The problem with cooling cells

[OrchideeFan944]

The problem is that they are not good enough to compete with other cooling solutions. It feels like they got left behind.

I did some testing to see were they are standing in terms of usability. Spoiler, it's not that gread but easy to fix.

At first I tested some setups. Each one was one fuel chamber and one generator.
Format:
fuel chamber | generator | generator limit for running endless | electricity production

3 Cooling Cells:
T3 + T3 -> 15.625% (500/32) -> 195.3 e/s
T3 + T2 -> 16.666% (500/30) -> 166.66 e/s
T2 + T3 -> 15.151% (500/33) -> 189.387 e/s
T2 + T2 -> 16.129% (500/31) -> 161.29 e/s
T1 + T1 -> 17.241% (500/29) -> 172.41 e/s

2 Cooling Cells:
T3 + T3 -> 12.5%   (400/32) -> 156.25 e/s
T3 + T2 -> 13.333% (400/30) -> 133.33 e/s
T2 + T3 -> 12.121% (400/33) -> 151.512 e/s
T2 + T2 -> 12.903% (400/31) -> 129.03 e/s
T1 + T1 -> 13.793% (400/29) -> 137.93 e/s

1 Cooling Cell:
T3 + T3 -> 6.25%  (200/32) -> 78.125 e/s
T3 + T2 -> 6.666% (200/30) -> 66.66 e/s
T2 + T3 -> 6.06%  (200/33) -> 75.75 e/s
T2 + T2 -> 6.451% (200/31) -> 64.51 e/s
T1 + T1 -> 6.896% (200/29) -> 68.96 e/s

0 Cooling Cells:
T3 + T3 -> 6.25%  (200/32) -> 78.125 e/s
T3 + T2 -> 6.666% (200/30) -> 66.66 e/s
T2 + T3 -> 6.06%  (200/33) -> 75.75 e/s
T2 + T2 -> 6.451% (200/31) -> 64.51 e/s
T1 + T1 -> 6.896% (200/29) -> 68.96 e/s

What you can see is that the third coolant cells efficency is only 50%, why? I don't know.
You can also see that there is no difference beetween 0 and 1 cooling cells. That's because the fuel chamber and generator have each a base dessipation rate of 5 heat units per second, so a total of 10.
Means the cooling racks are not treated as an additional cooling option, instead replacing the base dessipation.
And 1 coolant unit can cool 10 heat units, because cooling cells regenerate 1 coolant unit per second.

The other competitors are heat sink cube + radiator extension (heat sink) and just radiator extension (radiator).
Comparison of stats on a T3 fuel chamber with one T3 generator:
Format:
type | weight | generator limit for running endless | heat production | were the heat goes | electricity production

Data:
Heat sink    5620.8 kg | 100%    -> 160 heat units -> 50 heat sink cube, 110 radiator -> 1250 e/s
Radiator     534 kg    | 71.875% -> 115 heat units -> 10 base, 105 radiator           -> 898.4375 e/s
Cooling Rack 1901.1 kg | 15.625% -> 25 heat units  -> 25 cooling cells                -> 195.3 e/s

Okay, that's not looking good for cooling racks.
How many trinagle thruster could it power? T2 base other parts T3, electricity consumption between 81.675 and 81.676 e/s can't find out exact value, 3 digit limit. 81.676 for calculation used

Data:
Heat sink    15 thruster -> 24.86  e/s leftover
Radiator     11 thruster -> 0.0015 e/s leftover
Cooling Rack 2 thruster  -> 31.948 e/s leftover

Hm, lets do some scenarios to see when cooling racks would become competitive.
All cooling cells are working with 100%.
Calculated for one T3 fuel chamber and one T3 generator.
The coolant regenration rate per second is different.
All thruster are working with 100%
Format:
generator limit for running endless | electricity production | supplyable thruster amount | leftover electricity | cooling capacitiy

Cases:
Regeneration rate of 6:
100%   -> 1250 e/s     -> 15 thruster -> 24.86 e/s  | 180 heat units

Regeneration rate of 5:
93.75% -> 1171.875 e/s -> 14 thruster -> 28.411 e/s | 150 heat units

Regeneration rate of 4:
75%    -> 937.5 e/s    -> 11 thruster -> 39.064 e/s | 120 heat units

Regeneration rate of 3:
56.25% -> 703.125 e/s  -> 8 thruster  -> 49.717 e/s | 90 heat units

Regeneration rate of 2:
37.5%  -> 468.75 e/s   -> 5 thruster  -> 60.37 e/s  | 60 heat units

Regeneration rate of 1:
18.75% -> 234.375 e/s  -> 2 thruster  -> 71.023 e/s | 30 heat units

So what does this mean. Well to be competitive they should be better than a single radiator extension, for that the regeneration rate must be 4 or more. In my mind it should not be better than a heat sink cube in the given scenario, so regeneration rate below 6.

