Gen3 nuclear technology mk5-CASUC 295 eu/tick 3.93 eff 4 chambers no maintenance

You know, just label it mk5-CASUC and everyone will get that it will run forever. I mean, who bothers making a CASUC reactor with heat surplus?

Also, if you put HDs around the corners of the uran block it will accidentally some heat for free

Edit: I assume it doesn't matter if it's 2 less HDs?
http://test.vendaria.net/index…XXHUUUHXHHXHHXXXXXXXXXXXX

I was using two deployers for filling buckets, 2 filters for inserting them into the reactor, and two for removal. I thought the reactor was outputting a lot more heat than it was in game. (apparently 1 "tick" for HEAT is 1 second while for power it is 1/20 of 1 second)

Dezuman's refinement is nice, although the next thing to try is to just fill the entire reactor with uranium except for the top row. Wonder if that will work...

As for labeling, Dezuman, the previous Mark 5s were difficult and expensive to run continuously.

Quote from BrickedKeyboard

Dezuman's refinement is nice, although the next thing to try is to just fill the entire reactor with uranium except for the top row. Wonder if that will work...

Having 6 chambers all full except the top row will give:

4.38 eff
985 EU/t
~2000 heat per pulse

This means you need to supply 4 buckets per second. Can you supply buckets into chambers, though, or does only directly to reactor work?

Personally, what I'd like to see is pumping raw water directly into a reactor via buildcraft waterproof pipes, then using generated power to run said buildcraft pumps via electric power, just like a real reactor would. More power -> more heat -> more power needed to run pumps.

However, if you lose power to pumps, it blows. So building high power reactor == risky if pump goes offline for whatever reason, while having a lower power reactor packed with HDs will give you a couple minutes of time to react.

Since you seem to be beating me to the punch :

This one works : http://test.vendaria.net/index…UXUUUUUXXUUUUXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reason is that it has TWO filters pulling buckets out of the reactor. The bottleneck in your design is you only have one filter extracting the empty buckets (you could use 3 deployers and 3 coolant injectors which is what mine will use when I rebuild it)

A preview of my "production reactor"

Name will be the Generation 9001 Matter to Energy converter : http://test.vendaria.net/index…IXIUUUIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Key is that it breeds itself more fuel, more than it uses I think if you use a timer to shut it down in mid cycle and remove the recharged fuel. Replace the top row of fuel with fresh fuel and viola http://test.vendaria.net/index…IXIUUUIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Run that the other half of the cycle, for a net output of 430 EU/tick, a net efficiency of 4.08, and at the end of a cycle you'll need ~2 uranium to refuel it per net cycle and 36 coal. If you have a scrap fed mass fabricator, you can just fabricate both for a huge net energy gain (not sure the exact ratio because I don't know how much scrap reduces the cost of mass fabbing)

It would only require user intervention every 2-4 hours. Rest of the time, just leave it alone.

Also 360 EU/tick and efficiency 4.0.

Somewhat of a safety factor on the cooling system : each filter can extract 1.5 buckets a second flat out, and it needs about 1.75 buckets a second to run.

Of course it's stable. Mine isn't bottlenecked.

But the more practical design is the one I just showed with the breeding built in. The breeding will be slow, (since our reactors run at 4000 heat) but the reactor will still produce tons of power with great efficiency while it is breeding. Obviously there isn't enough uranium around to get enough fuel legitimately to keep a reactor like this running without breeding. I took a look at other breeding reactors, but since they don't have our active cooling systems, and they produce too little power in breeding mode, they suck and are a micromanagement fest.

My Generation 9001 design when I have it fully ready this evening will require this much in the way of maintenance :

Whenever you feel like it, or when you notice you are out of power, go to the reactor and remove the spent fuel and the rebred fuel. Add the coal dust to both and reload the reactor.

That's it. Could even make an autocrafting table do the coal dust step automatically. Player would still have to remove the nearly depleted fuel unless...Hmm...I'll get back to you on that :P.

But in any case, feeding the reactors will be pretty easy.

Right, Rick. Also it would be nice if the extra slots in the reactor were filled with invisible "spacer" items that we can't see and never drop. (that way the water buckets would stop popping out the top when you fill the top row. The cause of this is that Redstone Power is trying to fill those extra slots that you can't see with water buckets and they aren't allowed there. This problem would be completely avoided if for a 6 chamber reactor the inventory were actually stored in one of the blocks that is not the middle one. (say the top block always)

In that case, buildcraft and Redstone Power would interact with the reactor correctly. I will file a bug report on this.

You know, at 4k heat I'm pretty sure it'll take like 2 full uran cycles to breed an iso cell connected to a single uran

If you have 50/50 uran and iso, with each iso connected to 2 uran you should be able to roll with just iso cells ...

Now, if only I hadn't randomly lost access to the reactor planner site...

Quote from dezuman

If you have 50/50 uran and iso, with each iso connected to 2 uran you should be able to roll with just iso cells ...

Now, if only I hadn't randomly lost access to the reactor planner site...

Haha I had the same idea, horizontal rows of Uran/Iso/Uran/Iso/Uran would (or well should) completely recharge the iso cells during 1 cycle. [And you'd get like 2.714 efficiency] (and it would only require 7 Uranium Cells [and 14 Iso cells] per cycle once it's constantly breeding.) ... Obviously I was running with the assumption that you were using a 4 chamber reactor and could fill all but the top row with uranium/iso cells. [I should figure out the heat it'd generate, but I don't feel like it], should be far less then all uran so, I'm going to guess it's a maybe?

Edit: Oh I see what Desuman's up to *counters* if you alternate rows of iso/uran/iso/uran/iso it'd take 2 cycles for the top/bottom rows of Isotopes to recharge but the middle row would recharge every cycle. Once it's up and running it'd be free energy as you wouldn't have to add any uranium to the system (just coal dust). [Erg, you'd still have to add isotope cells ... not sure how many though]

Actually you wouldn't get 50/50 then, but even with 4 uran rows and 3 iso ones you'll only need to supply a few urans each cycle...

Edit: Assumed using everything but top row, you'll get... 65*4 = 260 eu/tick , and 230*4 + 5*3 = 935 heat.

Quote from dezuman

Actually you wouldn't get 50/50 then, but even with 4 uran rows and 3 iso ones you'll only need to supply a few urans each cycle...

Rows not columns, isn't a reactor only 6 rows high? *shrugs* and I was trying to work with their -CASUC models anyway (and obviously just theorycrafting all this)

I don't think it'll be possible to have a reactor that would have a positive flow of uranium, as even my last model would have required some isotopes (even if you figure 1/4 uranium will turn into an isotope cell on it's own)

[Looking like 14 isotopes per cycle, using the 4 chamber reactor given... 2/3 uran/iso ratio]
Hey, the tool is back up: http://test.vendaria.net/index…IXIUIUIXIUIUIXXXXXXXXXXXX
650 heat so 1.3 buckets / second would be required?
And you would charge as much uranium as you burn. (4 recharged rows / 2 cycles = 2 rows / cycle) [assuming 4k heat and the math is solid]

-- I actually already had redpower2 installed... so I could probably build this in game... at least it'd bring back the chance for explosions if the math is off (or the system hiccups in any way)