IC2 Experimental Reactor Planner

  • When I asked for input from "others", I kind of meant besides you. :)


    However, those are some good examples for helping me gain further insight into what the old planner meant by "vent cooling". For that first example, the old planner shows cooling of 0 (5), though I'd need to search decompiled code to find the logic it uses to determine that the component heat vents should be treated as having 0 vent capacity in this design. If I move things up and place a dual uranium fuel rod below the reactor heat vent (and use pulse configuration to make sure it stops before that vent breaks):

    000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000C000000000000000C0B0C000000000000000200000000|epn|n3w|f2z60w

    The old planner shows 17 (17), matching my planner. Is that what you meant by "changing components"?


    The second example shows 0 (148) in the old planner, and remains the same if I remove all the component heat vents, which gives me a clue where to look.


    The third example shows 0 (80) in the old planner.


    On the other hand, one could argue that Talonius's planner is obsolete and shouldn't have to be matched exactly. Based on your own words:

    I think the key word in Omicron's post is "capacity". Here, it should mean the ability of venting heat.

    and https://wiki.industrial-craft.…title=Component_Heat_Vent a component heat vent can reasonably be considered to have vent capacity of 4 per coolable neighbor (other vent types, exchangers, or coolant cells) - it has the "ability" to vent that much heat, even if it never uses it.


    Edit: looking at the more complicated design you posted on GitHub:

    0B230B0A140D0C0A122306230C0D0C0D0C0D0B230C0D0C0D0C0D0C0B0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D140A140D0C0A140D0C0A|fpn4mo|n5|f2

    I think I'm starting to understand your manual calculations and what you want "effective vent cooling" to mean, but trying the closest approximation I can get in the old planner ( 21p7gjnnw20e91es8hy61d1c8mbcxzt9gitwjy3qlgkgbzr5pmf5mgmenu0v2cwebkf9i6v3l3tfcw0 ), either the "vent cooling" shown meant something different than what you're looking for or its calculations are buggy - at 0 initial hull heat, it shows 451 (608) vent cooling, and at 8400 initial hull heat, it shows 644 (664) vent cooling.

  • When I asked for input from "others", I kind of meant besides you. :)

    I am aware of that, but I still replied with these examples so that I can rule out more possibilities of misunderstanding.

    If I move things up and place a dual uranium fuel rod below the reactor heat vent (and use pulse configuration to make sure it stops before that vent breaks):

    000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000C000000000000000C0B0C000000000000000200000000|epn|n3w|f2z60


    The old planner shows 17 (17), matching my planner. Is that what you meant by "changing components"?

    Unless you add another component heat vent to the bottom slot, that is what I meant by "changing components". To be exact, I meant that the reactor heat vent should only have passive neighbors that don't exchange/add heat to the reactor heat vent, so the problem of calculating component vent cooling in your planner can be seen better.

    The second example shows 0 (148) in the old planner, and remains the same if I remove all the component heat vents, which gives me a clue where to look.

    00000C0000000C0000000C0A0C000C0A0C000C0A140D0C0D140A0C000C0A140A140A0C0000000C0A0C0A0C00000000020C020C020001|esn

    I believe that is a problem with the planner calculation. When I put the fuel rods in that generates 76 heat/s, the reactor heat increases by 4 heat/s, which means that it should only be able to vent 72 heat/s.

    The third example shows 0 (80) in the old planner.

    000000000000000000000000000C000000000000000C0D0C01000100000C0D140D0C02000000000C0D0C020002000000000C02000200|esn

    That looks like a bug with the logic the old planner used to determine whether the component heat vents should be treated as having 0 vent capacity.

    I added the fuel rods in, again. In your planner it showed "Total Vent Cooling (peak usages): 128.00 of 128.00", which is correct. Adding another fuel rod will cause the OC vents to exceed its maximum venting capacity and break.

    On the other hand, one could argue that Talonius's planner is obsolete and shouldn't have to be matched exactly. Based on your own words: "I think the key word in Omicron's post is 'capacity'. Here, it should mean the ability of venting heat." and https://wiki.industrial-craft.…title=Component_Heat_Vent a component heat vent can reasonably be considered to have vent capacity of 4 per coolable neighbor (other vent types, exchangers, or coolant cells) - it has the "ability" to vent that much heat, even if it never uses it.

