https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage How did i go through life without knowing about this - lol. I doubt there is any technology that can store that much energy such that if the system is damaged enough shouldn't explode spectacularly. My conclusion is that the "capacitor" needs to do so as well - at least as much as an ammo box!
Their only drawback (on the vacuum styles) is a loss of energy to friction. In a game setting like Empyrion where we're in the future with better tech, most of that could be written off, leading to a highly-efficient energy storage mechanism. Certainly better for ships than chemical storage would be.
Pretty much. If you're storing energy in a form that can also supply high peak power, then expect explosions if it's compromised. The one possible exception to this might be fusion fuels, given how perfectly a fusion reactor has to operate in order to extract energy from such fuels (even then, very large tokamak reactors can experience instabilities that release a substantial fraction of the stored plasma energy in a faction of a second; it won't spectacularly explode in the way a fission reactor might, but it'll certainly take down the reactor itself.) I'd still go with capacitors if I could, though: no moving parts, no annoying angular momentum to deal with, and extremely efficient charging/discharging. Current capacitors are about a factor of 500 less energy dense than the in-game solar capacitor at present, however (~0.005 kWh/kg).
True that. However that angular momentum acts as a stabilizer, decreasing the effects of things like explosions tossing the ship around. You'd lose angular energy in the stabilization, but it'd be a nice perk for space combat if we ever get physics that sends ships tumbling.
It also restricts rotation about two axes unless you've got it on a couple of gimbals (in which case it doesn't really act like a stabilizer). We've got RCS devices which are presumably something like reaction wheels already; could be interesting to let them function as energy storage, I suppose.
@geostar1024 , @Atola ,@Jᴧgᴧ - guys, seriously, it's all in the wiki article that was brought in already. Would you kindly read the source? Monolithic flywheels tend to shatter violently, yes, but the latest advance in that field is a flywheel made of a long composite or nanotube tapes glued together. When shot or otherwise degraded it sheds a lot of small light pieces that increase friction inside, so it boils and melts while stopping, not explodes. Longer process, smoother discharge peak. Magnetic bearings and high vacuum inside negate most of the rotating friction and make these things highly effective. And yes, they work like stabilizers, making it very difficult to turn at all (think anti-RCS), you don't want these things onboard
OK so we need a different technology for the "capacitors" aboard ships. or we won't be able to have them at all :/. But lets insist on big explosions. I want big explosions when these blow up. Why not?
Erm guys.... you do know that this is a game and that it doesn't need to be "physically correct" to be better? If capacitors need to store energy better, and have a better output, you don't need no physically engineered solution to make this happen..... you just program it that way. Because in a game things are possible that aren't in real life currently. Back to topic: I have had my first start of a new game since patch 7.6. I landed right beside a "destroyed big farm". Gathering was kow and working with the solar panels as a source for energy was painful at best. My only project was to power a large constructor while taking apart everything that uses energy just to build a fueltank and a generator. And that was on a easy start: slow food and o2 drain, few deposits but plenty. While the battery charged i was out harvesting the 1800 worth of prometium deposit on top of the near by mountain. Bye bye solar panels. I think they need to be teaked a pit. Nothing is more tedious than waiting for the next day to get things partially finished while hunkering down in the shelters having the light switched off.
This kinda being the key. While I love debating the scientific aspects as much as the next guy, truth is we don't know what will be possible 400 years from now. The one thing I am positive of is that people even a hundred years from now will chuckle about our quaint notions and partial understandings just as we do re: people of a hundred years ago. And people 200 years from now will chuckle at all of us. 400 years ago, sail was the only viable propulsion for ships; what we use today, they couldn't have even dreamed of. Or if they did, they called it "magic". EGS is set just as far ahead of us as we are from what was high-tech in the 1600's- and if there's one thing I've seen in my half-century, the rate of advancement in technology is increasing faster and faster in the last few decades. There will probably be more difference between the tech of 2118 vs today than there is between 1618 and 2018... and things that are labelled as "impossible" and "science fiction" keep having a way of becoming science fact.
I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't have more energy-dense parallel-plate capacitors; I think that's entirely reasonable. Clearly the promethium is too easily accessible . I guess my response to this situation would be to build more solar panels. Solar panels just aren't very power-dense, so you're going to need a lot of them to do things like power a constructor. To me, that seems like a fine tradeoff for free energy.
Hmm i like exchanging ideas often with little regard to their merit. I just want to point out that I only started talking about RL when a different poster went there. As far as the game is concerned i'm really still back at wanting a soft stop instead of hard stop (if a stop is needed) where the solar panels are concerned. From a design standpoint, a "soft stop" that is already in play is that too many panels are hard to work in to structures in a pleasing way (ok maybe that's just me). I usually hit a limit for small starter/ad-on buildings at about 4 panels. I find myself making up reasons for rooms or adding gardens just to have the roof space. I added a "steam room" to my medical add-on building just so i could put a few solar panels on the roof.
Right. I'm personally not convinced that any limits are necessary for gameplay reasons (performance might be a different story); the very low power-density and path-to-sun requirement make it basically impossible to create a game-breaking design.
I have the same farm, and solar is a power supply band-aid at best. Increasing the storage amount in the capacitor to at least get through the night would be helpful. I'm thinking the possible intent of solar was to be a temporary power supply as is our small mobile constructor.
Or just build more capacitors? It's unfortunate the the default limit is 1 (but fortunately that can be changed in the config file).
This is true. I've lately not been into config changes in most of my games. I have gotten carried away a few time...lol, and ended up reloading games. I like the idea of being able to make suggestions and wish lists that the developers might read and come off with ideas for their games.
It did, at least early on; it's possible that things have changed since the experimental (which would be a shame).
Capacitor needs to be fully charged to be effective. Place 10+ solars at early morning, go out exploring, and by the evening you'd have enough power to run a large constructor and a food processor literally from dusk till down Timing is key here.
Actually six set right will run the constructor and food processor most of the night, if that is all you run. No matter, to charge the capacitor fully means a long down time, and if you have a large farm with lots of plants... My farm is rather large with all the amenities, lol, and when I do go there it's to get a lot done. By the time I'm ready to launch another adventure the capacitor is drained and approximately twenty percent of my fuel cells. I've almost retired the solar system to an emergency cargo box with my first portable constructor; I've just been a little lazy towards doing that.
