Project - making an MK2 with 3,33 eff

mijnboogje · Feb 23rd 2012

hello boys and girls,

it has been some time i have attempted an new reactor design to beat the origional 3.00 reactor,

today i thought id fire up an topic about creating the first mk2 3.33 eff reactor, with this layout:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…0=1k101010110110101001010

any design you may post MUST pass these requirements:

1. must be able to run at LEAST 1,05 cycle
2. must use the uranium cells at 3.00 eff or higher
3. must be controlled with an redstone setup as many like, if they cannot do their cycle with redstone wires, and thus explode. it is not passing the critisms.
4. is not an CASUC design
5. integrated breeding is allowed! but min EU/Tick is at least 120 EU/Tick
small note, this concerns final designs. designs which are experimental may be posted (this is handy becouse one can easily alter ones design to make it more efficient.

to fire the thread up, this is what i made thus far:
- not available -

small note again,
the one who has the best design out of all wil be the one with the credits! (just to ceep it fair)

all i have left to say is this:
GAME ON! lets see who has the top one. after the thread is complete the most efficient will be submited by the winner.

raGan · Feb 23rd 2012

The thing is, it won't have high enough effective EU if it's not CASUC.

mijnboogje · Feb 23rd 2012

Quote from raGan

The thing is, it won't have high enough effective EU if it's not CASUC.

indeed, that what i was worried about, lets say allow casuc with limitations? say, max 1 slot of CASUC cooling?

if ice, 64 ice blocks (no external feed)

if bucket, 1 bucket every (x seconds?)

what you say?

raGan · Feb 23rd 2012

If you can do CASUC, why limiting it to have only one SUC slot.

edit: see ? http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1p10101011101521s1r11r10

mijnboogje · Feb 23rd 2012

Quote from raGan

If you can do CASUC, why limiting it to have only one SUC slot.

becouse i do not actualy want an CASUC design. one slot doesnt over power the design

if i have 6 slots i can make an max eff reactor with 1820 eu/tick (that would ruin the fun)

raGan · Feb 23rd 2012

Ok look at my edit, you can make one of theese in few minutes.

mijnboogje · Feb 23rd 2012

Quote from raGan

If you can do CASUC, why limiting it to have only one SUC slot.

edit: see ? http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1p10101011101521s1r11r10

yes, thats an good design, BUT overpowered since every second you use an bucket. thats the big thing. i want the end result to be casuc free if posible (buckets then)

ice stacks are allowed for the design, in limited fashion thou

raGan · Feb 23rd 2012

and how are you trying to apply theese rules ? Reactor with worse eff. EU will be better than one with better results, which uses more buckets ? One bucket per second is NOT limiting at all, if you are using redpower.

Rick · Feb 23rd 2012

1 bucket per sec means 250 cooling per reactor tick max. This is more than enough to easily run a 3+ eff reactor. No point in even trying to design one.

CareBearII · Feb 23rd 2012

Eff 3 120 a tick will not blow up.. about the best you can do without external cooling

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…7=1k101010110010101001010

mijnboogje · Feb 23rd 2012

Quote from CareBearII

Eff 3 120 a tick will not blow up.. about the best you can do without external cooling

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…7=1k101010110010101001010

agreed, im starting to think this design is not posible to achieve... bummer

raGan · Feb 24th 2012

Quote from mijnboogje

agreed, im starting to think this design is not posible to achieve... bummer

simply because it is not possible. To have >3 eff, you need to have at least 6 cells in there - so minimum 200 heat per tick. Nothing can survive whole cycle with this isnide, not to mention 40 heat/ tick, which middle long sides output to single component ! - that's just impossible.

dezuman · Feb 24th 2012

Quote from CareBearII

Eff 3 120 a tick will not blow up.. about the best you can do without external cooling

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…7=1k101010110010101001010

Why use an inferior design? MINE IS BEST!

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…y=1k101010110010101001010

Just check the Good Reactor list (stickied in this forum)
They're lying about beating my design though, they just shifted some HDs and flipped it around to get some seconds less CD (AMAZING!)

CareBearII · Feb 24th 2012

Quote from dezuman

Why use an inferior design? MINE IS BEST!

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…y=1k101010110010101001010

Just check the Good Reactor list (stickied in this forum)
They're lying about beating my design though, they just shifted some HDs and flipped it around to get some seconds less CD (AMAZING!)

Display More

LOL All I did was plop 4 cells in fill it with coolant cells then start placing plates till nothing melted down.. took a whole minute to design

and here is an eff 4 but will not get you the 120 a tick

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…f=1k101010110110101001010

Rick · Feb 24th 2012

Quote from CareBearII

LOL All I did was plop 4 cells in fill it with coolant cells then start placing plates till nothing melted down.. took a whole minute to design

and here is an eff 4 but will not get you the 120 a tick

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…f=1k101010110110101001010

ehm thats 2 eff....just saying...Also after 1 min of putting the components in i improved it with 5 less heat and its cheaper: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k=1k101010110010101001010

CareBearII · Feb 24th 2012

I keep forgetting that when you put in the depleted cells has issues..

gorzak · Feb 24th 2012

There is a question that the OP has about whether this is possible or not.

I will help by providing a way to answer that question.

Consider this fictional reactor focused on cooling
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101011111521s1r11r19

-73 cooling, no heat generated, 54 parts - 40 cooling cells, 14 dispensers. Not very useful, as there is no uranium, unless you wanted to cool down parts quickly.
Why are we considering this? If we figure out how much heat it would take to melt this, we have a line in the sand. If this design can't cool that amount of heat, no design can.
First, even though the hull has 16k heat tolerance, for purposes of cooling it should be considered 10k, as dispensers seek to equalize and will melt if the hull goes above.
So that makes 55 parts to heat up to 10k, or 550k heat to melt parts. In the 10k cycle required to be a mark 2, 55 excess heat would melt parts. 55 excess + 73 to overcome cooling is 128 total heat.

128 total heat/s total would melt this optimal cooling reactor, that is our line in the sand. While slightly below that may not be possible, we know above that is definitely not.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…0=1k101010110010101001010
3.33 efficiency. 176 heat generated. Definitely not possible to be a mark 2.

You are talking about popping a stack of ice in as an alternative. To be clear, we are talking about SUC, not CASUC, there is no continuous supply. Ice does not compare favorably. If the reactor is a mark II, a cooling cell had the opportunity to cool 10k heat in a 10k cycle and soak 10k heat. Ice cools by 300, 64 ice cools by 19200. That is slightly less than the 20k the cooling cell takes to melt in a mark II design. A single stack of ice is less effective than a cooling cell in a mark II.

There are 3 ways to make ice better than a cooling cell.

Continuous supply. This should need no explaination. 67 ice in a slot is better than a cooling cell, but takes supplying during operation
Discard mark II requirements, supply additional ice between operation. Ice front loads it's cooling, so it lets mark 3+ run for longer. Run a preset partial cycle with auto shutoff, then restock ice before you restart it.
Replace enough components with ice that you can safely replace dispensers. 19.2k > 10k, dispensers are only a heat soak and don't provide cooling. They do link the cooling cells to the heat. If the optimum layout has a spot with 2 spaces, coolant cell + dispenser is 30k heat, 2 ice stacks is 38.4k heat, slightly better.

You excluded all 3 in your design specifications. Based on your design specs, using a small amount of ice would be counterproductive. That's fine with me, I don't like using ice in my designs.

This is definitively not possible.
In fact, because both energy efficiency and heat generation are dependent on uranium cell configuration, and it looks like your suggested config is the heat minimum for > 3 efficiency, we can say definitively 3.0 is the highest energy efficiency a mk II reactor can get with current mechanics.
I encourage exploring the edge of possibility. Part of doing that is knowing where the edge is. With mark II, aim for slightly less than 128 heat generated. Each cooling cell replaced lowers the threshold by 2, each dispenser by 1.
These should be outside the range of possibility:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…0=1k101010110110101001010
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…4=1k101010110110101001010
This should be just barely possible:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…w=1k101010110110101001010
It would have lower effective eu/t than duezmans because of a longer cooldown, but the ability to breed just slightly less isotopes than it produces for a slight fuel price cut & less time running a breeder.

Rick · Feb 24th 2012

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k=1k101010110010101001010

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101011111521s1r11r19

I knew it you copied my brilliant design!!! XD

Anyway we need more reactor components. That means more designs and more fun

mijnboogje · Feb 25th 2012

Quote from Rick

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k=1k101010110010101001010

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1k10101011111521s1r11r19

I knew it you copied my brilliant design!!! XD

Anyway we need more reactor components. That means more designs and more fun

Display More

totaly agreed! more components means more designs - more fun!

Project - making an MK2 with 3,33 eff

Share

Users Viewing This Thread