Means, a regeneration rate of 4 or 5 would make the cooling rack competitive to other cooling solutions.

Ps. The symbol used to create the spaces is U+2008, " " the on in brackets.
Pss. I also included my test setup, so feel free to test it.

 

[Askannon]

Did my own test, and I can tell that your value for 1 cooling cell for T1 + T1 is incorrect

That set is stable.
Used a yolol chip to set values

:GURL=100-:GSH-:FSH :COOLURL=100 goto1
goto1

alternatively, the following also worked

:GURL=100-:GSH-:FSH :COOLURL=:StoredCoolant/100 goto1
goto1

What happens is that I think you only made a quick run and tried to keep all values stable, but the issue of that is that passive dissipation only occurs late in the overall list of calculations.
I'm currently running a 3 cell test, but that needs a moment to run its course, but while it is running this, I am also generating more electricity, so there is also that: delaying overheating.

 

[Askannon]

Your "50% cooling cell #3 efficiency" is simply because you misunderstood the calculation of cooling cell regeneration:
1 coolant/s = 5 heat/s, not 10

 

[Askannon]

Finally, the reason cooling cells are looking so bad is because they are meant for high intensity operation.
One cooling cell can in essence "store" 5*10000 heat and they are capable of doing so in 2 seconds.
The problem is, that for most operations you want a steady dissipation and not burst storage. I have little knowledge of combat, but I would assume cooling cells are not bad for combat applications, where preventing an accidental overheat due to firing weapons can be the difference between continuing to fight and getting shot down because your power production faltered.

Overall I think cooling cells should have a much better charge when they aren't used. They're burst storage and should not take close to 3 hours to recharge.
If they could interact with coolant recharge racks without having to be slotted in would already be a big boost to them.

 

[OrchideeFan944]

So I did some retesting.
What I found out is that your T1 T1 values and my are both correct, will explain what is happening later.
But before I would like to explain why your claim that 1 coolant can cool 5 heat is not correct.

We know that the fuel chamber and generator have a base dissipation of 10 heat in total (5 chamber 5 gen, same for all tiers).
For a T1 T1 setup, 10 heat would be reached when the generator limit is set to 6.896 (200/29).
If we now place a cooling rack with one full cooling cell on the generator, the cooling cell will turn red than green (or blue if no heat was stored in the generator).
If we then set the value to 10.344 (300/29), this would create 15 heat units. The cooling cell is turing red, means it can't cool it.
Setting the limit back to 6.896, the cooling cell is turing green and after some time blue.
Does this mean 1 cooling cell can't cool?
No it means that the cooling rack is replacing the base dissipation. Means 1 coolant can cool 10 heat units.
This also makes sense considering that there were plans for heat radiaion, the cooling rack would 'stop' the radiation. (If I remember correctly but it's canceled)

But why is it possible to cool 15 heat with an empty cell?
In short: The cooling is switching between cooling rack and base dissipation.
In detail: For that it would make sense to inspect the situation per game tick. I came up with the following to explanations (theoretical the number should be divided by the amount of game ticks per second but I don't know the amount of ticks per second and it's easier to understand this way):
First explanation:
Tick 1: 15 heat produced -> total 15 | 0 coolant -> cools 0 heat -> switches to base dissipation -> 10 heat dissipated -> 5 heat remaining
Tick 2: 15 heat produced -> total 20 | 1 coolant -> cools 10 heat -> coolant is empty, switches to base dissipation -> 10 heat dissipated -> 0 heat remaining
Tick 3 == Tick 1
Tick 4 == Tick 2
...
Second explanation:
Tick 1: 15 heat produced -> total 15 | 0.5 coolant -> cools 5 heat -> coolant is empty, switches to base dissipation -> 10 heat dissipated -> 0 heat remaining
Tick 2 == Tick 1
...

Also calculated first the limits for each combination with 1 cooling cell to cool 15 heat and then tested it:
T3 T3 at (300/32) -> working
T3 T2 at (300/30) -> working
T2 T3 at (300/33) -> working
T2 T2 at (300/31) -> working
T1 T1 at (300/29) -> working

You also mentioned regeneration time, so I also calculated it for different regeneration values (1 to 6), the time it need from empty to full:
Regeneration rate 6:
Time: 1666.7 seconds (5000/3)  => 00:27:46,667

Regeneration rate 5:
Time: 2000 seconds             => 00:33:20,000

Regeneration rate 4:
Time: 2500 seconds             => 00:41:40,000

Regeneration rate 3:
Time: 3333.3 seconds (10000/3) => 00:55:33,333

Regeneration rate 2:
Time: 5000 seconds             => 01:23:20,000

Regeneration rate 1:
Time: 10000 seconds            => 02:46:40,000

I still have the opinion that changing the regeneration value to 4 or 5 is the fastes way to buff cooling racks.
Askannons idea of letting the cooling cell regenerate faster when not used is also great but implementing requires more time than just changing on number.