Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:42:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Originally by: RedLion They are still natural rubber, and "artificial" rubber :P And they are made from components which are not elements.
Well, whoptedo. Ferrofluid can now be substituted with 'artificial Ferrofluid' which is a cadmium&hafnium compound but can effectively substitute the previous material made from dysprosium&hafnium. From a chemical viewpoint it's a different item, but the guys making ferrogel couldn't care less.
Okay sir, let me explain to you.
I doubt mixing 2 elements will yield the same compound as mixing 2 others. Oil, gas, rubber, are vague terms.
Let's say methane, CH4, can only be made from Carbon and Hydrogen, if no nuclear reactions are made. Hydrogen + oxygen will not become methane, but perhaps water H20. (at least after combustion).
Most intermediate materials have a name which imply that they are indeed having a fixed formula.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Annaphera
Minmatar Super Green Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:45:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Annaphera on 30/10/2008 18:48:46
Originally by: RedLion
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Originally by: RedLion They are still natural rubber, and "artificial" rubber :P And they are made from components which are not elements.
Well, whoptedo. Ferrofluid can now be substituted with 'artificial Ferrofluid' which is a cadmium&hafnium compound but can effectively substitute the previous material made from dysprosium&hafnium. From a chemical viewpoint it's a different item, but the guys making ferrogel couldn't care less.
Okay sir, let me explain to you.
I doubt mixing 2 elements will yield the same compound as mixing 2 others. Oil, gas, rubber, are vague terms.
Let's say methane, CH4, can only be made from Carbon and Hydrogen, if no nuclear reactions are made. Hydrogen + oxygen will not become methane, but perhaps water H20. (at least after combustion).
Most intermediate materials have a name which imply that they are indeed having a fixed formula.
Why are you discounting the possibility of a nuclear reaction or six used in the process?
ETA - by the way, two chemicals made from different elements - Sodium Chloride and Potassium Chloride; both can be used as table salt. Very basic, but it still supports the point that ferrogel and "artificial ferrogel" can be made differently and yet still serve the same purpose down the road.
|
Tiirae
The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:49:00 -
[33]
yeah, lets not try to fix one of the biggest imbalances in the economy, just in case it might not work in the real world.
cos you know, everything else in eve is perfectly logical and realistic.
note: i'm not saying the proposed fix is the ideal way of doing it. the op isn't talking about that.
|
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:50:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Khandara Seraphim so let me get this straight... you're arguing about the scientific validity of a proposed gameplay balance change in EVE.
...
real world science is that way
No, the whole gameplay/industrial stuff has no validity in real world.
but it difference between accepting some aspects which is impossible, and accepting them all.
Alchemy is not what I look for in Eve.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:52:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Annaphera Edited by: Annaphera on 30/10/2008 18:48:46
Originally by: RedLion
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Originally by: RedLion They are still natural rubber, and "artificial" rubber :P And they are made from components which are not elements.
Well, whoptedo. Ferrofluid can now be substituted with 'artificial Ferrofluid' which is a cadmium&hafnium compound but can effectively substitute the previous material made from dysprosium&hafnium. From a chemical viewpoint it's a different item, but the guys making ferrogel couldn't care less.
Okay sir, let me explain to you.
I doubt mixing 2 elements will yield the same compound as mixing 2 others. Oil, gas, rubber, are vague terms.
Let's say methane, CH4, can only be made from Carbon and Hydrogen, if no nuclear reactions are made. Hydrogen + oxygen will not become methane, but perhaps water H20. (at least after combustion).
Most intermediate materials have a name which imply that they are indeed having a fixed formula.
Why are you discounting the possibility of a nuclear reaction or six used in the process?
ETA - by the way, two chemicals made from different elements - Sodium Chloride and Potassium Chloride; both can be used as table salt. Very basic, but it still supports the point that ferrogel and "artificial ferrogel" can be made differently and yet still serve the same purpose down the road.
I'm not, but as I said, then why stop at dysp?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:54:00 -
[36]
Edited by: RedLion on 30/10/2008 18:55:33
Originally by: Tiirae yeah, lets not try to fix one of the biggest imbalances in the economy, just in case it might not work in the real world.
cos you know, everything else in eve is perfectly logical and realistic.
note: i'm not saying the proposed fix is the ideal way of doing it. the op isn't talking about that.
Strangest comment I ever read. It looks like you didn't get the point, then you got the point? It's like you seems to be stupid, and then you end up looking even more.
I don't think there are anyone arguing against changing the supply of dysp, except for those who control those resources ofc.
edit: Not everything is logical and realistic, but that doesn't mean we should be able to start shooting lazer out our eyes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Annaphera
Minmatar Super Green Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:03:00 -
[37]
Originally by: RedLion
Originally by: Annaphera Edited by: Annaphera on 30/10/2008 18:48:46
Originally by: RedLion Okay sir, let me explain to you.
