Wheezewort Cooling Math

[Silent_Shadow]

I am trying to understand how much heat a wheezewort gets rid of for designing a cooling system. The wiki and most people say it is 12,000 DTU/sec but I cannot seem to replicate this figure.

The wiki states that a wheezewort (domesticated) cools 1kg/sec by 5 degrees Celsius. Hydrogen is used as the gas to yield the most heat (DTU) removed. I assume that the rate of heat transfer (Q*) is defined as Q* = m*(c)(dT) where:
Q* is in DTU/sec
m* (mass flow rate) is 1kg/sec
c is 1.333 DTU/g*F (hydrogen)
dT (temperature difference) is 41*F (5*C converted to Fahrenheit)

When I do the math, it comes out to 54,653 DTU/sec which I believe is a little higher than 12,000 DTU/sec. Even if you try the wild wheezewort (at 250 g/s), it works out to 13,663.25 DTU/sec.

I think that my math is good, which means that either my assumptions or data were wrong, or a wheezewort cools a lot more than 12,000 DTU/sec.

The wiki has a similar looking equation on the wheezewort page, but looks to be using Kelvin and a different heat capacity.

Does anyone know anything definitive?

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Angpaur:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

It shows nothing of the sort. It shows the problems that arise from mistakes caused by converting things unnecessarily. If the relationships were given in units based on Fahrenheit rather than Celsius the problem wouldn't occur when trying to use Fahrenheit, and the same mistakes could occur if trying to convert it to Celsius.

ONI temperature calculations are based on Kelvin. Using anything other than Kelvin or Celcius is bad idea because you need to make the unnecessary convertions, you mentioned. And as we can see it is easy to make a mistake. Why convert enything if you can use a ready solution?

I know. But that has nothing to do with Fahrenheit/Rankine's worth in science. Fahrenheit is just as poor as Celsius and Rankine is just as good as Kelvin for science as long as the units you're using utilize the correct temperature scale.

[Legensy]

https://oni-assistant.com/tools/coolingcalculator

[Bokonon]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

I know. But that has nothing to do with Fahrenheit/Rankine's worth in science. Fahrenheit is just as poor as Celsius and Rankine is just as good as Kelvin for science as long as the units you're using utilize the correct temperature scale.

One reason Metric is better (and I'm an American) is because it's the scientific standard. Sure conversion is easy and any of the systems are arbitrary but history has decided science will use Metric, it's nice for scientists to all speak the same language without needing translation.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Bokonon:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

I know. But that has nothing to do with Fahrenheit/Rankine's worth in science. Fahrenheit is just as poor as Celsius and Rankine is just as good as Kelvin for science as long as the units you're using utilize the correct temperature scale.

One reason Metric is better (and I'm an American) is because it's the scientific standard. Sure conversion is easy and any of the systems are arbitrary but history has decided science will use Metric, it's nice for scientists to all speak the same language without needing translation.

Yes, the world at large has decided on an inferior temperature scale for some reason, instead of one where the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability.
Also the meter is too big.

[Xilo The Odd]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Bokonon:

One reason Metric is better (and I'm an American) is because it's the scientific standard. Sure conversion is easy and any of the systems are arbitrary but history has decided science will use Metric, it's nice for scientists to all speak the same language without needing translation.

Yes, the world at large has decided on an inferior temperature scale for some reason, instead of one where the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability.
Also the meter is too big.

i mean, 20c is roughly human comfort range. 50c is hot, and a 100c is CPU shut down.

[Hedning]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Yes, the world at large has decided on an inferior temperature scale for some reason, instead of one where the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability.
Also the meter is too big.

So how does 0°F "relate to human comfort and survivability". What I learned in school is that it was the lowest tempereture they could get water to remain liquid at the time.

A meter is just 10% longer than a yard, how is that a big deal?

[handyprint]

Are these geeky calculations necessary? Bit too deep for me as it's just a game.

