Robo Smelter Layout!

[robo19]

So basically me and my townsmen have been making iron lately and recently I took myself (with 4 chests; YES you can lift filled chests) and filled them with limes.

Now we started crunching numbers (with reference to the Salem Wiki @ Salemwiki.info) and as the wiki says the optimal iron output is 13-12!
HOWEVER; for us ore is VERY easy to get though lime takes me over an hour to get 100; so we set out to find a lime saving layout!

To determine if this plan is for you; ---> Do you calculate how much iron you can make with "X" amount of lime? If yes then you may want to read on.

13 ore 12 Lime 83.64% chance for 1 iron. 51.86% chance for 2 iron. 23.37% chance for 3 iron. 1.69 Average Iron per smelt.

16 ore 9 Lime 81.47% chance to get 1 iron. 48.53% chance to get 2 iron. 21.08% chance to get 3 iron. 1.60 Average Iron per smelt.
Reference & Credits for calculations to http://salemwiki.info/index.php/Ore_Smelter

Now ore doesnt matter to me as just like most of the Salem community, my smelter is RIGHT next to my mine.

I feel if you are conserving Lime for optimal Lime-Per-Iron; then 16:9 is BETTER!

So with my 108 lime in my 4 chests (+8 for accuracy); using 13:12 I would get 9 Ore Smelt-ings. By multiplying that by the average iron rate you can get the AVERAGE iron for the amount of smelts.
There for 1.69x9 = 15.21 Iron in 9 smelts using 13:12 technique.

Using 16:9; the same 108 lime can get me 12 ore smelt-ings! Using the same formula 1.6x12 = I can get 19.2 Iron with 12 smelts~

Using the same amount of lime!

I'm not sure if the balance of the ore-lime placement matters but here is a perfectly balance pattern I found that seems to satisfy!

+ = Ore
/ = Lime

+ + / + +
+ / + / +
/ + / + /
+ / + / +
+ + / + +

Correct me if I am wrong about this; just speculation. ~~~ Currently Smelting ores with new layout; will post results upon completion.

As for being in the help section:

Why isn't there a "General Discussion" thread?

BTW another question; can guns kill animals (Deers, bears, rabbits, ect)

[Droj]

Sorry to burst your bubble but lime/ore placement has no affect on the output. I've done many tests and experiements with the ore smelter and I've concluded that a ratio of 17 ore & 8 lime is the most effective in terms of cost and actual output. More often than not I would get 2 bars at the cost of 8 lime & 15 coal. Multiplied by 6 which was my total smelter count at the time, proved to be very efficient when mass producing. There's nothing better than checking in after 40 mins to find 12 bars waiting for you!

[staxjax]

It takes a little over 2 hours to get 990 lime...and I don't live even remotely close to a lime deposit. But, I agree with Droj that 17 ore and 8 lime provides opitmal output.

[robo19]

Let me get this in mathmatic terms;
16 9 81.47% 48.53% 21.08% 1.60
vs
17 8 79.88% 46.04% 19.27% 1.53

8x9 = lime so that we have a common denominator; 72 Lime

Basically you would get 9 smelt, I would get 8.

With 9 smelts on 17-8; you would average 13.77. To get the average shown here, you multiply the Average iron per smelt by the number of smelts.
For you; that is 1.53 iron per smelt, multiply that by the number of smelts you can do with 72 lime (72/8 = 9) There fore 1.53x9 = 13.77.

With 8 smelts on 16-9: you would average 12.8. Same applied here; Average 1.6 times the number of smelts with 72 lime (72/9 = 8) there for 1.6x8 = 12.8.

So you are correct; your method does produce more iron:lime ratio!

However once you get lower than 9 lime, the probabilities start curve sharper; with the same 72 lime; Using 24 ore and 1 lime would yield 34.56 iron. (72 smelts...) So if you focus on "lime:Iron" ratio only, yes your right. However I am also giving consideration to the average Iron per smelt.

The average of 13-12 is 1.69 iron per smelt; The average of 16-9 is 1.6 IPS; the difference being 0.09 iron per smelt; This is very small considering I save 3 lime per smelt.

However 17-8 yields an average of 1.53 iron per smelt; A difference of 0.07 for saving ONE (1) lime from 16-9.
The difference of 13-12 and 17-8 being a loss of 0.16 iron per smelt.

