QuoteI think you forgot to mention the added benefit of 600,000 EU (or 10 million with MFSU's) storage over just 40,000 EU storage with a LV system. I use MFE's/MFSU's to store power in, not to transmit power over long distances.
Now, since i already have HV i might as well convert it to EV for long distance transfer.
I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say.
Actually... there is no loss up to 40 block using glass fibre (40th block is storage device or HVT). With 512EU/p there is 1EU loss every 40 blocks which is barely 0.2% of total package. But this method is so expensive it's in my opinion not worth it. ** 10 diamonds **
I guess I should clarify where those numbers came from: the lossless indefinite glass setup would be 39 glass cable + 1 EVTF (stepping down) every 40 blocks... 39 glass cable uses 9.75 diamonds, and the EVTF uses 1... so I rounded up to 11 diamonds per 40 distance. The loss percentage was for the same 40 block distance covered by iron cable carrying EV (2048EU/p)... my calculation was wrong, in fact: with uninsulated iron, it's around 1.95% loss, with 3x insulation it's around 1.56% loss.
I think i should use EU/p instead. There is an easy way to connect 512EU/p input into copper network, MVT at the beginning would do just fine. It costs 8x refined iron bar + 2x copper cable and tadaa ! 512EU/p input copper system created.
I did not mention glass fibre earlier because i think it's simply too expensive to use in long(OK... let that be 40+) wiring. At least compared to its cost.
I wasn't saying you can only connect 128EU/p 'voltage' to a copper/LVTF line (32EU/p is what's actually transferred, anyway)... rather, I was saying that 128EU/t is the maximum throughput such a connection can transmit, due to the way the TFs work. For example, if you have 200EU/t worth of power generation hooked up to a long copper/LVTF line and place an infinite-load device (like storage or massfab) at the end, that end device will only get 128 EU/t total (in 32EU packets).
To grossly simplify:
Each tick, the LVTF's high side asks for 128 EU... the LVTF before it sends 4x 32EU packets, which that LVTF can then send to the next one in 4 32EU packets. Because this 'load' on each segment of the network is only 128 EU/t, that's the maximum EU/t (total current, not packet size) that can be sent through in this configuration.
You can get around the limit by increasing the load via multiple TFs, but with copper's 4-block lossless limit, the block placement to allow it is just impractical.
I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say.
Hah, i am not so sure myself now that i read your post again. But either way, if one is using MFE's or MFSU's transforming it to LV and then transferring it using transformer hax (yeah, it's exploiting IC2's voltage rather than current mechanics and the transformers ability to turn one large packet into several small ones or several small ones into a large one.)
But meh, i actually prefer to just stay out of it. Just saying because this discussion about using LV lines to transmit 128 EU/t really bothers me. It's not intended behavior and should be patched. Then there would be no discussion about LV vs EV.
EDIT: And once again, i am probably making zero sense.
Hah, i am not so sure myself now that i read your post again. But either way, if one is using MFE's or MFSU's transforming it to LV and then transferring it using transformer hax (yeah, it's exploiting IC2's voltage rather than current mechanics and the transformers ability to turn one large packet into several small ones or several small ones into a large one.)
But meh, i actually prefer to just stay out of it. Just saying because this discussion about using LV lines to transmit 128 EU/t really bothers me. It's not intended behavior and should be patched. Then there would be no discussion about LV vs EV.
EDIT: And once again, i am probably making zero sense.
I don't think it's a hax. Transformers work well now and LV wiring has serious issue. Limit of 128EU/t without being expensive (loseless but more expensive than EV(with very long wiring)) is punishing enough. You cannot connect LV line to your 128+EU/t reactor, since it will cause energy loss due to bottlenecking. It would becone overpowered if transformers were able to process more bigger packets in single tick. That would make it possible to transfer higher EU/t using LV setup, which would make it even more effective and i think i would completely stop using EV lines.
So.... in some cases, there is really no discussion about it - LV can't process more than 128EU/t. Thats it. If you are generating higher current, you should definitely use EV. (well.. not that straight, but i'm too lazy to write about it right now)
I wasn't saying you can only connect 128EU/p 'voltage' to a copper/LVTF line (32EU/p is what's actually transferred, anyway)... rather, I was saying that 128EU/t is the maximum throughput such a connection can transmit, due to the way the TFs work. For example, if you have 200EU/t worth of power generation hooked up to a long copper/LVTF line and place an infinite-load device (like storage or massfab) at the end, that end device will only get 128 EU/t total (in 32EU packets).
You are right... I actually noticed it after finishing my post, so i edited it. You were right in first thing too... I just failed to see few details(3AM - too much).
First i thought LVT is able to convert more 128EU packets to 32EU packets in one tick. When i tried it ingame, i found out that it actually can't. It is, however, serving good purpose because LV line is not that overpowered after all.
This actually prompted me to re-consider things; I'd thought transformers only took in one packet/tick on their high side. With the high side /literally/ acting like a storage buffer this does work -quite- well for getting my burnt out tin windfarm at ~127 back up and running freeing some prime real-estate for a reactor 
.