    I admit that I don't know much about Talonius's planner and the versions of IC that it worked with or the reactor component behaviors at that time, so I'm not going to argue with that since I started playing IC2 in the summer of 2017. Also, my native language is not English so I am very likely to have some problems trying to explain exactly what I mean without misunderstanding. Therefore, I'm going to clarify again - to my understanding, it means the usable ability of venting heat.


    Could you please upload the archived reactor planner? Somehow I can't open (download it from) that website.

    IC2 reactors has 196,627,050,475,552,913,618,075,908,526,912,116,283,103,450,944,214,766,927,315,415,537,966,391,196,809 (2754) possibilities. HAYO!

    :Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log:

    My avatar is from a video of Operation Upshot-Knothole.

  • Could you please upload the archived reactor planner? Somehow I can't open (download it from) that website.

    No, because A. I can't find the licensing details for Talonius's planner, and B. Chocohead already attached a copy to this post.


    Also, my native language is not English so I am very likely to have some problems trying to explain exactly what I mean without misunderstanding. Therefore, I'm going to clarify again - to my understanding, it means the usable ability of venting heat.

    I don't know what your native language is, but if there is someone else on the forum who speaks the same language, perhaps having them act as an interpreter might work better, because I'm sorry to say that this doesn't clarify anything for me. :(


    However, perhaps part of the confusion comes from ambiguity in what is meant by "venting", which the IC2 Wiki may be partly to blame for - see the below taken from https://wiki.industrial-craft.…tle=Overclocked_Heat_Vent

    Quote


    Self Venting Rate refers to the amount of heat the Heat Vent will vent from itself per reactor tick

    Hull Venting Rate refers to the amount of heat the Heat Vent will remove from the reactor hull per reactor tick

    Component Venting Rate refers to the amount of heat the Heat Vent will remove from adjacent components per reactor tick

    The heat handled by Self Venting and Component Venting is transferred to coolant for a fluid reactor (or just eliminated for an EU reactor), but the heat handled by Hull Venting is stored in the component (at least initially - some of it may be self-vented, component-vented by neighbors, or transferred by exchangers), so I dislike calling that "venting".


    I think I can add a "Predictions" tab with the following details:

    1. Heat generated by fuel rods (split into how much is fed to the reactor vs. how much is fed to neighbors).

    2. Heat pulled from the reactor by various components.

    3. Theoretical maximum venting (potentially into coolant).

    Actual used cooling is harder to predict (or at least I haven't thought of a reliable, universal way to make my program do it) - perhaps this example will help to demonstrate:

    01000B01000B000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000|esn

    Until the left vent breaks (at 333 seconds), the right vent will be idle, but afterwards it will operate at full speed and give the reactor 2084 more seconds before it explodes.


    Since your complicated design only feeds heat to the reactor, I thought that replacing the rods and reflectors with heat-capacity plating and starting the reactor with really high heat would allow the max HU output to be used to calculate the actual used venting, but that gave 1282 HU/t, which would correspond to 641 used venting, while simulating it as an automated reactor showed your manual calculations of 640 venting per reactor tick were spot-on - it ran for at least 357 cycles (based on components replaced) without going below 6000 heat or over 7280, and average output was 1280.00 HU/t. I'm not sure how it peaked at 1312 HU/t (26240 HU/s) output though (at about reactor tick 315 according to CSV data). Also note that the following components continued to have fluctuating output during the cycle: Advanced Heat Vent (R0C3), Advanced Heat Vent (R0C7), Component Heat Vent (R1C3), Component Heat Vent (R3C1), Component Heat Vent (R3C7), Component Heat Vent (R4C0), Component Heat Vent (R4C4), Component Heat Vent (R4C6), Advanced Heat Vent (R5C0), Advanced Heat Vent (R5C4), Component Heat Vent (R5C7), Advanced Heat Vent (R5C8)

  • I don't know what your native language is, but if there is someone else on the forum who speaks the same language, perhaps having them act as an interpreter might work better, because I'm sorry to say that this doesn't clarify anything for me. :(

    There are some that I know of, but they aren't as active as me, and I doubt about their English skills. Having them as interpreters will slow down the conversation a lot. I just want you to be aware of my English skills, not to clarify things.