[Hedning]

This game is about solving problems, as is maths. Even some high level maths is done basically by people playing games.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Hedning:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Yes, the world at large has decided on an inferior temperature scale for some reason, instead of one where the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability.
Also the meter is too big.

So how does 0°F "relate to human comfort and survivability". What I learned in school is that it was the lowest tempereture they could get water to remain liquid at the time.

It's a fairly reasonable lower limit on easy survivability.
Certainly better than 0C, which isn't even that cold.

A meter is just 10% longer than a yard, how is that a big deal?

Because the yard is also too big.

[Bokonon]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Bokonon:

One reason Metric is better (and I'm an American) is because it's the scientific standard. Sure conversion is easy and any of the systems are arbitrary but history has decided science will use Metric, it's nice for scientists to all speak the same language without needing translation.

Yes, the world at large has decided on an inferior temperature scale for some reason, instead of one where the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability.
Also the meter is too big.

The only reason "the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability" is because that's what you're (and myself) used to ... Water freezing at 0 and boiling at 100 makes way more sense than 32/212.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Bokonon:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Yes, the world at large has decided on an inferior temperature scale for some reason, instead of one where the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability.
Also the meter is too big.

The only reason "the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability" is because that's what you're (and myself) used to ... Water freezing at 0 and boiling at 100 makes way more sense than 32/212.

The human body temperature being 37 makes no sense but being near 100 does.
100 also has quite a lot to do with human survivability because of that. Once it's over 100 the ability to maintain a proper body temperature is dramatically harder since you now need to move heat the wrong way.

[Bokonon]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Bokonon:

The only reason "the numbers more or less relate to human comfort and survivability" is because that's what you're (and myself) used to ... Water freezing at 0 and boiling at 100 makes way more sense than 32/212.

The human body temperature being 37 makes no sense but being near 100 does.
100 also has quite a lot to do with human survivability because of that. Once it's over 100 the ability to maintain a proper body temperature is dramatically harder since you now need to move heat the wrong way.

Really don't like these kind of discussions/arguments, what makes sense to one person is just silly to another ...

If Fahrenheit was based on the human body why 98.6? That's silly. It should be 100 in your case to make sense.

Science is not human centered, what a livable range for humans is not the way to base your temperature scale. Which is why Metric uses water, much more logical. Science would still exist if we weren't here to measure it, humans are so insignificant in the big picture. Neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit scales relate to human comfort cleanly.

From Wikipedia:

The lower defining point, 0 °F, was established as the freezing temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice, water and a salt (ammonium chloride).

Using this, water freezes at 32 and boiling is an arbitrary 180 more (for 212). This is really nonsensical. Celsius (or centigrade, centi = 100) 0 - 100 is cleaner, easier and just makes much more sense ...

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Bokonon:

Science is not human centered, what a livable range for humans is not the way to base your temperature scale.

It's the only logical thing to base an everyday use scale on. Something that people care about everyday is how the temperature relates to themselves.
Caring about exactly what temperature water boils isn't an everyday problem. If you want water to boil then you apply heat to it until it boils.

And, again, both of them are crap for science purposes. You need to work off of absolute zero for most scientific uses of temperature. 273.15K is just as much a number salad as 491.67R.

[Hedning]

Ordinary people use temperature for two main things: Cooking and the weather.

Knowing when it is freezing outside is very important since that can make roads a lot more slippery and you may also get snow.

When cooking water is a very common ingredient, so again Celsius makes more sense.

Nothing special happens at either 0 or 100°F.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Hedning:

When cooking water is a very common ingredient, so again Celsius makes more sense.

When cooking, you either just apply heat until the water boils, or you put it in an oven set to a temperature well above boiling regardless. What number boiling is at is irrelevant for these situations.

Nothing special happens at either 0 or 100°F.

At 100F you start slowly dying to the heat and need to seek out sub-100F temperatures with some frequency to cool off.