[Split] Fuel Tweaks

[dybal]

<skip>
2. Although I keep getting fuel collector notifications of 0.1 whilst my ships fuel tank is full (7.0 ly) I never seem to get an increase in quirium fuel storage unit (I have been diligently monitoring this).
<skip>

How do you monitor the amount of fuel in the QFSU?

[Damocles Edge]

I think if memory serves I was basically not using any fuel and waiting for fuel collector to eventually (after an awful lot of flying around) produce another QFSU.
That said though I haven't used this oxp in a long time, probably not that long after the aforementioned post (which was over 2 years ago) and my memory isn't that great any more (it wasn't much kop to begin with)

[phkb]

How do you monitor the amount of fuel in the QFSU?

At the moment, there is no visual element that shows how full the QFSU is, but neither am I sure what the best approach is. I could add an entry to the manifest/mission (F5F5) page, and it would certainly be the simplest solution. An MFD is another option, but there would be a lot of wasted space to just show one value. Happy to hear suggestions, though.

[dybal]

How do you monitor the amount of fuel in the QFSU?

At the moment, there is no visual element that shows how full the QFSU is, but neither am I sure what the best approach is. I could add an entry to the manifest/mission (F5F5) page, and it would certainly be the simplest solution. An MFD is another option, but there would be a lot of wasted space to just show one value. Happy to hear suggestions, though.

I think an entry on the manifest/mission page would be fine (there are already too many MFDs on my screen... )

[phkb]

OK, v1.14.4 now has an entry on the F5F5 Manifest page, displaying the current status of the Quirium Fuel Processor. Available through the manager.

[Cholmondely]

[rant] What is the relationship between Quirium Fuel on the F8 screen and Fuel on the F3 screen? Is there a pricing relationship? The station always has fuel. The Hermitage runs out. Does one convert quirium fuel into real fuel? Or are they identical, and the apparent difference is due to the complex inanities of storage on one's ship (3LY of Fuel stuffed in missile pylons, 5 LY of Fuel stuffed in 5TC of immediately reusable space in the cargo hold, 5LY of fuel stuffed in 8TC of duplex tank in cargo hold, up to 3ly of fuel stuffed into the interstices in one's ship, and now 1TC of fuel stuffed into immediately reusable 1TC spaces in the cargo hold).

Admittedly I'm influenced by the wondrous descriptions in Drew's Oolite Saga, but I understand Quirium Fuel as being potentially jolly dangerous, like running a ship on liquid hydrogen or liquid dynamite. I find all this quite challenging, conceptually.

Perhaps some of the more sensible of these oxp's should be set to conflict with the less sensible? [/rant]

[RockDoctor]

I understand Quirium Fuel as being potentially jolly dangerous, like running a ship on liquid hydrogen or liquid dynamite.

"Dynamite" (still a trademark of Nobel Explosives Corporation, IIRC) is nitroglycerine - a liquid at room temperature down to fairly low and up to "boom") - adsorbed onto kieselghur (a German diatomaceous earth), or Fuller's Earth (a British diatomaceous earth) or other diatomaceous earths from near the production plant. Which makes it considerably less sensitive to shock than the pure liquid.
A friend, called in after some people found a box of "weeping" dynamite sticks in the cellar of an elderly relative who had probably been a "scallywag" during the war suggests that oatmeal does an adequate job of soaking the weep up to the point you can gently sweep it up and take it out to the bonfire. Then very gently pry the floorboards up and put them to the bonfire one by one.
Why him? well, as a caver he had previously had a "bang" license, before the IRA made such things harder to get and keep. So when the house inheritors found the weeping delight in the cellar of their inheritance, they had an idea which particular ghostbuster to call. Beats the Bomb Squad turning the inheritance into a reconstruction job.

[Cholmondely]

I understand Quirium Fuel as being potentially jolly dangerous, like running a ship on liquid hydrogen or liquid dynamite.

"Dynamite" (still a trademark of Nobel Explosives Corporation, IIRC) is nitroglycerine - a liquid at room temperature down to fairly low and up to "boom") - adsorbed onto kieselghur (a German diatomaceous earth), or Fuller's Earth (a British diatomaceous earth) or other diatomaceous earths from near the production plant. Which makes it considerably less sensitive to shock than the pure liquid.
A friend, called in after some people found a box of "weeping" dynamite sticks in the cellar of an elderly relative who had probably been a "scallywag" during the war suggests that oatmeal does an adequate job of soaking the weep up to the point you can gently sweep it up and take it out to the bonfire. Then very gently pry the floorboards up and put them to the bonfire one by one.
Why him? well, as a caver he had previously had a "bang" license, before the IRA made such things harder to get and keep. So when the house inheritors found the weeping delight in the cellar of their inheritance, they had an idea which particular ghostbuster to call. Beats the Bomb Squad turning the inheritance into a reconstruction job.

Thank you for that. I'd forgotten about nitroglycerine!

[Disembodied]

I understand Quirium Fuel as being potentially jolly dangerous, like running a ship on liquid hydrogen or liquid dynamite. I find all this quite challenging, conceptually.

