Traveller Manufacturing Rules

Okay. So, I think I figured out the problem. The profit versus maintenance cost percentage is whacked out.

Fuel Refinery 0.02%
Mineral Refinery / Smelter 0.39%
Manufacturing Plant, Basic 0.07%
Manufacturing Plant, Advanced 0.27%
Manufacturing Plant, Specialist 0.03%
Manufacturing Plant, Agricultural 5.49%

Solution? Increase their size per ton of output.

Fuel Refinery 1 ton / 1,365 tons
Mineral Refinery / Smelter 1 ton / 65 tons
Manufacturing Plant, Basic 1 ton / 342 tons
Manufacturing Plant, Advanced 1 ton / 92 tons
Manufacturing Plant, Specialist 1 ton / 728 tons
Manufacturing Plant, Agricultural 1 ton / 4.6 tons

Now, I am having trouble using Excel to figure out exactly how much bigger these components need to be to achieve the desired 25% of its output being chewed up by maintenance. With an average of 50% value of seed materials and 25% given over to maintenance, plus however much more for the additional personnel, should give Us a good Manufacturing system that is way less overpowered than the one We have now.

btw... I am using these numbers for price per ton of goods
Fuel Refinery 0.0005/MCr/ton of fuel
Mineral Refinery / Smelter 0.01065MCr / ton of the two Raw Materials (Common and Uncommon)
MP, Basic 0.015MCr/ton of goods
MP, Advanced 0.115MCr/ton of goods
MP, Specialist 0.4MCr/ton of goods
MP, Agricultural 0.0005MCr/ton of Basic Consumables.

Can anyone run the calculations since I seem to be incompetent with Excel?
I'm not sure I follow your calculations; please step me through it. It looks like you are trying to make each type of production equally profitable; and I'm not sure I am sold on that idea. Are you working purely in terms of 'Credits of input' vs 'Credits of output'?
 
I'm not sure I follow your calculations; please step me through it. It looks like you are trying to make each type of production equally profitable; and I'm not sure I am sold on that idea. Are you working purely in terms of 'Credits of input' vs 'Credits of output'?
I am trying to make them all come out at being between 15-25% profitability, while only adjusting the output per ton of component. If I need to move back and forth between Cr and tons in the calculations, I listed the sale price per ton for output. For credits per input, I have been using 50% of the sale price of the object being created as a simple number. The books recommend between 10% and 90%. I used an average of those numbers for ease of use.

Right now, the profitability is closer to 99%, taken down to 49% once I include the 50% cost of the seed materials.
 
I am trying to make them all come out at being between 15-25% profitability, while only adjusting the output per ton of component. If I need to move back and forth between Cr and tons in the calculations, I listed the sale price per ton for output. For credits per input, I have been using 50% of the sale price of the object being created as a simple number. The books recommend between 10% and 90%. I used an average of those numbers for ease of use.

Right now, the profitability is closer to 99%, taken down to 49% once I include the 50% cost of the seed materials.
Do you want to include the cost of power and labor in the 'cost of materials' side of the equation?
 
Power, no, but labor, yes. I just hadn't gotten to that stage yet. My Excel-fu failed Me. :p
I cannot run Excel; I do hot have a windows machine, nor an Office subscription -- but I will be happy to work with you on a Google Sheet if you like.

Something to consider: the difference in value of a 'credit' at each Technology Level.

On the one hand, this means that we can pretty much skip most of the 'improvement by TL' stuff for manufacturing -- a TL 10 Manufacturing Plant will be working with more valuable TL 10 credits as compared to a TL 9 Manufacturing Plant of the same type; so the productivity automatically increases without us having to spend skull-sweat detailing it.

On the other hand, lots of stuff will never progress in Technology Level -- Fresh Fruit, Live Animals, Sophonts, & etc, will all pretty much stay 'TL 0' pretty much forever -- which means that TL 10 Agricultural Manufacturing Plants turning out TL 0 livestock is producing a certain number of TL 10 credits-worth exchanged to an equivalent number of TL 0 credits - which can be a significant multiple. Some things like 'common resources' might be defined as being a fixed TL: Copper, Lead, Tin, Zinc, and Iron might be TL 1; Basic Steel Alloys TL 3; Polymers, Steel Alloys, Composites TL 4; and so on.
 
