loses at all.

    Quote from RawCode


    also learn2play


    LV cables 0-40 batbox copper 42-48 and you will end without bottleneck and loses at all.


    I wasn't going to say it before, but... you're an idiot. You can't move the output of 16 wind farms (~50 eu/t) through one copper cable. You'd get a bottleneck - either at the source, or at that batbox.
    You don't even understand what I'm saying or why EV is better for moving that kind of output over that distance. I'm not the one who needs to "learn2play", and I'm sure not going to be criticized by some fool who tried to tell Alblaka that IC2 didn't need any changes to be MC 1.0-compatible.


    Ever heard the saying "It's better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?"

    Actually you /can/ move it through copper... and LVTFs. Copper limits you to 32eU/t packets, it doesn't limit you to just one...

    Quote from MJEvans

    Actually you /can/ move it through copper... and LVTFs. Copper limits you to 32eU/t packets, it doesn't limit you to just one...


    As such though would need tons of batboxes in tandem to do so, kinda ruining the point.

    Update:


    As far as I can tell, EV is better than gold the second gold starts having loss. Simple fact is that the packet size difference makes gold immediately lose so much EU that it then becomes better to send mass blobs of EU rather than a slow stream.

    Quote from MJEvans

    Actually you /can/ move it through copper... and LVTFs. Copper limits you to 32eU/t packets, it doesn't limit you to just one...


    I'd like to see your math demonstrating how you'll have less loss via copper across a 60m vertical wire when attempting to transmit the output down a 60m vertical line.
    I think Xaiier understands what I was trying to say before.

    @headhunter leanr2play idiot, nothing more to say.


    http://forum.industrial-craft.…4021&highlight=#post24021


    open this thread, view fist attached screenshot


    it allow you to pass 512 EU over copper cable without any losses over 20 blocks (WOOT, THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AND BOTTLENECK)


    your wind farm teleporting around from 48 to 60 blocks can be linked with tin and copper without any problems, if you dont know how - very very sad.

    Honestly, I don't CARE what you think. I don't need another "trick", getting 2000 EU out of each 2048 is more than sufficient.
    I'm not interested in your ideas - your abominable grammar and terrible syntax obfuscates any useful information you might have to impart.


    Why don't you stick to the topic - the question was "when is EV the better choice" and the answer was relevant and accurate. You don't need to string a series of machines along a vertical wire (you do know what that word means, right?), you step it up at the top and back down just once at the MFSU.


    I could use Energy Links and Power Teleport pipes or any other variety of solutions - but you're utterly blind to the fact that my solution does the job just fine. With renewable, maintenance-free power at 97.6% efficiency, I have more than I need and more than I can use. Before I know it, the MFSU is capped, and if dips down, it's no time before it's full again. So you can keep your elaborate schemes for the few people who've cared to read your thread. I'm doing just fine, I don't need your validation.


    By the way - learn to spell "learn", it's hard to condescend when you demonstrate an inferior intellect.

    Quote from HeadHunter67

    I'd like to see your math demonstrating how you'll have less loss via copper across a 60m vertical wire when attempting to transmit the output down a 60m vertical line.
    I think Xaiier understands what I was trying to say before.

    It's easier than you'd think. You send /multiple/ 32eU/t packets at the same instant. There are limits, each TF pair for a reboost can only support 4x the underlying wire maximum packet size. This means you'll need more pairs of transformers. Above a given point it's just cheaper to go to glass if for no other reason than your sanity (actually the fact that you'd more or less be making multiple cables the other way is why)

    Quote from HeadHunter67

    By the way - learn to spell "learn", it's hard to condescend when you demonstrate an inferior intellect.


    grammarnazi attack or what?
    your demonstrated complete lack of intellect with insults and gramma appeals, just stfu.


    to transport 60eu over 32 cable you need only single LV transformator every 19 blocks and nothing more, since it support up to 128eu per frame.


    you dont need HV or glass or gold or fiber, just single lv every 19 blocks.

