Mark II-1 No extra chambers

Why is your reactor bad ? Because it is very easy to make better in every possible aspect. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…h8pbt1tw0rxt9pt16725gtatc

Better than my first design Oh gawd that thing was terrible.

As we in business call it "still better than burning coal".

Quote from IamJamez

My reactor [reference] isn't BAD, it uses less resources and has a lower cooldown period.

You must have an interesting definition of resources -- your reactor uses five uranium, whereas raGan's only uses three. Also, last I checked, 55 minutes was less than 59 minutes, so raGan's also has a shorter cooldown. raGan's reactor is even cheaper in one-time costs (copper, tin, bronze, etc), because he's using fewer heat pumps, leaving more room for actual cooling components.

I don't think it was a bad effort, and you should feel good for independently reaching a fairly decent design, but it's not as good as raGan's.

Quote from IamJamez

My reactor isn't BAD, it uses less resources and has a lower cooldown period.

Ok, not bad, but it takes little to no effort to make better one. Having 5 HDs next to each other is generally bad. Even when very similar uranium pattern is used, better results can be achieved. link

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that having as few as two HDs next to each other is a sign that there's room for improvement. Does that sound right?

Quote from narc

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that having as few as two HDs next to each other is a sign that there's room for improvement. Does that sound right?

Right. There are cases where it can't be avoided though. (for example Cake's design, I doubt it can be improved)

This is desing is factible ? Mark 2-1 no chambers

Quote from Lightone

This is desing is factible ? Mark 2-1 no chambers

Assuming "factible" means something like "good", then yes -- that is, in fact, an upside-down version of one of the reactors in Rick's list of good reactor designs -- the very first of the Mk II reactors from that thread, in fact.