Last edited:
I cannot run Excel; I do hot have a windows machine, nor an Office subscription -- but I will be happy to work with you on a Google Sheet if you like.
I don't know how to use Google Docs. :(
Something to consider: the difference in value of a 'credit' at each Technology Level.

On the one hand, this means that we can pretty much skip most of the 'improvement by TL' stuff for manufacturing -- a TL 10 Manufacturing Plant will be working with more valuable TL 10 credits as compared to a TL 9 Manufacturing Plant of the same type; so the productivity automatically increases without us having to spend skull-sweat detailing it.

On the other hand, lots of stuff will never progress in Technology Level -- Fresh Fruit, Live Animals, Sophonts, & etc, will all pretty much stay 'TL 0' pretty much forever -- which means that TL 10 Agricultural Manufacturing Plants turning out TL 0 livestock is producing a certain number of TL 10 credits-worth exchanged to an equivalent number of TL 0 credits - which can be a significant multiple. Some things like 'common resources' might be defined as being a fixed TL: Copper, Lead, Tin, Zinc, and Iron might be TL 1; Basic Steel Alloys TL 3; Polymers, Steel Alloys, Composites TL 4; and so on.
This was detailed in one of the GURPS books. Far Trader, maybe? It was a headache. Your livestock might be TL-0, but as you increase in TL, you improve the methods of production, increasing your output per ton of Manufacturing Plant. This is a huge can of worms that I am choosing to ignore for now.
 
I don't know how to use Google Docs. :(

This was detailed in one of the GURPS books. Far Trader, maybe? It was a headache. Your livestock might be TL-0, but as you increase in TL, you improve the methods of production, increasing your output per ton of Manufacturing Plant. This is a huge can of worms that I am choosing to ignore for now.

It is very similar -- cutting, pasting, and copying require keystrokes -- to Excel; but I think you need a (free) Google account to create one. I can share a blank one of mine if you like.

The 'huge can of worms' is not so bad; I was trying to point out that the existing guidelines for converting value-of-currency-by-TL pretty much already covers it. Imagine all the improvements in farming that happen between TL 3 and TL 4 -- improvements in fertilizers, land management, irrigation, pest control, equipment, etc -- which is easier:
1} Model all of that stuff in game, for every area of endeavor, every alien civilization, and every Technology Level; or
2} Hand-waving all of the above as 'details below the scale of the game' which (cumulatively) add up to improvement by TL represented as better-value-per-credit.

With approach #1 there are a thousand details to describe a TL 3 farm; and each of those must be modified (and the modification detailed and described). With approach #2, just declare that a TL3 farm produces 1000 Cr (TL 4) of chickens (TL 1) per week; while a TL 4 farm produces 1000 Cr (TL 4) of chickens (TL 1) per week. 'Farm' does not need to be redefined per TL; just look up the currency exchange rate -- and apply it. Done.

With approach #2, if you want to include 'cost of labor' ( A TL 3 ranch requires 100 Cr of labor, plus 400 Cr of animals as inputs; and produces 1000 TL 3 Cr in animal products per week) into the inputs, then you automatically get increased productivity per person-hour out the other end without having to do any extra work. All we really need to do is decide 'how much of a consistent improvement is each each TL over the previous TL'; GURPS Far Trader assumes a 50% improvement and we can go with that number if you prefer -- but it leads to pretty extreme differences between worlds at the upper end. I think a somewhat 'shallower' (like 25% per TL) is less... stark.
 
Last edited:
It is very similar -- cutting, pasting, and copying require keystrokes -- to Excel; but I think you need a (free) Google account to create one. I can share a blank one of mine if you like.

The 'huge can of worms' is not so bad; I was trying to point out that the existing guidelines for converting value-of-currency-by-TL pretty much already covers it. Imagine all the improvements in farming that happen between TL 3 and TL 4 -- improvements in fertilizers, land management, irrigation, pest control, equipment, etc -- which is easier:
1} Model all of that stuff in game, for every area of endeavor, every alien civilization, and every Technology Level; or
2} Hand-waving all of the above as 'details below the scale of the game' which (cumulatively) add up to improvement by TL represented as better-value-per-credit.

With approach #1 there are a thousand details to describe a TL 3 farm; and each of those must be modified (and the modification detailed and described). With approach #2, just declare that a TL3 farm produces 1000 Cr (TL 4) of chickens (TL 1) per week; while a TL 4 farm produces 1000 Cr (TL 4) of chickens (TL 1) per week. 'Farm' does not need to be redefined per TL; just look up the currency exchange rate -- and apply it. Done.