    However, perhaps part of the confusion comes from ambiguity in what is meant by "venting", which the IC2 Wiki may be partly to blame for - see the below taken from https://wiki.industrial-craft.…tle=Overclocked_Heat_Vent

    The heat handled by Self Venting and Component Venting is transferred to coolant for a fluid reactor (or just eliminated for an EU reactor), but the heat handled by Hull Venting is stored in the component (at least initially - some of it may be self-vented, component-vented by neighbors, or transferred by exchangers), so I dislike calling that "venting".

    I have never seen that before because I go on the FTB wiki to look for component information. As for "Hull Venting", what about calling it as "Hull cooling"?

    Why do you call that "Predictions"?

    1. What do you mean "fed to the reactor"? Do you mean raising the hull temperature? Or does it include heat fed to the reactor and then pulled out by components?


    The example that you gave is caused by the reactor ticking algorithm. Since the reactor ticks from the left to the right, the left fuel rod dumps 4 heat into the reactor, and then all pulled out by the reactor heat vent. Then, the fuel rod next to it dumps 4 heat into it again, and left the right vent idle. The vent can only vent 5, so heat stacks up by 3/s.

    In that case, I would say that actual used cooling is 5, with a probable exception in the tick when the left vent broke.

    Also, you might have done the math wrong. "Reactor will explode at 3666 seconds." How did you get 2084 sec?

    I'm not sure how it peaked at 1312 HU/t (26240 HU/s) output though (at about reactor tick 315 according to CSV data). Also note that the following components continued to have fluctuating output during the cycle: Advanced Heat Vent (R0C3), Advanced Heat Vent (R0C7), Component Heat Vent (R1C3), Component Heat Vent (R3C1), Component Heat Vent (R3C7), Component Heat Vent (R4C0), Component Heat Vent (R4C4), Component Heat Vent (R4C6), Advanced Heat Vent (R5C0), Advanced Heat Vent (R5C4), Component Heat Vent (R5C7), Advanced Heat Vent (R5C8)

    Really? My CSV output didn't show that. I think the fluctuating output is caused by the component heat exchangers.

    Images

    IC2 reactors has 196,627,050,475,552,913,618,075,908,526,912,116,283,103,450,944,214,766,927,315,415,537,966,391,196,809 (2754) possibilities. HAYO!

    :Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log:

    My avatar is from a video of Operation Upshot-Knothole.

  • Why do you call that "Predictions"?

    1. What do you mean "fed to the reactor"? Do you mean raising the hull temperature? Or does it include heat fed to the reactor and then pulled out by components?

    Because these are details that can be predicted ahead of time by the program (without actually running a simulation). As far as "fed to the reactor", that means it raises the hull temperature (regardless of whether said hull temperature subsequently gets reduced by components before a player would see it in-game - that's where the second prediction detail comes in)


    The example that you gave is caused by the reactor ticking algorithm. Since the reactor ticks from the left to the right, the left fuel rod dumps 4 heat into the reactor, and then all pulled out by the reactor heat vent. Then, the fuel rod next to it dumps 4 heat into it again, and left the right vent idle. The vent can only vent 5, so heat stacks up by 3/s.

    In that case, I would say that actual used cooling is 5, with a probable exception in the tick when the left vent broke.

    Yes, the ticking algorithm is involved, and in this case I kind of agree about actual used cooling, but it's 5 of a theoretical 10 vent cooling. Seems that example kind of turned the tables on me, though this one runs long enough that average HU/t output of it as a fluid reactor can be used for calculating an estimate of that - also, CSV data claims this design as a fluid reactor will output 360 HU/s very briefly at the moment when the left vent breaks. That might actually be a bug, but if so, it may be quite difficult to track down, and I want to try the design in-game first (to make sure it really is a bug). Edit: Brief 360 HU/s confirmed in-game.


    Also, you might have done the math wrong. "Reactor will explode at 3666 seconds." How did you get 2084 sec?

    Key word from my post: more. I said 2084 more seconds, because without the right vent, the reactor will explode at 1582 seconds. 3666 - 1582 = 2084.

  • Because these are details that can be predicted ahead of time by the program (without actually running a simulation).

    Then what do you call it after running a simulation? Still calling it "predictions" doesn't make sense.

    Seems that example kind of turned the tables on me, though this one runs long enough that average HU/t output of it as a fluid reactor can be used for calculating an estimate of that - also, CSV data claims this design as a fluid reactor will output 360 HU/s very briefly at the moment when the left vent breaks. That might actually be a bug, but if so, it may be quite difficult to track down, and I want to try the design in-game first (to make sure it really is a bug). Edit: Brief 360 HU/s confirmed in-game.