    Quote from RawCode

    grammarnazi attack or what?


    I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about LEARNING, and since we were sharing opinions on what the other ought to learn, I felt it was my turn.
    Difference is, how I play Minecraft won't change how anyone in the world of importance or significance views me. Your inability to communicate will compound the intellectual challenges you'll already face.


    But I didn't come here to argue with you - I offfered my opinion on the question and my solution. It's just as valid, and whether it's what you would do or not, it works.
    That's the beauty of the game - there's often more than one "right way" to do something. If you are so infuriated by the way others play that you must resort to accusations in leetspeak, you may want to ask some of the other people on 4chan for a recommendation to a good behavioral therapist.

    Quote from RawCode

    grammarnazi attack or what?
    your demonstrated complete lack of intellect with insults and gramma appeals, just stfu.


    to transport 60eu over 32 cable you need only single LV transformator every 19 blocks and nothing more, since it support up to 128eu per frame.


    you dont need HV or glass or gold or fiber, just single lv every 19 blocks.

    Actually that isn't true in several ways. First you need a /pair/ of transformers to regenerate/re-boost the signal. Second copper's lossless distance is 4, not 19 (Nothing is only lossless up to 19 actually; both tin and glass cable go 39 w/o loss). Third the limit over copper IS 32eU/t packets, due to the cable length limit of 4 the /practical/ limit of power across copper is actually 512 (you can encase the endpoints of each 4 length segment with transformers in stepup/stepdown pairs and each /pair/ of up/down TFs can shoot 4x32 packets; 4 of /that/ is 512). However /still/ by the time you reach the practical limit of point 3 you /really/ will have wanted to start spending diamonds /anyway/ since the materials used to build out your system would have easily required enough mining to /make the bloody cable/ or produced more than enough material to synthesize industrial diamonds.

    Quote from MJEvans

    It's easier than you'd think. You send /multiple/ 32eU/t packets at the same instant. There are limits, each TF pair for a reboost can only support 4x the underlying wire maximum packet size. This means you'll need more pairs of transformers. Above a given point it's just cheaper to go to glass if for no other reason than your sanity (actually the fact that you'd more or less be making multiple cables the other way is why)

    Query, when you send multiple packets of 32EU in the same frame (so in this instance, 512 EU/t total) over copper cable, how many times is the loss incurred? Is it once / packet or once for the entire 512 EU?


    So in the example of 60 blocks traveled, copper cable would have 12 loss... would the loss for the 512 EU be, just 12 or 12x16 (so 192)?


    An interesting note, if it's just 12 you'd get the same efficiency as EV. 12 loss out of 512 vs 48 loss out of 2048.


    [Because I keep seeing Raw saying that he's using glass fiber to prevent the losses, when glass fiber can already transmit 39 blocks before loss is incurred...]
    [When I first hear LVTs being involved, I thought it was "well 12 LVTs w/ 4 copper cable between each would prevent all the losses over 60 blocks"]

    Loss is always per packet - so you'd basically need a transformer pair after every 4 copper wires to avoid loss. That's an absurd and decidedly inelegant solution for a 60 meter wire drop - and the reason why larger packets are more economical.

    Gold pretty much has a loss one every 3 blocks so ~20eU/t out of 128 would be the estimate for that distance. However if you went to glass fibre wire not only could you use much longer distances and bigger packets (1 loss across the whole length out of 512) you could /also/ carry more or for the low cost of a single MVTF pair completely regenerate the signal for zero loss (but fixing your transmission volume at the capacity of 2048 eU/t unless you add additional transformers)

    1 pulse of 2048 eu with a 100 block long wire means 100 eu loss per 2048 packet which is less than 5% total loss


    Now for the funny part:
    16 pulses (16*128 = 2048 ) of 128 eu with a 100 block long wire means 40 eu loss per 128 packket which is 31,25% total loss (over 6 times as much loss than with HV cables)


    HV better, maths rule and you suck at maths