With approach #2, if you want to include 'cost of labor' ( A TL 3 ranch requires 100 Cr of labor, plus 400 Cr of animals as inputs; and produces 1000 TL 3 Cr in animal products per week) into the inputs, then you automatically get increased productivity per person-hour out the other end without having to do any extra work. All we really need to do is decide 'how much of a consistent improvement is each each TL over the previous TL'; GURPS Far Trader assumes a 50% improvement and we can go with that number if you prefer -- but it leads to pretty extreme differences between worlds at the upper end. I think a somewhat 'shallower' (like 25% per TL) is less... stark.
Here is the chart from GURPS Far Trader. Now this uses the GURPS TL system so it has to be converted to Mongoose Traveller.


GTL Imp to Local Local to Imp TTL
12 1---------------1--------------15
11 2.0-------------0.5------------14
10 3.2-------------0.31-----------12-13
9 5---------------0.2------------10-11
8 8---------------0.12----------- 8-9
7 13--------------0.075--------- 7
6 20--------------0.05-----------5-6
5 33--------------0.03-----------3-4
4 50--------------0.02-----------2-1
3 100-------------0.01-----------0
2 145-------------0.007----------0
1 200-------------0.005----------0
0 330-------------0.003----------0
 
Here is the chart from GURPS Far Trader. Now this uses the GURPS TL system so it has to be converted to Mongoose Traveller.


GTL Imp to Local Local to Imp TTL
12 1---------------1--------------15
11 2.0-------------0.5------------14
10 3.2-------------0.31-----------12-13
9 5---------------0.2------------10-11
8 8---------------0.12----------- 8-9
7 13--------------0.075--------- 7
6 20--------------0.05-----------5-6
5 33--------------0.03-----------3-4
4 50--------------0.02-----------2-1
3 100-------------0.01-----------0
2 145-------------0.007----------0
1 200-------------0.005----------0
0 330-------------0.003----------0
No need to convert the TLs at all; the math for currency takes TL as an input -- it doesn't matter what the actual definition of the TL is. We could declare TL 15 is 'really advanced cast iron' and TL 10 as 'Mid-Bronze Age' -- and it would be completely irrelevant to the change in value of the credit by Tech Level. The important factor is 'increase in productivity/value of the Credit per TL', which GURPS sets at (IIRC) 50%.

[Edit: And they fudged the math on that table a bit. Here is a link to a quick Google Sheet I worked up: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uJc7OnGQyhN4654DbZqz3ICldpVQCUiArIArl3t1Vac/edit?usp=sharing . For right now, only change the value of the green-shaded cell, and everything else changes to reflect it. /Edit]
 
Last edited:
No need to convert the TLs at all; the math for currency takes TL as an input -- it doesn't matter what the actual definition of the TL is. We could declare TL 15 is 'really advanced cast iron' and TL 10 as 'Mid-Bronze Age' -- and it would be completely irrelevant to the change in value of the credit by Tech Level. The important factor is 'increase in productivity/value of the Credit per TL', which GURPS sets at (IIRC) 50%.

[Edit: And they fudged the math on that table a bit. Here is a link to a quick Google Sheet I worked up: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uJc7OnGQyhN4654DbZqz3ICldpVQCUiArIArl3t1Vac/edit?usp=sharing . For right now, only change the value of the green-shaded cell, and everything else changes to reflect it. /Edit]
So, this came from GURPS? You just changed the chart to make it show MgT2 TLs? It is cool, but now I am trying to figure out how to apply it to actually building trade routes. lol. How does this effect the world's WTN or the BTN for trade between 2 worlds of differing TLs?

Edit: Also, how would this apply to Prototype items? Would it be the TL of the base item (Such as a TL-15 Fusion Plant) or the TL of the prototype item (Such as a TL-16 Prototype Fusion Plant built at TL-15)?
 
Last edited:
So, this came from GURPS? You just changed the chart to make it show MgT2 TLs? It is cool, but now I am trying to figure out how to apply it to actually building trade routes. lol. How does this effect the world's WTN or the BTN for trade between 2 worlds of differing TLs?