    Since you want "a reliable, universal way to make my program do it", calculating the output of the corresponding fluid reactor won't work because it isn't universal. At the tick the vent broke, the left one vented heat and broke, while the right one kicks in because the left one can't absorb all the heat.


    Until the left vent breaks (at 333 seconds), the right vent will be idle, but afterwards it will operate at full speed and give the reactor 2084 more seconds before it explodes.

    Key word from my post: more. I said 2084 more seconds, because without the right vent, the reactor will explode at 1582 seconds. 3666 - 1582 = 2084.

    In your original post, "afterwards" refers to the time the left vent break, which is at tick 333. Then 333 + 2084 = 2417, not anywhere close to the explosion point (tick 3166) with the right vent. In your original post, I never saw/interpreted the meaning of "without the right vent". Maybe you just forgot to say that.

    IC2 reactors has 196,627,050,475,552,913,618,075,908,526,912,116,283,103,450,944,214,766,927,315,415,537,966,391,196,809 (2754) possibilities. HAYO!

    :Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log:

    My avatar is from a video of Operation Upshot-Knothole.

  • Some ideas about calculating “effective” vent cooling:


    1. Generate a adjustable amount of heat and test for the stable one with highest possible heat generation


    2.Use pulsed controls to determine heat vented (Only possible for unstable reactors unless having a negative off pulse)


    3. Simulate my manual calculation (The most complicated but accurate if done correctly)


    I’m leaving for now. I’m going to reply in 9 hours.

    IC2 reactors has 196,627,050,475,552,913,618,075,908,526,912,116,283,103,450,944,214,766,927,315,415,537,966,391,196,809 (2754) possibilities. HAYO!

    :Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log:

    My avatar is from a video of Operation Upshot-Knothole.

  • I gave this a bit more thought, and I can show the following details for a simulation (and possibly as predictions):

    1. Hull heating (from fuel rods with no heatable neighbors)

    2. Component heating (from fuel rods that do have heatable neighbors)

    3. Hull cooling (how much the hull is (or can be) cooled down by various components - there are currently 2 types of vents and 3 types of exchangers that can do this) - in some cases, the "used" hull cooling might be less than the "possible" hull cooling.

    4. External venting (how much components are (or can be) cooled by vents with the heat transferred to coolant for a fluid reactor, or completely out of the reactor (for an EU reactor)) - this can fluctuate, especially when using exchangers, but for a given reactor tick, 2x this gives the HU/t of a fluid reactor (40x to get it in HU/s).

    Of these, my planner currently shows peak external venting (which might not be such a useful metric, but related to 4) out of possible external venting and max total heating (1 and 2 combined).


    Here's my idea for calculating predicted values of those, which I'm hoping will match up with your manual calculations (never mind the "reliable" part for now - "reliable prediction" is kind of an oxymoron, right? ;) ) :

    1. Calculate hull and component heating.

    2. Calculate hull cooling.

    3. Calculate best-case exchanger transfers (i.e. ignore the possible fluctuations and take as much as the "component exchange rate" will allow from any neighbors heated during steps 1 and 2, then transfer as much as possible to any neighbors that haven't been heated)

    4. Calculate external venting.

    All of these would be based on initial setup, without iterating for multiple reactor ticks, and ignoring possible component breakage (the latter two are where the simulation comes in).


    As far as what I meant by "universal", consider this crazy design:

    020000000000000000000000000A00000000000A0A0A140A0A0A000A141414131414140A000A0A0A140A0A0A00000000000A00000000|esn

    I think the idea I described above for calculating predicted values would have trouble with this one. :/ I hope this doesn't turn out to be an NP-complete problem.

  • erp=N1c9dkJNpnU4/nE6kiX7ayavN00qGbuWTELKGQ20dNFgC6HAQT+3WMJyCo+8to4vnu99U5sA

    2302130C000000000000230C0000000000000000000C000C00000000000C0D0C0D0C00000000000C000C000000000000000000000000|esn

    This design seems to not work with the ideas too. You might have forgotten the possibility of components heated up by rods directly and then put their heat into the hull, and then cooled by components that pull heat form the hull. This would also have trouble calculating hull cooling. The reactor heat exchanger will pull heat only if its damage percentage is greater than that of the reactor.