Petrol's not exactly safe, to be fair; aviation fuel even less so. A lot depends on the available technologies of containment and/or management.

[Cody]

... the complex inanities of storage on one's ship (3LY of Fuel stuffed in missile pylons, 5 LY of Fuel stuffed in 5TC of immediately reusable space in the cargo hold, 5LY of fuel stuffed in 8TC of duplex tank in cargo hold, up to 3ly of fuel stuffed into the interstices in one's ship, and now 1TC of fuel stuffed into immediately reusable 1TC spaces in the cargo hold).

<scratches head> Can you actually have all those running at the same time? Madness!

[phkb]

the apparent difference is due to the complex inanities of storage on one's ship (3LY of Fuel stuffed in missile pylons, 5 LY of Fuel stuffed in 5TC of immediately reusable space in the cargo hold, 5LY of fuel stuffed in 8TC of duplex tank in cargo hold, up to 3ly of fuel stuffed into the interstices in one's ship, and now 1TC of fuel stuffed into immediately reusable 1TC spaces in the cargo hold).

Can you actually have all those running at the same time? Madness!

Which is why it's hard to reconcile all OXP's into some sort of conglomerated whole that actually makes sense. The number of extra fuel tank OXP's are kind of competing with each other in a way; the player has to decide which one is "just enough" and which ones are "too much".

But when it comes to the difference between Quirium fuel you can scoop or buy on the market page, and the fuel you purchase on the equipment page, the logic I had in my head was that the former was a more pure form of the fuel (requiring specialised equipment to scoop and specialised tanks for safe transport), while the latter is less refined/pure, and the impurities result in it being less volatile than the purest form (handwave handwave).

[Cody]

<handwaves back> Perhaps the less volatile form requires an oxidizer (as in hypergolic fuel), making it safer/easier to store?

[RockDoctor]

I understand Quirium Fuel as being potentially jolly dangerous, like running a ship on liquid hydrogen or liquid dynamite. I find all this quite challenging, conceptually.

Petrol's not exactly safe, to be fair; aviation fuel even less so. A lot depends on the available technologies of containment and/or management.

Actually, I think aviation fuel - JET-A (or A1), specifically - has a lower vapour pressure and higher flash point (the temperature at which there is sufficient fuel vapour above the liquid to sustain flame) than than petrol. But it's a long time since I had to do a fire-control course at work.
What fuels for piston engine aircraft were like, I don't know. I was under the impression that essentially all non-vintage aircraft have long been designed so that minor work (changing carburettor jets or fuel injectors) was sufficient allows them to run on JET-A(1), because it is so ubiquitous. I'd ask my step-daughter with her degree in aviation engineering, but I don't think her course covered piston engines at all.

Oh, have you been watching Hollywood again? Hint : dramatic, not realistic. Besides, they like to mix their fuel tanks with explosions, which produces clouds of fine droplets which are a specific different kind of fire. Hint _ we keep the explosives bunker very literally at the opposite end of the site to the Aviation Fuel bunker - when we can't keep the "bang" off-site altogether.

EDIT : all you ever wanted to know about Jet-A(1) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

[Cholmondely]

I understand Quirium Fuel as being potentially jolly dangerous, like running a ship on liquid hydrogen or liquid dynamite. I find all this quite challenging, conceptually.

Petrol's not exactly safe, to be fair; aviation fuel even less so. A lot depends on the available technologies of containment and/or management.

Actually, I think aviation fuel - JET-A (or A1), specifically - has a lower vapour pressure and higher flash point (the temperature at which there is sufficient fuel vapour above the liquid to sustain flame) than than petrol. But it's a long time since I had to do a fire-control course at work.
What fuels for piston engine aircraft were like, I don't know. I was under the impression that essentially all non-vintage aircraft have long been designed so that minor work (changing carburettor jets or fuel injectors) was sufficient allows them to run on JET-A(1), because it is so ubiquitous. I'd ask my step-daughter with her degree in aviation engineering, but I don't think her course covered piston engines at all.

Oh, have you been watching Hollywood again? Hint : dramatic, not realistic. Besides, they like to mix their fuel tanks with explosions, which produces clouds of fine droplets which are a specific different kind of fire. Hint _ we keep the explosives bunker very literally at the opposite end of the site to the Aviation Fuel bunker - when we can't keep the "bang" off-site altogether.

EDIT : all you ever wanted to know about Jet-A(1) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Sorry, no. I probably watch a Hollywood film about once every five years on average! But I have visited the fort at Tilbury docks and saw "the magazine houses used to store vast quantities of gunpowder". Rather impressive.

[montana05]

Sorry, no. I probably watch a Hollywood film about once every five years on average! But I have visited the fort at Tilbury docks and saw "the magazine houses used to store vast quantities of gunpowder". Rather impressive.

Isn't it ? Armories at resent bases are even more so. However, I do agree with RockDoctor, aviation fuel is pretty safe nowadays but quirium fuel with 5-D components ? I still could imagine that its highly explosive and require special safety measures. It's not unheard that reactors from big ships could cause explosions similar to a q-mine.