I doubt mixing 2 elements will yield the same compound as mixing 2 others. Oil, gas, rubber, are vague terms.
Let's say methane, CH4, can only be made from Carbon and Hydrogen, if no nuclear reactions are made. Hydrogen + oxygen will not become methane, but perhaps water H20. (at least after combustion).
Most intermediate materials have a name which imply that they are indeed having a fixed formula.
Why are you discounting the possibility of a nuclear reaction or six used in the process?
ETA - by the way, two chemicals made from different elements - Sodium Chloride and Potassium Chloride; both can be used as table salt. Very basic, but it still supports the point that ferrogel and "artificial ferrogel" can be made differently and yet still serve the same purpose down the road.
I'm not, but as I said, then why stop at dysp?
Economics, my friend. Those reactions may very well be expensive (to use an rp justification), either to perform (raising the base cost of the material produced above market value) or to develop (meaning the R&D corp never gets a return on investment). Happens all the time in the real world; for example, several methods of extracting gold from poor-quality ores weren't even bothered with, despite the fact that the methods were well understood in theory, until the price of gold exceeded the cost of extracting it. The poor-quality ore was even, in some cases, easier to get at and less expensive to mine...but the cost of processing would have been more than double what the gold was worth. By the same token, why would you bother to produce an artificial substitute for something when the sub would cost twice as much to make as the result was worth?
The dysp-substitute reaction has become economical, so someone developed it.
|
Polly Prissypantz
Dingleberry Appreciation Society
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:26:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Polly Prissypantz on 30/10/2008 19:26:32 Transmutation? Alchemy? I'm sorry, I must have wandered into the EverQuest forum by mistake.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:30:00 -
[39]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale There's no transmutation of any kind involved. It's simply a process that lets you very inefficiently substitute one resource for another in certain reactions...
Just how inefficiently? In other words, what do you guys at CCP think the monthly income of a dysprosium moon should be? (I don't expect a precise number, just a rought idea) ------------------------------------------
|
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 21:02:00 -
[40]
Originally by: RedLion
Originally by: Khandara Seraphim so let me get this straight... you're arguing about the scientific validity of a proposed gameplay balance change in EVE.
...
real world science is that way
No, the whole gameplay/industrial stuff has no validity in real world.
but it difference between accepting some aspects which is impossible, and accepting them all.
Alchemy is not what I look for in Eve.
well then you should check fusion bombs that consume hydrogen and create Helium with a **** load of energy wasted in a gigantic kaboom!
Even my tempest guns fire ammo that does that!
In a technology that can bend time and space i find very easy to believe that fusion and fission reactions could have been perfected to change almost any element.
|
|
Faife
Noctiscion
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 21:38:00 -
[41]
i use alchemy to make sure my 1400mm guns use the same ammo as my 1200mm guns. try and stop me. --
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Tiirae
The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 21:51:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Tiirae on 30/10/2008 21:52:53
Originally by: RedLion Edited by: RedLion on 30/10/2008 18:55:33
Originally by: Tiirae yeah, lets not try to fix one of the biggest imbalances in the economy, just in case it might not work in the real world.
cos you know, everything else in eve is perfectly logical and realistic.
note: i'm not saying the proposed fix is the ideal way of doing it. the op isn't talking about that.
Strangest comment I ever read. It looks like you didn't get the point, then you got the point? It's like you seems to be stupid, and then you end up looking even more.
I don't think there are anyone arguing against changing the supply of dysp, except for those who control those resources ofc.
edit: Not everything is logical and realistic, but that doesn't mean we should be able to start shooting lazer out our eyes.
Your post is suggesting that the proposed changes to moon mineral reactions shouldn't be implemented becasue in the real world chemistry doesn't work that way. At least that's how it sounds.
My post says that the real world has no place in eve.
You may want to turn your sarcasm detector up a notch.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 21:53:00 -
[43]
First changing 1 element into other is not impossible. We do in OUR world with OUR technology in nuclear reactors and bombs. There are freaking billions of stars in universe that are nothing more than giant factories of helium.
Even so that bothers you.. that bothers you when there are much larger infractions of real physics laws and stuff much more obvious like: 2 guardians can generate infinite cap by transfering 1 to each other . Completely breaking the laws of thermodynamcs.
That is an issue that is FAR FAR more wrong than the issue you point AND has gameplay effect. But nooo.... you decide to whine about something that has absolute nothing scientific against it and NO gameplay effect? really.. amazing. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:03:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Annaphera I'm not, but as I said, then why stop at dysp?