Edit: Also, how would this apply to Prototype items? Would it be the TL of the base item (Such as a TL-15 Fusion Plant) or the TL of the prototype item (Such as a TL-16 Prototype Fusion Plant built at TL-15)?
No, the concept is talked about a bit in GURPS Far Trader; you saw the currency exchange rate chart on page 48. But the concept exists apart from GURPS; more productive societies have more purchasing power. This is just a very simple table; you decide what the 'improvement in productivity per TL' percentage is, and it churns out a table of exchange rates from TL 0 to TL 18. The GURPS rate is approximately 50%, and plugging '47.626' into the green cell will get you the same exchange rate between TL 12 and TL 0 as shown on their chart.

But going with 50% means that a single TL 15 Credit will be worth 1966 TL 0 Credits, which seems a little extreme to me. I would prefer something more gradual, like 25% -- but maybe I am being biased against higher TL worlds. I'm not sure what TL the Imperial Credit represents; the Imperium maxes out at TL 15, but averages about TL 12 -- so maybe TL 12 is a better basis for the ImCr. The Aslan (IIRC) max out at TL 13, and average TL 11; while the Florians max out at 14 (or early 15) and average more like TL 9. So the exchange rates would be approximately:

1000 Im Cr -> 9700 As Cr -> 18280 Florian Tlientir
1000 As Cr -> 444.44 Im Cr -> 3800 Florian Tlientir
1000 FL Tlientir -> 173.44 Im Cr -> 262.30 As Cr

Of course, these are approximations -- not all systems at the same TL will have exactly the same exchange rates; even though we can expect 'national' currencies to be pretty stable. Some might be wildly inflated, or otherwise a bit off the 'precise' value, and money exchangers will always take a small percentage (1.5% -> 3%?) on each transaction.

I would figure the BTN as normal for each system -- all 'local' transactions in a system do not use the echange rate. For trade with other systems, just convert the BTNs like they were currency; you can express them all at the same TL 'value' to put them all on a comparable footing. But I thought this was about Manufacturing Plants, not trade; and that was the context I was working in.
 
Last edited:
No, the concept is talked about a bit in GURPS Far Trader; you saw the currency exchange rate chart on page 48. But the concept exists apart from GURPS; more productive societies have more purchasing power. This is just a very simple table; you decide what the 'improvement in productivity per TL' percentage is, and it churns out a table of exchange rates from TL 0 to TL 18. The GURPS rate is approximately 50%, and plugging '47.626' into the green cell will get you the same exchange rate between TL 12 and TL 0 as shown on their chart.

But going with 50% means that a single TL 15 Credit will be worth 1966 TL 0 Credits, which seems a little extreme to me. I would prefer something more gradual, like 25% -- but maybe I am being biased against higher TL worlds. I'm not sure what TL the Imperial Credit represents; the Imperium maxes out at TL 15, but averages about TL 12 -- so maybe TL 12 is a better basis for the ImCr. The Aslan (IIRC) max out at TL 13, and average TL 11; while the Florians max out at 14 (or early 15) and average more like TL 9. So the exchange rates would be approximately:
Use the TL of the currency that the polity uses. 3I uses TL-15 to make their currency. All polities use the highest TL available to them to make their currency. It makes it harder to counterfeit. Give it a few years and the 3I's currency will be TL-16.
1000 Im Cr -> 9700 As Cr -> 18280 Florian Tlientir
1000 As Cr -> 444.44 Im Cr -> 3800 Florian Tlientir
1000 FL Tlientir -> 173.44 Im Cr -> 262.30 As Cr

Of course, these are approximations -- not all systems at the same TL will have exactly the same exchange rates; even though we can expect 'national' currencies to be pretty stable. Some might be wildly inflated, or otherwise a bit off the 'precise' value, and money exchangers will always take a small percentage (1.5% -> 3%?) on each transaction.
Aslan are even wonkier. There is no Aslan currency. Each clan uses their own and their relative values to other Aslan currencies are a function of diplomacy instead of economics.
I would figure the BTN as normal for each system -- all 'local' transactions in a system do not use the echange rate. For trade with other systems, just convert the BTNs like they were currency; you can express them all at the same TL 'value' to put them all on a comparable footing. But I thought this was about Manufacturing Plants, not trade; and that was the context I was working in.
It is about Manufacturing Plants and not Trade. You are correct in that. One of the reasons I do not want to change the value of the currency (especially within the Imperium) is that if, you then apply it to trade between worlds, the Trade System in the WBH no longer works. If you have a WTN 3 world at TL-10 and a WTN 3 world at TL-15. The BTN in the WBH would say that the BTN should be roughly 7 or 8. If We add the currency exchange to the WTN, things get wonky.
 
