You are not logged in.

IC2 Experimental builds (jenkins):
v2.0/2.1/2.2 / 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.6 (For Minecraft 1.6.4/1.7.2/1.7.10 / 1.8.9 / 1.9.4 / 1.10)
IndustrialCraft² recent version: v1.117! (For Minecraft 1.5.2 → topic)

Dear visitor, welcome to IC² Forum. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

albijoe

Technophile

  • "albijoe" is male
  • "albijoe" started this thread
  • United States

Posts: 51

Location: San Antonio, TX

  • Send private message

1

Friday, July 8th 2016, 7:49pm

Need MOX design evaluation

I made a MOX reactor that works pretty well... but outputs only a similar heat to the same reactor with quad cells. This does not make it more efficient to me.

IC2EXP Reactor Planner Code:
0505230C0A140D0C0A05230C0D0C0D0C0D14050C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D140D140D140D140D14



2

Saturday, August 6th 2016, 11:17am

I have never made a 5x5x5 reactor, or anything other than a Mk I variant.

So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.

Designs like this EU reactor achieve a running efficiency of 16x when preheated to 7500 / 10000
090C090C0C090C09001409140A0A14091400090C0A05050A0C0900090C0A05050A0C09001409140A0A14091400090C090C0C090C0900
producing 128MEU from 4 dual MOX rods, where the simulator says your design does 7M "heat". I don't know the factors that govern the translation of heat into steam into EU, but if the simulator listed efficiencies are anything to go by, the EU reactor design is outperforming your fluid design which would be embarrassing if true.

Chocohead

Drowning in mods.

  • "Chocohead" is male
  • Korea, Democratic People's Republic of United Kingdom

Posts: 5,982

Location: Badly generated chunks.

  • Send private message

3

Saturday, August 6th 2016, 2:58pm

So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.
145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
// I just don't know what went wrong :(

I see this too much.

4

Saturday, August 6th 2016, 3:10pm

So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.
That seems a bit contrived. But then I guess most of the reactor mechanics are rather contrived. While - on the surface - it would seem to simplify the use of MOX in fluid reactors the low (2x) efficiency multiplier would seem to make it even more difficult for a fluid based reactor to outperform a plain EU output design?

Chocohead

Drowning in mods.

  • "Chocohead" is male
  • Korea, Democratic People's Republic of United Kingdom

Posts: 5,982

Location: Badly generated chunks.

  • Send private message

5

Saturday, August 6th 2016, 4:13pm

So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.
That seems a bit contrived. But then I guess most of the reactor mechanics are rather contrived. While - on the surface - it would seem to simplify the use of MOX in fluid reactors the low (2x) efficiency multiplier would seem to make it even more difficult for a fluid based reactor to outperform a plain EU output design?
You get twice the output from it being a fluid reactor rather than normal straight off, which is a big boost. Providing you use superheated steam for the hotcoolant processing too, it shouldn't be especially hard to get a higher output. Whether it becomes all worth it in the end is another matter, fluid reactors are expensive setups for the boost they provide.
145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
// I just don't know what went wrong :(

I see this too much.

6

Wednesday, August 10th 2016, 5:48pm

I made a MOX reactor that works pretty well... but outputs only a similar heat to the same reactor with quad cells. This does not make it more efficient to me.

In the classical sense, efficiency would be a measure of fuel used to total energy output. The easiest way to mathematically compare two reactors total running efficiency would be to take the total heat generated over a cycle, divided by the number of fuel rods in the reactor.

Of course, if uranium is relatively free, but your big expense is in reflectors or some consumable component, then that might be a more meaningful measure of efficiency.
Its really not clear from your post what you are asking...

7

Tuesday, August 16th 2016, 1:15pm

So, the idea to me - of making a MOX reactor as a fluid reactor is somewhat of a contradiction: MOX reactors run efficient when they are kept at a constant (hot) temp, and that implies using components that do not cool the reactor chamber.
MOX works slightly differently in fluid reactors, it gets a 2x bonus when the reactor is at 50%+ heat, and nothing otherwise. It means designs are a little more predictable despite the heat fluctuating.


Hrm... this seems somewhat... sub-optimal. Better than exponentially increasing heat which would cause the reactor to blow, but not nearly as beneficial as the EU reactor MOX system. What if instead of doubling the output at 50%, the core temperature exponentially increased the lifespan of the fuel? Then you get constant, predictable output, but the longer life leads to greater efficiency.

DeuceXM

Tree Cutter

  • "DeuceXM" is male
  • United States

Posts: 19

Location: Illinois

  • Send private message

8

Saturday, November 5th 2016, 8:01pm

If I might suggest an improvement to MOX cells -

Go back to the original idea of making their efficiency based on absolute heat (which I would think is the natural progression of 'heat = efficiency'). But instead of giving you insane multipliers because you can shove in a ton of heat plating, simply work with a larger scale to begin with. That's honestly how I expected it to work in my fluid reactor when I started heating it up, and found 0-50% was 1x and 50.04-84.92% was 2x. "Oh," I said to myself, "they just want you to put in heat plating, to get to the larger absolute numbers!" So I did, and lo and behold, even with my maximum heat tripled and pushing 84.95%, I still never got above 2x.

Assuming a 10K reactor heat limit, why not just increase the multiplier once every 5K heat (or some other, possibly higher number)? Since each Heat-Capacity Reactor Plating increases your maximum heat by 2K (based on my calculations and that assumption), and <85% is the most heat you can maintain in a fluid reactor without your casing melting, the way things currently are there's no reason to even use heat plating - well, at least not in a fluid reactor.

Counter:

Hits today: 14,195 | Hits yesterday: 1,368 | Hits record: 152,331 | Hits total: 65,310,286