Best Efficiency Mark-I reactor contest

Luingar · Oct 20th 2011

So i've been having a bit of trouble making a decent Mark-I reactor. So i'm holding a context (if this is against forum rules, i apologize and feel free to delete this thread.)
I will make a custom (standard resolution) texture pack and/or character skin for whomever creates the most efficient Mark-I reactor. These will be yours to distribute, keep, modify, or ad.fly however you see fit. However, i reserve the right to use any part of it as i see fit, and i will distribute one copy of the texture pack on these forums. (character skin will be entirely yours)

Rules:
must not use water buckets or ice
must be able to run an infinite number of cycles unattended without exploding.
If any parts melt down, must still be a mark I without that part.
Operating temperature cannot be equal to or more than 50% maximum (8000 with 6 reactor chambers, +50 for each plate in the chamber)
Design must be published on http://test.vendaria.net/

Same or similar designs (flipped, rotated 180) will go to whoever posted first.
Ties in efficiency will be resolved by whichever design uses the least resources, defined at my discretion.

THIS IS A CONTEST IN EFFICIENCY, NOT EU/T.

PS: texture pack will include industrialcraft and (if you want) buildcraft textures to fit.

urbanshadow · Oct 20th 2011

If this isn't against rules, I'm in, but keep in mind that no mark I reactor it's 3 or more on eficiency (without ice nor water, that is), so the contest will heavily rely on component usage, and it will be component ties for sure.

EDIT: Meh, I gave up, this is the better you'll get and it's everywhere around the forum design

Rick · Oct 20th 2011

http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2071

Can run endless cycles without overheating :). Does not require babysitting except refueling the uranium.

urbanshadow · Oct 20th 2011

Quote from Rick

http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2071

Can run endless cycles without overheating :). Does not require babysitting except refueling the uranium.

You missed the part where you're not supossed to use any water buckets or ice in your design, and seems pretty big for the little one I posted (not mine btw).

OCAdam · Oct 20th 2011

This contest.... unfortunately is pretty much already done. I haven't seen any better than a 2.33 Mark I reactor (and there are SEVERAL variants that can do it). A 2.5 would be a real challenge, if it's actually possible (maybe someone's done it, but I haven't seen it).

Rick · Oct 20th 2011

Whats wrong with using water buckets? Why would that be against the rules?

Demork · Oct 20th 2011

because the OP stated he didnt want them in the design? Personal preference i guess

Rick · Oct 20th 2011

But why? I mean we can also make a rule against using coolants then right?

The fact my reactor is so big is because it got 4 layers of reinforced stone to protect against a meltdown (which can happen if a nab decides to destroy the cooling system). Without the protection it would be really small.

Demork · Oct 20th 2011

You seem to misunderstand..

The Op wanted a design that does not make use of them. So he asked for designs.. that Does not use them. Seeing as he is looking for something he is comfortable using and the best option that would be a valid plan. just saying.

Nargon · Oct 21st 2011

This contest is pointless. Mark-I reactor has a maximum 2.33 efficiency and that's made several times. For efficiency of 2.5 is required to place four of uranium in a row. For this it is necessary to internally cooling the 39 heat. It is not possible to deploy HT and coolant cells for cooling that much heat.

My best design with effeciency 2.5 is Mark II-E: http://test.vendaria.net/index…CCCHUCCHCCCCHCCCHCCCHCCCH
This produce only 3 heat.

Somerled · Oct 21st 2011

Quote from urbanshadow

EDIT: Meh, I gave up, this is the better you'll get and it's everywhere around the forum design

Woot! My design. Yay.

Anyway, check my old post for why you can't do better than a 2.33 efficiency Mark I. The math shows it won't work. The next practical step up is a 2.5, and with all the heat it generates you can't cram enough cooling cells AND the HDs to distribute heat to them. Math says that a six-chamber, 2.5 leaves room enough for only 11 HDs in the entire design. Eleven HDs can distribute to at most 44 CCs, you need 39 CCs minimum, BUT you must sacrifice roughly 8 CCs worth to cool off the huge heat pulses from the uranium. So it's a no go.

Luingar · Oct 24th 2011

Quote from Somerled

Woot! My design. Yay.

Well shit. Thanks anyways guys. And sumerled, since that design was yours and due to your very informative posts, you win the prize. E-mail me at luingar@gmail.com and I'll throw together a compatibility pack for the texture pack of your choice. By which i mean i'll modify the ores and machines and items, aremo and such for buildcraft and industrialcraft so they look nice

FourFire · Oct 24th 2011

Quote from Rick

But why? I mean we can also make a rule against using coolants then right?

The fact my reactor is so big is because it got 4 layers of reinforced stone to protect against a meltdown (which can happen if a nab decides to destroy the cooling system). Without the protection it would be really small.

will you please stop spamming your CASUC reactors everywhere it is NOT wanted?
sorry but this is the 4th time you've done it and it aggravates me!

Rick · Oct 24th 2011

lol i posted that like what 4 days ago and now you get angry of it?

dezuman · Oct 25th 2011

Quote from Rick

lol i posted that like what 4 days ago and now you get angry of it?

You know, it IS a bit bothering. We already know CASUC beats normal reactors any day

Share