• alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Yes, that has nothing to do with the time the items have to sit on the conveyerbelt. This is a process that takes 3600x less time, not one with 3600x more throughput.

    If they put 1 ton of iron ore in the furnace over a period of 1 hour, even if the iron is at the bottom of the furnace within seconds instead of hours, it doesn’t enable them to add iron ore at a faster rate.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      Your made up scenario has absolutely nothing to do with how the process actually works though. You literally just made a straw man here. The reality is that the iron has to sit in the furnace for less time, and that means you can put more iron through the furnace of a particular size than you could otherwise. This really shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp, yet here we are.

    • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      If they put 1 ton of iron ore in the furnace over a period of 1 hour, even if the iron is at the bottom of the furnace within seconds instead of hours, it doesn’t enable them to add iron ore at a faster rate

      Cool. So, now they get to put several times more of the iron. I wonder if your argument is going to be ‘but they will hit another bottleneck, then’.