mk I EA, eff 5.7, 1000 effective eu/tick, no consumables.

andy_t_roo · Oct 8th 2012

If you are prepared to spend a bit of gold, and automate swapping coolant every 3 mins, then you can get an effective eu/tick of about 1000 eu/tick (925/tick assuming it takes you 16 seconds to swap out the old coolant and put new coolant in, every 3 mins)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…lz6qpkzm2dn9eo0cpphcxww74

The reactor, ignoring the coolant is full cycle (see http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…rgstrm3u94wtyrhdok4zsfaps )
most of the advanced heat exchanges can not be swapped to golden because things will overheat (although with the downtime for swapping, i would guess that minor modifications could be made)

This is a little different from the HAYO Corp in that it has over 450 cooling built in, while the best HAYO cooling reactor cools 336; so this reduces the need for secondary cooling reactors by 1.5 reactors. It is better to cool at the uranium, as the heat goes to the hull, while coolant cells require extra components to slowly move the heat out of them.

Also, the HAYO c.s.s.r, while it is efficiency 6, uses neutron reflectors to achieve that. Finally, with only 8 coolant cells to be replaced, it should be able to be done with 1 rp retriever, once RP is updated, leading to a quicker coolant replacement, and less down-time.

question: whats the best reactor for cooling coolant?

skavier470 · Oct 8th 2012

sneekythelost made a very cheap cooling reaktor design:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…olv1sjaua3wfvhxirm688w9hc

all assuming my math is right: (what i would doubt cause it was to easy)
yes its not using its full potential, but due to the fact that then it would be imbalanced in cooling time it would make it a bit more tricky to time the Cooling cells.
right now it will take 188 seconds too cool all 10 60K coolant cells,
the Reactor will heat the Coolant Cells up in 2:59 min (179 seconds)
safety shutdown should be at 170 seconds.
yes not all coolant cells get the same heat (that will improve the safety even more)

should be sufficient.

andy_t_roo · Oct 8th 2012

that reactor has a total of 160 cooling (9*vent next to 1, 2*2, 3*3 , 4*4, total of 40, * 4 per component).

the unbalanced cooling from my reactor is around 2.2k. does the "cheap" ness of that reactor include the hull cost?
- 200 iron, 180 copper, 80 tin per reactor. i think i'd need 14 of them to cool enough.

something like http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…s41wck2vu8ls6p9bh9ufbu6m8 has 480 cooling, and costs
- 240 iron, 508 copper, 76 tin, and 144 gold

3x your reactor (which also gives 480 cooling)
- 600 iron, 540 copper, 240 tin. ; i guess it depends on if you are short on iron, gold, or tin. (360 iron + 164 tin+ 32 copper vs 144 gold) (not to mention 1/3 the floor space and control logic needed).

ShneekeyTheLost · Oct 9th 2012

You should look at my DDoS setup. 1360 Eu/tic with a similar switching out system. And no gold spent.

Also, you can easily expand on my cooling tower to a 6 chamber setup with 14 cells cooling at 16/tic for a total cooling per tic of 224, so you'd only need two to match you comparable coolant tower. In that case, it'd be easier on the iron as well, although it would need a lot more tin, due to more coolant cells being cooled at a time.

You're also comparing a cooling system WITH all the cells involved to one WITHOUT the cells, which is a massive imbalance. If you wish to compare to an empty cooling tower of my design, you'd need:

224 Copper
104 Tin
259 Iron

For the six chamber at 224/tic cooling. So, double the numbers, and compare...

518 Iron vs 240 iron = 278 Iron more expensive
208 tin vs 76 tin = 132 tin more expensive
448 copper vs 508 copper = 60 copper less expensive
0 gold vs 144 gold = 144 gold less expensive

So really, it's a matter of gold vs iron. It's also a matter of not melting down your overclocked vents which pull in more heat than they can handle. My cooling towers can also handle over twice as many coolant cells at a time, meaning you actually need fewer of them to handle the same number of cells, albeit at a time reduction. This means they are far more efficient for a Mk III type reactor with a mid-cycle cooldown.

It really depends on what you want to do, I guess.

Share