Chambers (and other related Questions)

Quote from HeadHunter67

Hello all,

I'm basically a novice nuclear engineer - so far I've had no mishaps because I tend toward safe designs, so when I screw up I'm able to avoid catastrophe. I've been reading the threads here and experimenting on my own, but I still have some questions:

1) Aside from the expense of crafting them, is there ever a reason not to have more chambers? Even if the slots are not used, it would seem that a reactor with more chambers will have a higher heat capacity and integrity. If I am using a plan for a smaller reactor, the main change would simply be a shorter cooldown time. Is that true?

2) Is there a way to remove chambers? I tried wrenching one and all it does it open up the interface.

3) If individual chambers cannot be removed, how does one go about moving a reactor? I would presume you need to wrench the generator itself, but if you have chambers on every side and they cannot be wrenched, how is that possible?

Thanks in advance for your advice and helpful suggestions.

Display More

1) I dunno
2) I'm always removing them with a Diamond Drill(you get the chambers back), haven't tested any other tools yet
3) Destroy a chamber and wrench it

Quote from HeadHunter67

Hello all,

I'm basically a novice nuclear engineer - so far I've had no mishaps because I tend toward safe designs, so when I screw up I'm able to avoid catastrophe. I've been reading the threads here and experimenting on my own, but I still have some questions:

1) Aside from the expense of crafting them, is there ever a reason not to have more chambers? Even if the slots are not used, it would seem that a reactor with more chambers will have a higher heat capacity and integrity. If I am using a plan for a smaller reactor, the main change would simply be a shorter cooldown time. Is that true?

2) Is there a way to remove chambers? I tried wrenching one and all it does it open up the interface.

3) If individual chambers cannot be removed, how does one go about moving a reactor? I would presume you need to wrench the generator itself, but if you have chambers on every side and they cannot be wrenched, how is that possible?

Thanks in advance for your advice and helpful suggestions.

Display More

2+3) Use a pick-axe or mining drill. (Don't worry, they drop chambers not machine blocks when mined) The rest will fall when you wrench the reactor itself.

1) You are mostly correct here... though the cost to create is a big deciding factor (since you're not that far from making another reactor if you already have 2 chambers). About the only other reasons you wouldn't "want" additional chambers is if you're running a breeder (since their heat is usually more finely tuned). Or the CA-SUC reactors since you can't connect to the chambers, and have to connect directly to the reactor core.

- Usually (standard) reactors that have fewer chambers are Mark 1 to begin with, so don't require any cooldown and don't produce any heat [aka perfectly safe]. Meaning that adding more hull integrity / heat capacity wouldn't actually DO anything. Though sometimes you'll see some Mark 2 designs that become Mark 1 with just the addition of an empty chamber.

in terms of eu output/cost this reactor beats all others except the CASUC reactors:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…c0=1p10101001501521s1r11r

Quote from Rick

in terms of eu output/cost this reactor beats all others except the CASUC reactors:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…c0=1p10101001501521s1r11r

So far
I prefer http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o10101001501521s1r11r10it's very close to that design in terms of cost/EU but with the added benefit of 2.33 efficiency.

try this one too
http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2706

Quote from fokolo

try this one too
http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2706

Reactors under 2 eff are pretty useless that measn you get only 1500000 eu per uranium cell.

Quote from Rick

Reactors under 2 eff are pretty useless that measn you get only 1500000 eu per uranium cell.

but thats the best amount of eu you can get with only one!!! chamber

ye per tick but it will use up your uranium fast and to keep it running you want to get more eff.

Quote from HeadHunter67

Thank you for the answers and suggestions. The reason I had asked is because I was using a safe 2-chamber design from MJEvans (similar to one posted in this thread but just a different layout) and decided to try one of his 3-chamber designs.

Sadly, it seems that the reactor planner doesn't take evaporation of the surrounding cooling water into effect when projecting maximum temperature or run time, because it got hotter than expected and I had to cool it off early. Fortunately, no harm was done.

But honestly, the 2-chamber, 3-cell designs with 2.33 efficiency are more than adequate for my needs, so I'm going to go back to that. It's good to know that the extra chamber won't hurt, and may give me a little more safety.

Now, if only there was a UU-Matter recipe for uranium! Alblaka should add it as one of the 7 remaining 8-slot possibilites...

Display More

Evaporating of water can be corrected by placing the water source block at least 2-3 blocks above the reactor, so the water will flow down over it, and replenish any flowing blocks that get evaporated.

Also do not forget that you'll want your reactor and all related systems contained within a single chunk (so that it /cannot/ be partly loaded)

Please correct me if I am wrong; but chunks expand outwards from 0,0,0 and include modulus (% operator) 0-15 for a block number. Be wary though, the player's height is ~1.6, so the Y coordinate is that far above the TOP of the block you're standing on.

This means, if you happen to be at X, 2.6, Z that you're on top of the very last bedrock before falling in to the void.

It also means if you're walking along the top layer of your blast shield the highest you can go before passing in to the next chunk is Y%16 = 16.6 (aka 1.6)

Note:

For those of you who've never heard of the modulus, it's the integer remainder after dividing an integer by an integer. So 18 % 16 == 2. 34 % 16 == 2. Similarly if you perform modulus on a 'real' (floating point) number then you get the part after the decimal back and the integer operation on the rest. EG: 65.6 % 16 == 1.6

Quote from MJEvans

Also do not forget that you'll want your reactor and all related systems contained within a single chunk (so that it /cannot/ be partly loaded)

Untrue. Only RP2 machine powered reactors have this fault. I'm yet to crater my BuildCraft based CASUC on logout/login.

Quote from Irontygre

Untrue. Only RP2 machine powered reactors have this fault. I'm yet to crater my BuildCraft based CASUC on logout/login.

Actually, MJ has a point, I'm pretty sure if you were actually unlucky enough to place your reactor on the edge of a chunk, one (or two if it's a corner) of the reactor chambers could be in another chunk(s)... If you were then to approach the unloaded reactor chunk from the opposite direction of the "additional chunk(s)" you may find part of the reactors inventory on the ground... not to mention what that would do to the operation of the reactor... [Not sure if it'd actually work like that, but seems highly possible... though highly unlikely/unlucky of you :P]

HeadHunter67 is absolutely correct: chunks are 16×16 laterally and 128 high and therefore can never be split by altitude.

Yes, true for SSP. However I wouldn't trust SMP to never split it further. A 16x16x16 block sounds particularly tasty for alignment to me. Something that /may/ have changed with the ability to use > 128 high as a global setting (it's in the release notes that the groundwork is in /place/ for that).

Quote from AkhkharuXul

Actually, MJ has a point, I'm pretty sure if you were actually unlucky enough to place your reactor on the edge of a chunk, one (or two if it's a corner) of the reactor chambers could be in another chunk(s)... If you were then to approach the unloaded reactor chunk from the opposite direction of the "additional chunk(s)" you may find part of the reactors inventory on the ground... not to mention what that would do to the operation of the reactor... [Not sure if it'd actually work like that, but seems highly possible... though highly unlikely/unlucky of you :P]

Pretty sure that wouldn't happen. If you look closely, during chunk loading errors in SSP or SMP, you'll note that water never flows into the error chunk unless it's already supposed to be flowing. From what I've seen, there is still a concept of "something on the other side".