By sec you probably mean min. I see nothing special about this design.
I made 2.5 Eff. mark II in a minute. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r10
Not the same output, but almost as effective EU prodiction.
Edit: It has more effective EU/t production.
Edit2: It is also cheaper.
Yeah, when looking at reactor design, it's not the total output while running that counts, it's how efficient it is overall. Your reactor is only producing effectively 66.26 EU/t because it can only operate a little over half the time, requiring long cooldown periods in between. It's also relatively expensive for a reactor only producing 67 EU/t overall.
Compare with http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o10101001501521s1r11r10 which produces effectively 78 EU/t, can run for multiple cycles without requiring a cooldown, has a very short cooldown period when you do have to cool it off, and is much cheaper to set up.
You seem to be missing the 0.61 % cycle completion time. This means if left running unattended --boom--.
This link has better options for full-cycle reactors without external cooling mods.
http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2963
This is one classic design (not mine) http://test.vendaria.net/index…CCCHUCCHCCCCHCCCHCCCHCCCH but I favor Dezuman's over it.
If you let the water flow from above it won't evaporate
Edit: http://test.vendaria.net/index…CCHCCCCCCCHCHHCCCCCCCHCHC
less heat
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r10
This is a mirrored variant of Dezuman's design. It produces 120eU/t at 3.00 eff It requires 70 min to cool down, but will complete a full cycle. As explained before, mathematically this is the highest possible eff design which will complete a full cycle. You may or may not be able to do so with less cooling resources (IHDs) but that too is unlikely and very likely not worth the effort of making any better.
Of course it's still possible to use vanilla redstone to make reactors cool down /during/ runtime. With that it's possible to build core only designs that have 3.83 Eff and produce 28eU/t http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=3189 Given their compact size and the possibility of sharing water-cooling; an innovatively compact redstone design beneath a multitude of chambers should yield up to ~1408 eU/t (averaged) within a single chunk. Beware though; the design I mention /requires/ glass or better output cable since it's pulses are 460eU/p.
Nightdagger is right.. It is also important how much power your reactor can gain from single cell. By default, each cell can produce 2M EU. If you are short on uranium, efficiency is what you are looking for.
Efficiency 3 example. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r10
It still has ~75 effective EU/t and is not that expensive. It can be probably made cheaper but i made it quickly now.
Edit: i see there is no need for my post anymore 
There are numerous possible things to try to 'make the best' you can with. Eff (save uranium/'cheapest to run'); construction resources (cheapest to build); most power without (I think you were aiming for this) / with extra cooling.
At this point more or less all of the above options have already been covered -in depth- in various forum threads; I finished off the Eff one my self, targeted more at RP2 designs, but possible with vanilla redstone too.
Your design doesn't complete a full cycle, but has no specification for being stopped before it blows up; it isn't particularly noteworthy in any aspect other than being, annoyingly, 2 eU/t too big to link via gold or even 'cheating' 4x packets if 32eU/t over copper + LVTF boosting.
Take the advice and past winning designs for what they're worth. The end solution for this puzzle in the game. Pick the one that best fits /your/ needs given what resources you're willing to dedicate to the issue.
so is higher efficiency better then?
Higher efficiency is cheaper in the long run as you don't need as much uranium to produce those EU's.
For instance, compare these two designs (just for the efficiency comparison now)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r10
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101001501521s1r11r10
The first one is 2 cells separated, same amount of fuel as the second one but the second has the two cell together.
The first one will generate 4 million EU at a rate of 20 EU/t while the second one will generate 8 million EU at a rate of 40 EU/t.
The second one has double the efficiency. (you spend 2 uranium cells and get twice as much because they are next to each other)
The downside to getting higher efficiency though is that cooling becomes more problematic and TWICE the heat is generated. (in the second reactor example)
As you add more cells close to each other cooling becomes ever more problematic and heat generation increases massively. At some point, you are not going to be able to cool the reactor fast enough to give you a full cycle (2.7 hours of running time) but you will get more EU's out of your uranium cells.
It's a balance between whats most important to you.
Safe reactor <> saving uranium <> high effective EU/t <> resources to build reactor <> resources to cool reactor <> the amount of time you want to spend with your reactor(s)
If you have several stacks of uranium then efficiency isn't going to be as important to you. If you have LOTS of resources then cost isn't going to bother you that much.
There is no "best reactor" design. It's all about what the user needs right then.
Wait, how did you get 130 EU/t on anything with just vMC?
Vanilla MineCraft.
