Polluted oxygen getting constantly stuck

[Puma]

Apart from "Klei programming bad" what the frack is going on with the gasses here?

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3211131675

I have oxygen at 2g of pressure at the top of the room, and polluted oxygen at 2150g of pressure at the bottom of the room, and the oxygen just occupies a huge space and not letting the polluted oxygen expand.

I'm in the middle of my first playthrough, and polluted oxygen has managed to get stuck in the same room above regular oxygen and below regular oxygen, on multiple occasions, so it's not an issue of density, nor is it a rare edge case.

[Puma]

Oh my gawd, you're failing at this so hard. Neither of the example sentences you gave are using generic pronouns. One, you and we can be used as generic pronouns, but they are not always generic pronouns. "We" can also be used as the 1st person plural pronoun, which is it's primary use. And that is how you have used it in both of your examples. In the first you are explicitly talking about people, and in the second explicitly about dogs. The "we" in the first one is correct, not because your made up rule about generic use limitations, but because there it isn't generic and explicitly refers to "we the people". The "we" in the second refers to "we the dogs", and as you pointed out, it would be correct if the speaker was a dog. The "we" is there after the comma to avoid saying "people" or "dogs" for the second time, as repeating the noun would sound clunky.
eg: "Dogs wag their tails when happy, but dogs often bark when angry."

Being able to distinguish when a noun is being used generally and when not is a level of understanding of grammar that you obviously lack. And as pointed out, I'm not a super good teacher.

eg: "Me and my homies are in the car on the way to your house, and we're gonna beat you up!"
There the "we" isn't general. It explicitly refers to me and my homies. The same way in your examples the "we" refers explicitly to people and dogs.

A general statement doesn't explicitly refer to anyone.
eg: "If you're beaten with a rolled up newspaper every time you piss on the floor, you soon learn not to piss on the floor."
Out of context, all we can say that the "you" generally applies to all entities that are capable of pissing on the floor. The speaker is making a generalized connection between being able to piss on the floor, and being able to learn through noxious stimulus.
And if we add context and say that the sentence is said while the speaker is telling a story about how he himself stopped pissing on the floor, then it refers to the speaker just as much as the listener. It's a way of saying "yeah, I stopped pissing on the floor, but under the circumstances, so would have anyone".

Just for the record, are you okay with the sentence "We can stack five dice on top of eachother."? Would you be okay with me speaking that sentence? Or would you have a problem with that? Would you consider that correct or incorrect use of the english language?

cswiger lähetti viestin:

No: "We just subtract Rs from Cp to get Cv." would be correct.

We can get Cᵥ like that. But we can also get Cᵥ by dividing Cₘ,ᵥ by the molar mass. The match comes out in a way that they both give the same answer. I even gave you mathematical proof as to why they give the same answer. With the key difference being that you can easily google Cₘ,ᵥ and molar mass for most common gasses, where as not so much with Cp or Rs.

Now you're just claiming that I'm wrong because I got the right answer via a path that you don't like. You truly are a sad case. 😹

cswiger lähetti viestin:

If you did this and restricted cell interactions to only their adjacent neighbors, you would end up with a cellular automata similar to ONI. And just like ONI, you would be unable to use extensive properties like volume without violating the locality rule.

But it would be able to mix gasses, and be "cellular automata" at the same time, and not need a superpotato to run in realtime. 😼

[cswiger]

Puma lähetti viestin:

Oh my gawd, you're failing at this so hard. Neither of the example sentences you gave are using generic pronouns.

We isn't a generic pronoun, it is first-party plural which can also be used as a generic personal pronoun. If one is not part of "we", then one might use "they" instead-- which is indefinite rather than personal.

And as pointed out, I'm not a super good teacher.

Shame. But if you ever apply for work as an teacher, be sure to print out this thread for your prospective employer to review.

Just for the record, are you okay with the sentence "We can stack five dice on top of eachother."? Would you be okay with me speaking that sentence? Or would you have a problem with that? Would you consider that correct or incorrect use of the english language?

