[OFFICIAL] List of good reactor designs

    Quote from Rick

    YU NO READ THA RULES


    I'm sorry is mine inefficient or is it that I'm using gregtech if it is that I'm using gregtech then
    I was talking to the gregtech guy on this forum, not the op of this forum(which is you)

    if it is inefficient then tell me how Because I would really like to know if it is :P


    also here is one that follows the rules


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…g3zrsykjep5qjv1gx3fdt11q8
    180 eu for 2 hours 33 mins and it only uses 2 chambers instead of 4 or 6 like the others
    574 copper
    41 tin
    139 iron
    68 gold
    14 uranium
    67 rubber
    28 redstone
    2 glowstone dust
    2 lapis lazuil



    I'm sorry for any confusion


    That's an inefficient design. This design http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…uaypbma551q3chbbgt5euuccg from the reactor list outputs at 170 EU/t and is also a 2 chamber design... however it has an efficiency of 3.4 (3.23 when looking at costs of copper to replace dual cells) compared to your 2.57 (2.26 when looking at costs of copper to replace dual/quad cells). Basically your reactor has a "running cost" of 24 UU matter to replace the copper used, compared to the "running cost" of the other design which costs 9.6 UU matter.


    Edit: Also, always try to use the normal Heat Exchangers instead of always using the more expensive Component Heat Exchangers. I was able to take your design and reduce the material cost by quite a bit of gold just by downgrading all but 1 of the Component Heat Exchangers: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…zxatdsemuuepdz14iyfv65ips

    Well thank

    Quote from TheBard


    That's an inefficient design. This design http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…uaypbma551q3chbbgt5euuccg from the reactor list outputs at 170 EU/t and is also a 2 chamber design... however it has an efficiency of 3.4 (3.23 when looking at costs of copper to replace dual cells) compared to your 2.57 (2.26 when looking at costs of copper to replace dual/quad cells). Basically your reactor has a "running cost" of 24 UU matter to replace the copper used, compared to the "running cost" of the other design which costs 9.6 UU matter.


    Edit: Also, always try to use the normal Heat Exchangers instead of always using the more expensive Component Heat Exchangers. I was able to take your design and reduce the material cost by quite a bit of gold just by downgrading all but 1 of the Component Heat Exchangers: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…zxatdsemuuepdz14iyfv65ips


    well thank you for telling me at least now I know now, I will keep on trying to beat this yet. but I got to admit these take a lot of time to make

    ^ Well, yeah. A lot of people have been working hard to improve the existing designs. That's why this thread exists in the first place -- to collect the stumblings of many into a coherent and hyper-efficient whole.


    The existing 'budget breeder' auto pilot does not work. Maybe it worked earlier, but in 109 there is too much cooling.


    I tinkered with the design to get it working for 16k-22k temps. Stack the two lava cells to 16 to 22 (25 if you got balls of steel) and it will hold that temp even empty.
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…yjeu8m06u8j5a3s8ojmospjv9


    Calculator says 7x, so guess that is 28 or 35 cells a cycle. NEI not working with isotopes to test.


    Heating configuration: Autopilot 2x lava stacks
    Cells charged per uranium cell: 28? 35? will depend on where you are in the 16k - 22k heat range.
    Efficiency: 1
    Eu/tick: 5
    Cost: Iron 96, Copper 454, Tin 45, Gold 2



    Edit:
    Cool feature: I found it fails gracefully. Works up to 25 lava cell stacks... with some fires in the area :P It runs very close to redline on the reactor heat exchanger parts. Bumping the lava to 26+ just breaks the heat exchangers and the lava stops affecting the reactor and it cools itself down.


    Edit 2:


    Same concept expanded for efficiency:
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…teav754p1xwkhrbqlbyomzfcw


    Cheaper than the current #2 breeder (no diamonds), and heats up faster. Same as above you can leave it on and empty and it will just hold the heat at 31k-64k depending on what you set it to.


    Heating configuration: Autopilot 31-64 sized lava stack
    Cells charged per uranium cell: Heat range 31-64k = 10x - 21x recharge speed.
    Efficiency: 1
    Eu/tick: 5
    Cost: Iron 180, Copper 1321, Tin 95, Gold 2

    why 2 lava cells or more than one Heat exchangers?
    revised again,
    more eff-less cost
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…yjeu8m06u8j5a3s8ojmospjv9


    less cost and only 5 chambers...
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…teav754p1xwkhrbqlbyomzfcw


    Rick please update both breeders

    Change the scheme, alter the mood. Electrify the boys and girls if you'd be so kind.


    [b][i][u][url=' [url='http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=7745']HAYO CORP: Nuclear Power (FREE: Reactor Blueprints)


    Multiple lava in the small because because you need to have lava * number of cells it touches > than vent capacity or from a cold/empty start it won't heat up.


    Reactor exchanges in spots next to the lava where also needed an extra component to count for the cooling in the component heat vent. Use those plus swapping in/out heat exchangers in the corner till i got that to balance at 60 venting. In active mode the rod + isotopes should create 60 heat, so the venting can keep that cycle stable.


    I guess you could get by with 2 cores on the big breeder, but I like it to heat up fast. With 3 there you can run the big breeder from 21k - 64k just by changing the lava stack size. Used core exchanges next to lava because they are cheap and durable. The other exchangers are the same as the base small design just trying to get the vent cooling to 60.



    I was toying with this design before bed last night to double *edit triple the isotope capacity:
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…ille1wj3urkjl75dwgl9uzm9l

    Pretty sure you only need 1 stack of Heating Cells. Remove the 2nd stack from your design and you'll see it does the exact same thing. It gets you to the same temp. You're breeding close to the same number of cells if you remove the 2nd stack, and using a LOT less materials.