Economics, my friend. Those reactions may very well be expensive (to use an rp justification), either to perform (raising the base cost of the material produced above market value) or to develop (meaning the R&D corp never gets a return on investment). Happens all the time in the real world; for example, several methods of extracting gold from poor-quality ores weren't even bothered with, despite the fact that the methods were well understood in theory, until the price of gold exceeded the cost of extracting it. The poor-quality ore was even, in some cases, easier to get at and less expensive to mine...but the cost of processing would have been more than double what the gold was worth. By the same token, why would you bother to produce an artificial substitute for something when the sub would cost twice as much to make as the result was worth?
The dysp-substitute reaction has become economical, so someone developed it.
Remember we don't talk about ores.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Aphoticus
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:04:00 -
[45]
Has anyone considered that what ever argument is given that a futuristic outcome is possible. Whether it's fusion, fission, alchemy, ferrogel, or amagalmoten, that it can be done in some form or another?
The reason it happens can be worked out, the question is whether the out-come should happen.
Should it be allowed to happen, do we need it, and is CCP willing?
The means to the end doesn't matter until it's decided it's needed and CCP is willing.
|
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:14:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon First changing 1 element into other is not impossible. We do in OUR world with OUR technology in nuclear reactors and bombs. There are freaking billions of stars in universe that are nothing more than giant factories of helium.
Even so that bothers you.. that bothers you when there are much larger infractions of real physics laws and stuff much more obvious like: 2 guardians can generate infinite cap by transfering 1 to each other . Completely breaking the laws of thermodynamcs.
That is an issue that is FAR FAR more wrong than the issue you point AND has gameplay effect. But nooo.... you decide to whine about something that has absolute nothing scientific against it and NO gameplay effect? really.. amazing.
Well Cd into Dy would require energy, while gigantic stars are releasing energy by "burning" helium. It's amazing how people without knowledge manage to compare nuclear reactions/bombs releasing energy (be it fusion or fission) with the opposite. But if this would happen in large scale like this, it would be really hard to produce enough energy to do it. You should probably spend more time in school and less time lifting your opinions about stuff you don't have knowledge about. (and again, if fusion of higher numbered elements should be possible, then it should not be restricted to a limited number of materials).
However, CCP made alchemy, not nuclear science, so I don't think they are concerned about the physical laws behind it.
And yes sir, I could whine about the generation of energy, like the 1000 other people who have done that... good idea! Variety and using your brain is bad mkay!?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Joss Sparq
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Chribba b + a / c = Chribba?
Ah, but which of the values in the equation is Veldspar?
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 23:54:00 -
[48]
For some reason seeing an elemental transformation in a REACTOR that is throwing off so much rad that you have to stick it at a space station orbiting a moon, and even then can't attach it to the tower, doesn't bother me at all. Hell, in eve we have gamma ray lasers! Actually when you stop to think about it, considering the energy output of most Amarr weaponry and the electromagnetic bottling used in blasters, fusion of higher elements seems quite likely. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
zobod
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 00:12:00 -
[49]
Edited by: zobod on 31/10/2008 00:13:10 Edited by: zobod on 31/10/2008 00:12:46 Edited by: zobod on 31/10/2008 00:12:15
Originally by: Annaphera
It's more like subbing copper for gold in electronics, to a point. Both are elements; both conduct electricity; both can thus be used in electronics. Copper is not as efficient a conductor as gold (or silver, for that matter) and so is used when exacting tolerances are not an issue (and even sometimes when they should be), but it can easily replace gold never the less.
Actually you're half right. Silver is a better conductor than copper but gold is not. Gold is plated onto connectors because it's inactive and doesn't tarnish and so has a real-world contact resistance which is lower than silver or copper.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/electrical.html
|
Annaphera
Minmatar Super Green Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 00:24:00 -
[50]
Originally by: zobod Edited by: zobod on 31/10/2008 00:13:10 Edited by: zobod on 31/10/2008 00:12:46 Edited by: zobod on 31/10/2008 00:12:15
Originally by: Annaphera
It's more like subbing copper for gold in electronics, to a point. Both are elements; both conduct electricity; both can thus be used in electronics. Copper is not as efficient a conductor as gold (or silver, for that matter) and so is used when exacting tolerances are not an issue (and even sometimes when they should be), but it can easily replace gold never the less.