Just for the record, I think your questions are becoming even more absurd and off-topic for ONI, and I'm not obliged to indulge you with answers.

No: "We just subtract Rs from Cp to get Cv." would be correct.

We can get Cᵥ like that. But we can also get Cᵥ by dividing Cₘ,ᵥ by the molar mass. The match comes out in a way that they both give the same answer.

The problem is that you didn't come up with the right answer in #27.

The isochoric heat capacity of HHO gas would be 5/6th that of Steam. Cv of HHO is about 1.25 J/(g * K) compared to Cv of Steam being 1.5 J/(g * K) @ 150 C and 1 bar.

I chose 150 C because it made for convenient numbers. But if one wanted to consider it under the assumptions ONI uses, HHO gas-- if it existed in the game-- would be about 3.5 DTU/(g * °C) since Steam is listed as 4.179 DTU/(g * °C).

Sources: https://oxygennotincluded.fandom.com/wiki/Water & NIST[webbook.nist.gov]

Now you're just claiming that I'm wrong because I got the right answer via a path that you don't like.

Here's a video of someone comparing the isochoric heat capacity of oxyhydrogen gas and steam using moles instead of mass, if you prefer that approach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VijEz4HR42g

[Puma]

cswiger lähetti viestin:

We isn't a generic pronoun

Wrong. See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns-one-you-we-they
Not only English Grammar Daily say so, but we can also see examples of it being used as such literally everywhere
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_mixing

cswiger lähetti viestin:

Just for the record, I think your questions are becoming even more absurd and off-topic for ONI, and I'm not obliged to indulge you with answers.

It is a topic that you brought up.

cswiger lähetti viestin:

Unless you are a monarch or suffer from multiple personality disorder, you aren't a "we".

You can't just go off-topic like that, and then cry about it being off topic. You wanted to claim that I can't use "we" the way I have been using it, and thus opened that claim for being challenged. And now that I have challenged it, you wanna slink away under the guise of off-topic. Fine, don't answer, but I think we can all see what you just did there.

cswiger lähetti viestin:

Cv of Steam being 1.5 J/(g * K) @ 150 C and 1 bar.

Steam isn't a mixed gas, but we can use it to check the formula I used before for individual gasses.
(36.1-R)/18
We get about 1.5 J/(g⋅K) which is the correct Cv for steam.
Now why doesn't it work for example on O2?
(29.4-R)/32
which comes out to about 0.659 J/(g⋅K)
I don't really have anywhere to check what the Cv for O2 is. How do I know that isn't the right value? How do you? How does anyone?

cswiger lähetti viestin:

The isochoric heat capacity of HHO gas would be 5/6th that of Steam. Cv of HHO is about 1.25 J/(g * K)

How did you get that number? Like I get that in the video you linked they do some very simple calculations that don't need a supercomputer...
R/(7/5-1)
...but I don't understand where do the input values of 7/5 and 4/3 come from. And since I don't speak hindi, I don't understand at all what the person in the video is saying. Also they are saying that the 5/6th of steam is the relationship of molar heat capacities. But relationship of specific heat capacities is vastly different due to the fact that the molar mass of steam is 18, but molar mass of HHO is 12. It might take 5/6th of the energy to heat up a mole of HHO when compared to a mole of steam, but that mole also has 2/3 of the mass.

[cswiger]

Puma lähetti viestin:

cswiger lähetti viestin:

We isn't a generic pronoun

Wrong. See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns-one-you-we-they

Did you even read your own link?

Not only English Grammar Daily say so, but we can also see examples of it being used as such literally everywhere

Here is the first sentence in the link you mentioned:

"One, you, we and they are generic personal pronouns."

We is not an impersonal pronoun. Are you really unable to see the difference between a generic pronoun and a generic personal pronoun, even after looking them up?
Here is a competent explanation:

https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/4/impersonal-pronouns

"There are three impersonal pronouns in English: one, you, they."