    Edit: I'm not sure the reactor planner is properly taking into account the materials required to create a heating cell. I took the above design and removed one stack of 43 Heating Cells, and the materials only changed by:
    -11 Copper, -1 Iron, -6 Rubber, -2 Redstone
    So I don't think it's properly calculating the cost of a Heating Cell, plus it's not taking into account how many were added in the design.

    Quote from TheBard

    Pretty sure you only need 1 stack of Heating Cells. Remove the 2nd stack from your design and you'll see it does the exact same thing. It gets you to the same temp. You're breeding close to the same number of cells if you remove the 2nd stack, and using a LOT less materials.


    Edit: I'm not sure the reactor planner is properly taking into account the materials required to create a heating cell. I took the above design and removed one stack of 43 Heating Cells, and the materials only changed by:
    -11 Copper, -1 Iron, -6 Rubber, -2 Redstone
    So I don't think it's properly calculating the cost of a Heating Cell, plus it's not taking into account how many were added in the design.


    I tried it with one stack of heating cells in game and the reactor cools down and won't hold its heat. Empty or with one rod in - can't test with emptied isotopes, but at best it would hold the temp until the isotopes fill and then cool down. I think ideally you want your breeder always hot and ready to drop in rods to recharge and to do that seems to require heating cells with contact > cooling.


    On my test rig, with the reactor temp holds at whatever the lava stacks are only if there are enough contact points to overcome the system's 60 cooling. The 60 cooling is needed to cool the one control rod with the 4 isotope cells around it when the system is actually recharging.


    At least that is how it tests out in 109. Maybe it changed? It makes sense to me the way it is in game now... the lava cells apply heat to adjacent exchangers and the total applied has to be greater than the system's cooling or the reactor will cool down even with the lava cells running.


    ahhh fuck messed something up here are the real links:
    25k breeder
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…x11qqgis0e6whl3eyv9wk1a0x
    64k breeder:
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…lffrrys951re4r17ertel1san

    Change the scheme, alter the mood. Electrify the boys and girls if you'd be so kind.


    [b][i][u][url=' [url='http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=7745']HAYO CORP: Nuclear Power (FREE: Reactor Blueprints)

    Tried both the small single chamber designs and neither one warms itself up... there is no excess heat.
    Do you manually get them up to hot? Even if you do, why? they do not hold their temperature once you are done charging.


    Why do it manually when you can just have multiple touch points for the lava cells to fully counter the cooling and build 60+ heat a tick.


    The linked designs only work when charging 4 isotopes and the uranium in/on. When not in use or when it is done charging it will bleed heat and not be ready for the next use.



    Still putting the 64ks together, but it looks like empty it only has 4 extra heat. It will hold at 64k with that, but will take forever to get there.



    Testing in 109.

    They do warm up, but it is with an excess of just 4 heat per second. 64000/4=16000 seconds. 16000/3600=4 hours, 26 minutes and 40 seconds. With my design you could easily remove the two overclocked heat vents (and it is advised to also take the uranium cell out for obvious reasons (accidentally switching on the reactor?)) like so. This reduces the warm up time to 1000 seconds or 16 minutes and 40 seconds.

    Quote from Rick

    Reactor 7:


    Link: Mark I EA
    Eu/tick: 160
    Efficiency: 4
    Cost: Iron 207, Copper 351, Tin 63, Gold 24Running costs: 9,6 UU
    Credits: INSANEAcyborg


    Shaved off a chamber from the 160 EU Mark 1 EA, reactor design.
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…fzg5c6rcvepq5eduqujd7vpxc


    The costs above are different than the planner. In the planner the costs change is: +44 copper, but 25 less iron, same gold/tin -- more redstone, rubber. Overall 15 UU cost savings.


    Rest of the stats remain:
    Link: Mark I EA
    Eu/tick: 160
    Efficiency: 4
    Cost: Iron 182, Copper 443, Tin 63, Gold 24
    Running costs: 9,6 UU



    Edit:
    Found a nice progression for the chamber above. You can keep it mark 1 EA the whole time: 160 EU/t -> 240 EU/t -> 300 EU/t
    4 doubles - 160 EU/t, 2 chamber, 9.6 UU to run, efficiency 4
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…fzg5c6rcvepq5eduqujd7vpxc


    6 double - 240 EU/t, 4 chamber, 14.4 UU to run, efficiency 4
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…zoljkwz8fruo2o1nkz2l0m0hs


    5 double 1 quad - 300 EU/t, 6 chamber, 24 UU to run, efficiency 4.29
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…6zlqdnr3f60khgpuu9u6seznk
    or same reactor with 2 doubles and 2 quad - 280 EU/t, efficiency 4.67
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…2plb6zdhst8g9ympvoq1jmiv4



    For each design most parts stay in the same spot and inner pattern repeats. Only the outer edge of heat exchanges needs to move when adding chambers.

    You have to turn the reactor on and have uranium in it to start them heating up. Trust the planner. You only need 1 stack of heating cells with a running reactor. They heat up fast enough from cold that we're only talking about a difference of 2-3 bred cells in most cases. I don't feel that's worth the huge amount of materials required to make a totally separate stack of heating cells.


    The purpose of a stack of heating cells is to add heat up to the specific level. If you have two stacks of 64 heating cells, they're still going to go to a temp of 64,000. Once at that temp, having that 2nd stack of 64 heating cells is a COMPLETE waste.