Use the TL of the currency that the polity uses. 3I uses TL-15 to make their currency. All polities use the highest TL available to them to make their currency. It makes it harder to counterfeit. Give it a few years and the 3I's currency will be TL-16.
Sure, minting the Third Imperium's currency is at TL-15, but that is not important. What is important is the strength of the economy which supports the currency -- and much of the Third Imperium is nowhere near TL 15. TL 12 is the standard for most Starports and general usage ships, for one example, and that would not be true if the entire economy was TL-15. I'll look around a bit for the quote, because I do not remember exactly where I saw it -- but there was a statement that the 3I was, on average, TL 12. The Aslan and the Floriani were mentioned as well (and maybe the Zhodani as well); none of them are 'averaging' at their maximum value, so the currency should not be assumed to be based on their maximum TL.
Aslan are even wonkier. There is no Aslan currency. Each clan uses their own and their relative values to other Aslan currencies are a function of diplomacy instead of economics.
I am sure there is Aslan currency; the females are very keen on commerce. As you say; it is probably clan-issued scrip rather than Hierate-wide -- but some of the clans have extremely extensive holdings. One aspect that might be fun is to use mostly the clan-currencies of the lead clans of the nine major power-blocs in the Tlaukhu -- each having a slightly different (and fluctuating) value. Clans in the Trojan Reach might tend to use clan-scrip from the eight clans that form the Ya'soisthea instead.
It is about Manufacturing Plants and not Trade. You are correct in that. One of the reasons I do not want to change the value of the currency (especially within the Imperium) is that if, you then apply it to trade between worlds, the Trade System in the WBH no longer works. If you have a WTN 3 world at TL-10 and a WTN 3 world at TL-15. The BTN in the WBH would say that the BTN should be roughly 7 or 8. If We add the currency exchange to the WTN, things get wonky.
So don't bother applying the exchange rate to the BTNs at all; I think that might be entirely justified in terms of 'BTN is about the trade of goods'. GURPS Far Trader didn't, as I recall, apply the exchange rate to BTNs either.

[Edit: Back at TL 3 Terrans figured out how to make cast iron; our 10 dTon TL 3 'Smelters' took two dTons of Common Ore (at 1000 TL 3 Cr per dTon), one (TL 3) worker, and 5 power, and transformed it into one dTon of 'Common Raw Materials' (at 5000 TL 3 Cr per dTon) each day. Cast iron is a TL 3 product, and we do not make as much of today at TL 7. If we did, we would feed a 10 dTon TL 7 Smelter two dTons of TL 7 Common Ore (at 1000 TL 7 Cr per dTon), with one (TL 7) worker, and 5 power -- and we would still get 5000 Cr worth of 'Common Raw Materials'. But at TL 7 those 'Common Raw Materials' are high-performance Steel alloys; if we were to settle for just TL 3 'Cast Iron', we would get 5000 TL 7 Cr worth of TL 3 goods -- 8.21 times as much (at an exchange rate based on 25% improvement in productivity per TL).

So there is no need to describe and enumerate all the little details which contribute to TL 7 having better mining, better temperature control; better assaying for purity; better understanding of metalurgy. The Smelter is simply X dTons, takes Y workers, Z power, and two dTons of ore, and makes 1 dTon of 'Common Raw Materials' of the same TL. All the TL advancement is handled, automatically, in the background, by the exchange rate. /Edit]
 
Last edited:
You could give the Aslan currency based on the cattle standard.
That is a really good approach. It ties the male oriented value of 'land good enough to support hunting game animals' together with the female oriented commerce and trade; a male with lots of good land can support a lot of currency/Aua. It also encourages raiding for livestock, and protecting one's own holding from raiders and rustlers -- all of which seem to align nicely with Aslan behavior. So clan-level variances in currency can include differences based on 1} particular species accepted or not; 2} nutrition-equivalency instead of specific number of actual animals; 3} whether it is backed by actual living animals, or some degree of abstracted 'expected average number'; 4} Clan-owned livestock kept centrally or distributed / entrusted to Territory-holders; and etc.

