Posts by MatLaPatate

    I still state the easiest way to remove the cheap lava-power is to have a machine that you place down, connect pipes from the machine into the lava, and have the pipe slowly use up lava (replacing it with stone/netherack). The only thing you can input into the regular machine is water, which is consumed to create steam (for a steam turbine or) or just electricity. This way, you either have the abundance of lava in the nether (but very little water) or have the abundance of water in the overworld (but very little lava).

    The machine itself would should output, say ~0.5eu/t per lava block touching the pipe up to a maximum of ~16eu/t, but would give more energy in total per lava block consumed. As realistic as you are going to get, really :P

    Basically what I told, although I think it would be cooler with a GUI-minigame, for the sake of adding "science" into MC and for it would be WAY more difficult to automate.
    Greg, would it be possible to make a Multi-layer GUI without too much lag, to make setups 3D ?

    You cant Compare nether lava with my sugestion. Nethter lava is just place pump and be happy.
    My Sugestion says, you have to find 1. a Pool that regenerates itself, they should be rare.
    Than they should regen slowly, so you need multiple ones.

    What about assuming regular lava produces much more energy than it does currently (like 150 00 a cell to be realistic), but due to the fact the geogen cool it down, getting all that energy also mean fullfilling the generator with stone ?

    So you would basically have 2(3) options for regular Lava:

    [The One You Will Not Use]: Once the first Lava source is consummed, the Geogen turns into a Machine Block. That's expensive energy.

    1) Use cells. Geogen can accept them one by one, and due to the Meltdown temperature of Tin, those cells have been cooled down when you have that Lava harvested.

    2) Use a MB Machine, with a Nuclear-like guy, which allows you to use hotter lava ... but beware, you must not freeze it otherwhise it'll block your pipes.
    [So it would be a guy with coolants components and pipes components: some coolants could be more efficient but cool less (they would basically turn Heat into EU with more efficiency but less at the mean time, which would mean a longer component line aka more space needed aka less maximal flux ... etc).
    The system itself would also output steam and not directly EU.
    Although, the maximum efficiency with it would be like 200 000 EU a Lava Source, and the Maximum Output like 2048EU/t (but it would be WAY LESS efficient).

    (If you ever feel interested Greg, I've already thought of a complete system which would pretty much reproduce the fun of Nuclear,:
    Explosion<-->Meltdown, efficiency and outputs would be your goals as well .. with just the "don't cool the Lava too much otherwhise it'll block your pipes" issue. (Temperature would be shown on each pipes).)

    Merci! Je me souviens de cela maintenant!

    Je ne sais pas comment ajouter une cédille

    You just said "I remember this now" instead of "I will remember". Though I'm not gonna criticize you, since people learning french are rare enough not to be even lowered lol. (and since your french seems quite good already. Most of the time I don't even use "par conséquent" myself, even though this is fairly nice to hear ^^)
    As for the "ç" ... well, if you haven't a french (or any language that use it as well) keyboard, just copy this one ^^. Actually, anyone would understand you if you forget it, there are more serious mistakes lol.

    On a totally unrelated note: did anyone know the speed of sound in air was DEcreasing when density increase ? One always tends to think the denser the faster, although it's only because of their geometrical structures that liquids and solids propagate sound WAY faster.

    reminds me of some GT suggestion ... I know it's extremly long, but if you want Ideas, take a look at the GT thread (even the TO DO list, given Greg isn't implementing those ^^). There are tons of stuff Oil-related missing in IC².

    What? It's not semantic, there are clear definitions.

    Erm no. Not for states of matter at least. Some may argue it's defined by the crystal shape, some by the fact it will or not fullfill a tank, some will say states can only be distinguished by the moment they change of (and so this would be energy related).
    Depends if you're doing thermodynamics, studying crystals or doing newtonian physics.

    That depends on how you define "liquid" and "solid". Glass has no crystal structure but it does NOT flow over time (unless heated)…/General/Glass/glass.html

    OMG. So even my physic teacher can make mistakes.
    Anyway, since differences between states of matter are mostly semantic ... (think of the difference between "energized gas" and "plasma", or between Steam and water at high pressure), and we could define 25 states of matter as well so ...

    Convection >>>>>>> Conduction

    Depends on the medium ... and on the température gradient.
    As an example, there is almost NO convection in solids, otherwhise they aren't solids ^^ (notice that glass isn't a solid. You can even see that very old building have their glasses thiner on top and larger at the bottom, because of gravity ...

    So going through high school geometry and trigonometry one learns about certain triangles with angles with particular properties. The angles of the 30-60-90 triangle and the 45-45-90 triangle all can have their trig functions expressed precisely and concisely using square roots. This makes these angles particularly useful, as one doesn't need a table or a calculator to work problems with these angles.Now, the greatest common divisor of these angles is fifteen degrees. Interestingly, fifteen degrees divides a full circle twenty four times, the same number as there are hours in a day (and in all probability is where the idea of dividing a day into twenty four hours comes from).

    You do know that every single trig function can be expressed precisely ... the only issue being it's A LIMIT. Which means to get more accurate, you need to sum numbers ... infinitely.

    So I propose an alternate unit for angle measure, the "archour" by extension of the "arcminute" and "arcsecond", equal to fifteen degrees. This makes the friendly angles of 30, 45, 60, 90, 180, and 360 degrees relatively low integers when expressed in archours. Finer divisions will be standard decimal metric prefixes. This will be easier to learn for new mathematics students than the degree, with far too many useless angles, and the radian, with an irreducible irrational factor in all practical angles. For technical purposes the radian will be retained, but the degree will be phased out in favor of the easier to learn archour.

    What would you do of "angle's minutes/second" ? ^^ (they are 1/60 or 1/3600 of 1°).

    Naturally I expect uptake to be slow; Europe took a century to adopt metric, Britain took two, and the US still hasn't.

    That's because it's french. They do hate recognizing our system was better :D

    BTW: Nobody uses angle anyway. Radians are much cooler, because 1 rad is a complete rotation, so it's much easier to express things such as rotation speed for a motor or something ... ^^. And this is also basically what you said with hours, assuming one hour equals to 1 grad ...
    AND plane pilots already use what you said I think ^^