    0302130C09110D0C0A03010C0D0C0D0C0D12010C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D110D120D120D120D11|esn

    For this one, there will be trouble with hull cooling. The heat exchanger at R0C5 cannot pull heat from the hull, because it is heated too much by the vents. That can be seen by replacing it with a component heat exchanger.

    IC2 reactors has 196,627,050,475,552,913,618,075,908,526,912,116,283,103,450,944,214,766,927,315,415,537,966,391,196,809 (2754) possibilities. HAYO!

    :Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log:

    My avatar is from a video of Operation Upshot-Knothole.

  • Yes, excellent examples. Obviously my "predictions" idea needs some refinement if I'm to implement it at all (which I'll admit is becoming less likely now). I get the impression you're not a programmer, otherwise you probably wouldn't have even suggested this:

    3. Simulate my manual calculation (The most complicated but accurate if done correctly)

    But perhaps now you're getting more of an idea how difficult that would be, especially when it comes to generalizing it.

  • I get the impression you're not a programmer, otherwise you probably wouldn't have even suggested this:

    "3. Simulate my manual calculation (The most complicated but accurate if done correctly)"

    Yes, I'm not a programmer, but I have some programming experience.

    Details on how to do it:

    1.Divide the components into sections (components in separate sections cannot exchange heat directly except through the reactor hull)

    2.Calculate usable vent cooling (limited by heat exchanger transfer rates), hull cooling for each section

    3.If a section contains components directly heated by fuel rod(s):

    3a. Calculate heat generation of the fuel rod(s)

    3b. If vent cooling + hull cooling >= heat generation then add vent cooling of this section to output

    3c. Else ...

    4.Else

    4a. If hull cooling <= vent cooling then add hull cooling of this section to output

    4b. Else add vent cooling of this section to output



    EDIT: My ideas on section division: Make separate sections as lists


    Start with the left-top component

    .1.If this component can accept/generate/transfer heat (excluding the component heat vent) then

    ...2.If this component is in current lists then

    .....2a.Go to 1 and check for the next component

    .....2b.Else create a list and add that into the list

    .......2c.If the component next to this one (on all 4 sides) cannot accept/generate/transfer heat (including the component heat vent)

    .........2d.Go to 1 and check for the next component

    .......2e.Else add that component into the current list

    .........2f.Go to 2c and repeat

    IC2 reactors has 196,627,050,475,552,913,618,075,908,526,912,116,283,103,450,944,214,766,927,315,415,537,966,391,196,809 (2754) possibilities. HAYO!

    :Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log::Rubber Log:

    My avatar is from a video of Operation Upshot-Knothole.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by KrisBigK ().

  • Hello,
    Can anyone recommend passive Thorium reacto. (which produces exactly "408 EU/t")
    erp=XOtKmioS/Gf0Pc+ZvM2yeBhH2kVjEF6tEOxlI9/elchegErSFrAG6ZgEmHR2z5JcAQ==


    I'm trying to change the reactor so it doesn't not explode :-D

  • Hello,
    Can anyone recommend passive Thorium reacto. (which produces exactly "408 EU/t")
    erp=XOtKmioS/Gf0Pc+ZvM2yeBhH2kVjEF6tEOxlI9/elchegErSFrAG6ZgEmHR2z5JcAQ==


    I'm trying to change the reactor so it doesn't not explode :-D

    Passive Thorium MK1 EB "exactly 408 EU/t"

    Ic2ExpReactorPlanner: erp=ALnWlTRUF5kcV4kPWIkq+Myo5bEEGB+/AcitW63fKFTBG19h6nmLa53vTFGC6DQB

    ICReactorPlannerV3: a8h8ccvfnfhjk6i6hpjfn8srs17xru7pj4efx0eohpn6iipcddeum1ohr3bpx07c5f0fqz75yhu2mf4


    Passive Thorium MK1 EA 512 EU/t

    Ic2ExpReactorPlanner: erp=AXOtKmioTF55HSRuwjuM3t9eFhcvqitPSXeqjbcM9KIVPCTY7OiDD8CE+exRgug0AQ==

    ICReactorPlannerV3: a8h8ccvfnfhjk6i6hpjfn8srs1ibgtiijhcm1hqdzjuqot2b2e2e867ovsvrn4k1v1atnc6crir9r0g