It also makes Garden worlds (or worlds which are easily Kusyu-formed) directly worth currency, far more than airless rockballs rich in radioactives. It shapes the goals of their empire in ways that ought to be easier to define; and it still provides a familiar basis for human merchants to barter with them.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of a 'Koku'; enough to support someone a for a year. A logical subdivision of that would be 'food for a season' or 'food for a month', but Aslan do not subdivide time that way. Maybe dividing into 'meals' works for smaller denominations.

[Edit: The average human is about 70 kg, and needs 2000 calories per day. Human males are about 7% heavier than human females. An Aslan averages 100 kg, so would need ~2860 calories per day. Aslan males are more than 7% heavier than Aslan females, but the exact numbers are not given; I will approximate to ~10% larger.

Beef is about 2 calories per gram; so an Aslan would require approximately 1.43 kg per day. Aslan would butcher their livestock differently than humans do, though; so I expect they would get a higher percentage yield per animal. As a round number, a 637 kg steer contains about 325 'meals'. That still feels a little fiddly; maybe the currency would be for the 'Primal Cuts' of the meat; and subdivided into 'Meals' after that. /Edit]
 
Last edited:
Food stamps.

Who would have thought?


90
 
In the spirit of getting back on topic:

I also would love to do an in depth review of the manufacturing rules. One of the things which seems to be missing is the idea of 'wastage' -- and the whole 'conservation of matter' gets short shrift as well. I would like to see lower TLs take many more dTons of input than they have dTons of output; with all the dtons of input which are not output become 'tailings'. Higher TLs produce less tailings -- and maybe a 'recycler' type of manufacturing plant can take tailings as input and produce basic resources (and 'waste') out of it. Higher TLs produce less waste, and require fewer resources (but more energy) for a given standard of living. Handling this all as 'credits worth of inputs' and 'credits worth of products' is a nice start on this, but I think it is a jumping-off point for getting a handle on the actual material-flows involved.

Another thing that would be nice is a unified set of production chains; something like 'raw ore' to 'processed ore' (or maybe skip that last step sometimes) to 'raw material' to 'commodities' to 'finished goods' for ALL finished goods. If we are going to stay with the 'Early Prototype'. 'Prototype', 'Basic', 'Standard', 'Enhanced', 'Improved', 'Advanced', and 'Superior' scale (please note the addition of 'Standard'), then I think we need to confine it to finished goods and commodities -- but I would like to see a separate such chain for every item. My thinking here is that washing machines and laser rifles are both made out of alloys and electronics -- but they are NOT made from the same alloys and electronics.

I am away from home (on a borrowed computer) at the moment; I will try to post a link to a spreadsheet later (after I get home).
 
In the spirit of getting back on topic:

I also would love to do an in depth review of the manufacturing rules. One of the things which seems to be missing is the idea of 'wastage' -- and the whole 'conservation of matter' gets short shrift as well. I would like to see lower TLs take many more dTons of input than they have dTons of output; with all the dtons of input which are not output become 'tailings'. Higher TLs produce less tailings -- and maybe a 'recycler' type of manufacturing plant can take tailings as input and produce basic resources (and 'waste') out of it. Higher TLs produce less waste, and require fewer resources (but more energy) for a given standard of living. Handling this all as 'credits worth of inputs' and 'credits worth of products' is a nice start on this, but I think it is a jumping-off point for getting a handle on the actual material-flows involved.

Another thing that would be nice is a unified set of production chains; something like 'raw ore' to 'processed ore' (or maybe skip that last step sometimes) to 'raw material' to 'commodities' to 'finished goods' for ALL finished goods. If we are going to stay with the 'Early Prototype'. 'Prototype', 'Basic', 'Standard', 'Enhanced', 'Improved', 'Advanced', and 'Superior' scale (please note the addition of 'Standard'), then I think we need to confine it to finished goods and commodities -- but I would like to see a separate such chain for every item. My thinking here is that washing machines and laser rifles are both made out of alloys and electronics -- but they are NOT made from the same alloys and electronics.

I am away from home (on a borrowed computer) at the moment; I will try to post a link to a spreadsheet later (after I get home).
Doesn't it already do that to a degree? The refinery does break everything down, but the smelter has waste when it's converting the ore to raw materials.
 
Back
Top