Essentially; in 100 smelts:
13-12 would yield between 169 iron
16-9 would yield 160
17-8 would yield 153.
So I would save 300 lime at the expense of 9 iron bars; You would save 400 lime at the expense of 16 iron bars.
*** Continued for Sevenless ***
15-10 would yield 165; You would save 200 lime for 4 bars, 200 lime x 3s = 600s vs 400s bars, you profit 200s. You win. 15-10 is better.
14-11 would yield 168; you would save 100 lime for 1 bar; 100 x 3s = 300s vs 100s bar profit of 200s. 14-11 is same ratio as 15-10.
Just for a test; assuming Lime is 4s instead of 3s. 14-11 would be 400s vs 1 bar profiting 300s. 15-10 would be 800s vs 400s = 400s profit.
Conclusion: 15-10 is better the more lime is worth, meaning if like is hard for you to get, go with 15-10.
If lime is easier, I feel 14-11 is better than 12-13 as you can do more smelting (lime takes longer to get so balancing ore and lime would be senseless, like i said, 100 lime = 1 bar of iron in 100 smelts)

In economical terms; if 1 lime = 3s then 300 lime = 900s, if iron bars are 100s then I broke even; where are your 400 lime = 1200s - 1600 = a loss of 400s.

"I said GOOD DAY!"

Due to Sevenless' correct ratio; I am rephrasing my title. 16-9 is the LOWEST you can go with lime before it becomes too harsh.
16-9 < 15-10.

[Sevenless]

I'm a firm believer in 10 lime/15 ore. Mainly because the next step increases the bar output by roughly 0.05 of a bar, or 5s. I wouldn't want to go past that. But you should always stuff a smelter with lime to the point where the next gain from lime is equal to the cost, because that helps reduce the cost of charcoal used as well. Theoretically I should use 11 by my analysis, but that's an annoying number to me

And yes, I'm ignoring Bayesian here before anyone reminds me of that humiliation If anything, bayesian would argue for slightly more lime than I'm suggesting.

[Droj]

Yield cannot be quantified in this case since you can never produce 1.60 bars in one smelt. It is the mathematical output based on the probability of a mutually exclusive event. Instead, you should look at the probability of getting exactly 2 bars per smelt vs lime cost.

Fe,
16 9 81.47% 48.53% 21.08% 1.60
vs
17 8 79.88% 46.04% 19.27% 1.53

Over 100 smelts you have the chance to gain a maximum of:
16 9 - 96 bars
17 8 - 92 bars
Difference in bars, 4. Current Market value, 400s
Difference in lime, 100. Valued at 300s.

Assuming that the value of iron doesn't decrease and taking into account the labouring costs of quarrying an extra 100 lime (1 minute for digging & chipping and 1 minute replenishment for each boulder totalling 40 minutes). Is it actually worth the extra 40 minutes of your time for an extra 100 silvers compared to easier forms such as hunting crickets for example?

[robo19]

The probability of getting 2 bars is factored into the 1.6 average; just as the 1.53.
In 100 smelts; I would AVERAGE 160 bars; you would average 153 bars.
Just as 10 smelts; I would average 16; you would average 15.3 (rounded to either 15-16) however in smaller scale its hard to see the difference. (10 smelts you lose 1 bar, but save 10 lime, enough to do another smelt and make up that bar.)

I honestly don't see how you got 96 and 92 bars; maybe laying out your calculations would make more sense.
Quarrying for 100 lime for 4 bars doesnt seems all that worth it (cause its wrong) but 100 lime for 7 bars....ya kinda worth it.

15-10 would get 12 more bars than you in 100 smelts at the expense of 200 lime.

[Sevenless]

The probability of getting 2 bars is factored into the 1.6 average; just as the 1.53.
In 100 smelts; I would AVERAGE 160 bars; you would average 153 bars.
Just as 10 smelts; I would average 16; you would average 15.3 (rounded to either 15-16) however in smaller scale its hard to see the difference. (10 smelts you lose 1 bar, but save 10 lime, enough to do another smelt and make up that bar.)

I honestly don't see how you got 96 and 92 bars; maybe laying out your calculations would make more sense.
Quarrying for 100 lime for 4 bars doesnt seems all that worth it (cause its wrong) but 100 lime for 7 bars....ya kinda worth it.

15-10 would get 12 more bars than you in 100 smelts at the expense of 200 lime.

The only flaw I've got to point out is the fact that everyone seems to be valuing charcoal at 0s. Charcoal takes effort and time as well, albeit less than lime does.

[robo19]

In my plot I got 6 charcoal piles; when 1 runs out I replace it. I have yet to run out of all 6 in the 3 days it takes for the others to finish. However I am limited to my max charcoal in a day. If I increased this to 10 piles it would be FAR more effective in which as long as I replace them, I have no demand for charcoal. (Easy enough to do while smelter burns)

[naosnule]

Droj is right, chipping lime for merely 3 silver per lime is not efficient for well-developed towns. The extra lime may have a market value of 3 silver, but during the same time an advanced player could earn significantely more than that. The amount of lime needs to be compared to the best realistic way to spend the time you would have otherwise spent chipping lime and that is higher than 3 silver per lime for certain towns.


Edit: This means also that for some people their time is worth 3 s, but for other people it is worth more and yet for other people it is worth less since it takes time to actually trade. So the amount of lime that is optimal depends very much from case to case.