Assistance with a reactor design, please

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…w7tw6g1u8ao8gj8yl79e9h35s
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…w7tw6g1u8ao8gj8yl79e9h35s


    My first reactor design, so please don't rip me apart too much :)


    Ok, here's the problem. The builder says that this setup should be stable, with no excess heat generated. However, when I build the reactor for real (I have a remote monitor set up) it heats up to 24/25 ticks of heat per cycle, but stays stable at that number. I am sure that this means that I will have a component burn out at some point (and sadly lack the capability to redstone a signal in since I have no redstone mods, but since this is creative mode testing, I'm not too concerned), and I've been trying to figure out what, if anything, needs to be changed on the reactor setup since I'm at the maximum possible amount of water I can have around. Would still like to keep the 70eu/t if possible, but will accept taking less to allow a stable setup.


    Any thoughts on what I might be doing wrong?



    edit: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…3i4s7q4vye0uld316kbks1ef4


    This is what I wound up doing just now in game to test to see if adding more chambers and cooling would help. According to the design program, it should. In-game testing now has it doing the same behavior at 16/17. So....thoughts/help please.

    It may be rounding issue or something, but reactors often stabilize at around 15 degrees. Another issue is that planner lies about reactor plating parts, as they build up heat, even if planner says it's ok.


    i recommend to run reactor for minute or two and then switch it off (but redstoning or removing uranium). If all parts lose "heathbar" in few seconds, then everything is ok.


    And you don't need any extra mod to put "redstone a signal in reactor". It is vanilla minecraft thing.


    As for your design - it is crap, but safe. I recommend picking anything from this list - A list of good reactor designs (READ THE 1st POST!!!)

    1. The reason I can't currently do redstone is because I was using all my space for water cooling for the testing. What I meant is that I don't have a way to remotely do it, but easily fixed.


    2. Ok, so it's good to know the planner is off on calculations. I thought I was doing something wrong for the actual working reactor.


    3. I'm aware it's a crap reactor design, it is my first afterall :) What I did was start off with various designs on the list that you provided, then kept trying to ramp up power output as high as I could while still maintaining a "safe" cooling design that I wouldn't have to micromanage (IE: I could go off mining/building/whatever). This one for right now seems to be a stable 70eu/t, but I'll be working on it a bit more. Currently have a 40eu/t that is quite stable.


    3a. It's worth saying that I've been switching back and forth between this reactor and another one I built for the last hour and a half, monitoring not just the remote sensor, but looking at the actual components as well. I'm not seeing any significant degradation of any component yet, but I'm well aware that can change eventually. However, I would like to think that in the time it would take me to switch out uranium cells that it should lose all heat.

    1. Planner is mostly accurate, unless it's about plating. I test my designs using Nuclear Control (for displaying reactor core) and (in test world) with Not Enough Items, that, besides other things, shows exact heat or charge of reactor elements.
    2. You can switch reactor off even if you put current into block on side or top of it. for example,if you put lever on reactor chamber o side of core, or any other block connected on side of core, it will affect reactor. So, if you have at least two chambers, you can connect both EU wire and redstone to it without losing on water cooling (into different side-chambers).

    Quote from raGan

    If it stays at that number, it is OK. It is due to a way reactor works.

    So with it staying at a low, steady #, that means that I wouldn't have to worry about components melting, correct? That has been my main concern with the reactor.

    Quote from shda5582

    So with it staying at a low, steady #, that means that I wouldn't have to worry about components melting, correct? That has been my main concern with the reactor.

    You don't have to worry, the components will not melt.

    the heat generation at the hull is a normal part of the cooling, since the hull of your reactor is also part of the cooling system. think about it as the "heat hub" for your integrated heat dispenser. the dispenser emits the heat into the hull from where another dispenser can take it, so there is always a minimum heat at the hull.
    you should also remember that dispenser and plating won't disperse much heat if any at all, so your main cooling devices are the cooling cells and the hull. always try to minimize the amount of dispenser and plating to increase cooling to the maximum. i can't remember if uranium cells even accept dispenser as cooling device to emit heat into.
    my experience tells me that the best design is one where every cooling cell is connected to at most one dispenser. it's useless to connect multiple dispenser to the same cooling cell, since the dispenser can transfer heat between themself over the hull at a much faster speed, they don't need an "internal connection".
    at least that's my experience with nuclear reactor designs.