Actually you're half right. Silver is a better conductor than copper but gold is not. Gold is plated onto connectors because it's inactive and doesn't tarnish and so has a real-world contact resistance which is lower than silver or copper.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/electrical.html
Nice catch, and you are quite correct, sir. The analogy still works, however, just replacing where I said "gold" with "silver".
|
|
Annaphera
Minmatar Super Green Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 00:31:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Annaphera on 31/10/2008 00:32:13
Originally by: RedLion
Originally by: Annaphera Economics, my friend. Those reactions may very well be expensive (to use an rp justification), either to perform (raising the base cost of the material produced above market value) or to develop (meaning the R&D corp never gets a return on investment). Happens all the time in the real world; for example, several methods of extracting gold from poor-quality ores weren't even bothered with, despite the fact that the methods were well understood in theory, until the price of gold exceeded the cost of extracting it. The poor-quality ore was even, in some cases, easier to get at and less expensive to mine...but the cost of processing would have been more than double what the gold was worth. By the same token, why would you bother to produce an artificial substitute for something when the sub would cost twice as much to make as the result was worth?
The dysp-substitute reaction has become economical, so someone developed it.
Remember we don't talk about ores.
Now you're just picking nits. That was an example of a real-world parallel, old boy, not meant to be 100% exact. The point is, the process for making a dysp out of lesser metals, HOWEVER it is achieved, got economical enough to implement - both the concept and the implementation are realistic enough to get by, thus overcoming the original complaint. My example of processing gold ore was intended to show how something in the real world hit a similar threshold, not to state that the moons give ore.
|
Daan Sai
Polytrope
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 00:39:00 -
[52]
Grayscale, I am wondering about your design factoring decision, ie what were the advantages of putting the alternative processes into the moon reaction level as opposed to the BP manufacturing stage of the whole process?
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 01:02:00 -
[53]
Originally by: RedLion However, CCP made alchemy, not nuclear science, so I don't think they are concerned about the physical laws behind it.
The joke flew over your head, so high it was at the edge of space.
And... Alchemy _is_ nuclear science, and chemistry, and much more, by a different name.
|
Dikanal
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 01:04:00 -
[54]
lol eve is internet spaceships with warp drives, jump gates, cloning, cybernetics, shields, lasers and substituting molecules in a manufacturing process is not "realistic"?
You need to get out more
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 03:29:00 -
[55]
- putting the gist back into logistics |
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 06:40:00 -
[56]
I have a feeling that with tech 3 coming... moon minerals will be stressed far more then they currently are. Which in turn brings value to 0.0.
They want to shift some of that value to low sec with the concurrent dysp moons and such already. That way low sec is boosted also.
Though really... I doubt this highly inefficient method could really do much. You need many more starbases which builds on the overall fuel costs. As it adds to increased weapons, increased security, you have to pretty much react at large towers only.
So really... you kind of cant be doing this that easily. Prices really have to skyrocket for this to be feasibly profitable.
Which kind of means ccp to be putting resources and work into this... they must be expecting a big jump in moonmineral prices. ------------------------ Have you fed your slaves recently? -BRB Rens |
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 07:36:00 -
[57]
Do I have to grind reputation for these transmute recepies?
"The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of goldcrap"
|
Karanth
Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 07:37:00 -
[58]
Tech 3 is coming, of course. Due to my powers of prediction*, I'm gonna say that all those T3 ships will use 10x more moon material than T2 do.
*I have a Master's Degree in Rectal Oratory.
---
Wheel of Whineage |
Hyperforce99
Gallente Infinite Covenant Knights Of The Singularity
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 08:33:00 -
[59]
a yes, chemistery.
Its been 4 months now since my exams... thanks for the refresher (damn 4 months allready ) --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
RedLion
Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 15:58:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Annaphera Edited by: Annaphera on 31/10/2008 00:32:13
Originally by: RedLion
Originally by: Annaphera Economics, my friend. Those reactions may very well be expensive (to use an rp justification), either to perform (raising the base cost of the material produced above market value) or to develop (meaning the R&D corp never gets a return on investment). Happens all the time in the real world; for example, several methods of extracting gold from poor-quality ores weren't even bothered with, despite the fact that the methods were well understood in theory, until the price of gold exceeded the cost of extracting it. The poor-quality ore was even, in some cases, easier to get at and less expensive to mine...but the cost of processing would have been more than double what the gold was worth. By the same token, why would you bother to produce an artificial substitute for something when the sub would cost twice as much to make as the result was worth?
The dysp-substitute reaction has become economical, so someone developed it.
Remember we don't talk about ores.
Now you're just picking nits. That was an example of a real-world parallel, old boy, not meant to be 100% exact. The point is, the process for making a dysp out of lesser metals, HOWEVER it is achieved, got economical enough to implement - both the concept and the implementation are realistic enough to get by, thus overcoming the original complaint. My example of processing gold ore was intended to show how something in the real world hit a similar threshold, not to state that the moons give ore.
SO you agree that the moons don't yield ore? Well I'm glad for that, and I don't discuss the viability/economical side of this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |