1. Forum
  2. Wiki
  3. Bugtracker
  4. Blog
  5. Members
    1. Recent Activities
    2. Users Online
    3. Team
    4. Search Members
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
This Thread
  • Everywhere
  • This Thread
  • This Forum
  • Forum
  • Pages
  • More Options
  1. IC² Forum
  2. Forum
  3. IndustrialCraft²
  4. Industrial Engineering
  5. Nuclear Engineering
IC2 Experimental builds (jenkins):
v2.0/2.1/2.2 / 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.6 / 2.7 / 2.8 (For Minecraft 1.6.4/1.7.2/1.7.10 / 1.8.9 / 1.9.4 / 1.10 / 1.11 / 1.12)
IndustrialCraft² recent version: v1.117!

Mark 5 Reactor

  • spencezar
  • May 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM
  • spencezar
    Tree Cutter
    Posts
    4
    • May 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM
    • #1

    I was messing with Ic2 reactor planer and came up with this so I tested it it lasted for 9:31s.
    I was wondering if we could make it better without taking out the uranium cells.
    Im new with Ic2.
    I do know that a Mark 5 is not supposed to be used its more of a joke but i dont care im still going to try and use it lol

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…ffk2gbcbg9tr18g

    Images

    • t1.png
      • 159.43 kB
      • 1,280 × 904
    • t2.png
      • 399.26 kB
      • 1,280 × 904
    • t3.png
      • 431.73 kB
      • 1,280 × 904
    • t4.png
      • 209.95 kB
      • 854 × 480
    • Quote
  • Draco18s
    Tree Cutter
    Posts
    27
    • May 20, 2012 at 6:39 PM
    • #2

    From the list of good reactor designs.

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…7ps011111101110

    Shorter run time than yours, but higher effective output (that is, average output over hot and cooldown periods) as well as higher efficiency and higher total EU/t. Your design has a mere 2.83 efficiency, and it's possible to get 2.6 with a Mark II design.

    • Quote
  • raGan
    Matterialist
    Reactions Received
    1
    Posts
    599
    • May 20, 2012 at 6:42 PM
    • #3

    Design
    It has
    - higher output
    - higher effective output
    - higher efficiency
    - lower cooldown, lower total time
    It also uses less uranium cells.
    It's not the best Mark V, since it's not very effective. (it's better to run Eff 3 mark II many times)

    I say !

    • Quote
  • spencezar
    Tree Cutter
    Posts
    4
    • May 20, 2012 at 7:10 PM
    • #4

    Thank's im going to work on the one i have designed for a bit and try and make it better

    • Quote
  • spencezar
    Tree Cutter
    Posts
    4
    • May 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM
    • #5

    what about this one

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…pjwmc61va2knjsw

    • Quote
  • jppk1
    Automation Engineer
    Reactions Received
    1
    Posts
    321
    Location
    Underground, mining uranium for my reactors
    • May 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM
    • #6

    Make this, build a cooling system(great way to do so in this thread (yay, self-advertisment ftw!)),push button, make bacon from UU-matter you can make with it(you can do it if you try hard enough).

    Check out this awesome mod !

    • Quote
  • spencezar
    Tree Cutter
    Posts
    4
    • May 21, 2012 at 12:13 AM
    • #7
    Quote from jppk1

    Make this, build a cooling system(great way to do so in this thread (yay, self-advertisment ftw!)),push button, make bacon from UU-matter you can make with it(you can do it if you try hard enough).

    im not doing that but if i was doing something like that i would do this
    2010EU/t


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…r6ws6ysj5xpv0ao

    • Quote
  • mutedcurmudgeon
    Bacon is God's bookmark
    Posts
    8
    • June 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM
    • #8

    I actually built this Mark-II reactor in about 10 minutes and it works much better than yours does.

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…38a2nfg6ctroaps :Reactor:

    • Quote
  • NuclearStudent
    Coal Miner
    Posts
    313
    • June 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM
    • #9
    Quote from mutedcurmudgeon

    I actually built this Mark-II reactor in about 10 minutes and it works much better than yours does.

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…38a2nfg6ctroaps :Reactor:


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…uo5iyui1x9m4hfk


    Deleted two of your uranium cells, but moved the other four together for more efficiency. Exactly one cycle. ( I always try to make it exactly one cycle, saves on DS and coolant cells. )

    1. OMG CREEPER RUN AWAY!
    2. Go away, you creeper wierdo!
    3. What ever, I'll just go around.
    4. Hup, over their heads I go!
    5. Okay Mister living grenade, I'm going to knock you into those skeletons, and I'll follow through with a nano saber. Understood? FOR THE ALMIGHTLY DRAGON LORD!

    • Quote
  • jppk1
    Automation Engineer
    Reactions Received
    1
    Posts
    321
    Location
    Underground, mining uranium for my reactors
    • June 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM
    • #10
    Quote from NuclearStudent


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…uo5iyui1x9m4hfk


    Deleted two of your uranium cells, but moved the other four together for more efficiency. Exactly one cycle. ( I always try to make it exactly one cycle, saves on DS and coolant cells. )

    Way cheaper and as effective, removed a chamber and got rid of the reactor platings. There is simply no reason to use IRP's on reactors like these, as they don't cool well and cost quite a bit. Try using less IHD's next time.
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…gn70p9ys29slx6o

    Check out this awesome mod !

    • Quote
  • gorzak
    Tree Cutter
    Posts
    70
    • July 7, 2012 at 9:37 AM
    • #11

    Back to the original post, Mark V are considered a joke because of their extremely short run times in comparison to their cool down periods.

    I consider Mark V designs that melt parts to be sissies. If it takes the time to melt a part before going critical, it doesn't deserve the classification. Also, the only thing that higher class reactors can do better than lower is efficiency (more total power per fuel consumed). Therefore, I will restate your goals thusly:

    Make it better without taking out the uranium cells.
    Make it last longer.
    Make sure the hull explodes before any parts have a chance to melt.
    More effective Eu/t for more power in the same timespan.
    More fuel efficiency, because 340k power more per fuel is worth waiting an extra 13 hours for!


    So, this gem is created:
    Mark V
    Efficiency: 4.17
    Effective Eu/t:52.08 @5sec on &91sec off

    If you want better effective output, both Draco and Ragan's suggestions are superior, but looking at a mark V suggests you don't care about output.

    Thanks for Giving drill access to miners!

    • Quote

Users Viewing This Thread

  • 1 Guest
  1. Privacy Policy
Powered by WoltLab Suite™