Just for the record, I think your questions are becoming even more absurd and off-topic for ONI, and I'm not obliged to indulge you with answers.

It is a topic that you brought up.

And? I'm still not obliged to answer your questions, just as you've chosen to simply not respond after I've provided citations for a number of topics.

Unless you are a monarch or suffer from multiple personality disorder, you aren't a "we".

You can't just go off-topic like that, and then cry about it being off topic.

Suppose that I do so anyway, regardless of your opinion of what I "can't" do?

You wanted to claim that I can't use "we" the way I have been using it, and thus opened that claim for being challenged.

Actually, I never claimed that you can't use "we" in the way that you did.
You shouldn't do so, but you are free to make or even repeat your mistakes.

Of course, "you" still are not a "we" when you speak for yourself, nor are you a "we" when you speak about a group that you do not belong to.

Cv of Steam being 1.5 J/(g * K) @ 150 C and 1 bar.

Steam isn't a mixed gas, but we can use it to check the formula I used before for individual gasses.
(36.1-R)/18
We get about 1.5 J/(g⋅K) which is the correct Cv for steam.

Yes, I know.

Now why doesn't it work for example on O2?
(29.4-R)/32
which comes out to about 0.659 J/(g⋅K)

I don't really have anywhere to check what the Cv for O2 is. How do I know that isn't the right value? How do you? How does anyone?

I own a printed copy of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, so I could look up the data without using a web search. Otherwise, see:

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/fluid.cgi?ID=C7782447&Action=Page

...and it will list a Cv for Oxygen gas of 0.659 J(g * K) near STP. data[webbook.nist.gov]

The isochoric heat capacity of HHO gas would be 5/6th that of Steam. Cv of HHO is about 1.25 J/(g * K)

How did you get that number?

From the equipartition theorem[en.wikipedia.org] and the properties of diatomic versus triatomic molecules.

...but I don't understand where do the input values of 7/5 and 4/3 come from. And since I don't speak hindi, I don't understand at all what the person in the video is saying. Also they are saying that the 5/6th of steam is the relationship of molar heat capacities.

Correct. You wanted to work in moles, so I found a video which does the comparison in moles.

But relationship of specific heat capacities is vastly different due to the fact that the molar mass of steam is 18, but molar mass of HHO is 12.

3 moles of HHO gas become 2 moles of water, but they both have the same mass.

The 18:12 ratio you mention is just another way of writing 3:2. You could consider 18 moles of HHO gas-- ie 12 moles of H2 and 6 moles of O2-- becoming 12 moles of H2O, if you prefer. I chose the example of HHO gas compared with water because it is easier to deal with, compared to arbitrary mixtures of gasses which are not in an ideal stoichiometric ratio.

[Puma]

Same applies about you crying about off topic. You shouldn't go off topic and then cry about it afterwards. But as you pointed out, there is nothing I can do to stop you if you want to appear like a complete guber.

Here's a source that says "we" can be used as an impersonal pronoun.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037821669090004W

Ultimately there are no authoritative sources when it comes to language, because the study of language is descriptive. And fact remains that "we" is commonly used when speaking generally. As evidenced by the fact that "We can stack five dice on top of each other." is intuitively understandable to most english speakers. And while it may have started out as a stylistic choice to use the impersonal generic "we", now I'm doing it out of spite. 😼

cswiger lähetti viestin:

3 moles of HHO gas become 2 moles of water, but they both have the same mass.

Wut? That's not how relation of molar heat capacities work. If molar heat capacities of two gasses have the relation of 5/6 it means that one mole of gas A has the thermal capacity that is 5/6 when compared to one mole of gas B.

I don't think you really understood what I was trying to point out. Let me try to explain it again:

If 5/6 is the relation of molar heat capacities of two gasses, then that possibly can't also be the relation of their specific heat capacities, unless they just so happen to also have the same molar mass. Which in this particular case, they definitely don't.