I found this out when my Nuke Gen got to hot and burned the wool I had the wire on for a revered switch. So when the switch on so was the Gen.
Would you mind posting an image, and text that is intelligible?
Its a useful piece of information but your explanation is not sufficient for me to understand how you did it.
He probably means he used the wool as a burn away breaker. running a redpower wire across it, when the wool burns away, teh wire breaks, stopping the signal which triggeres another wire to send a signal to the reactor. Basically a heat failsafe that has to be manually reset by the user.
Clever idea. Kinda got it from the OP, but well articulated.
I like the idea... It makes life easy when your out exploring and dont need to tend your reactor...
Could be useful with a bunch of other things too if I can figure out with what else...
that... is a brilliant idea.. *runs and adds wool to reactor setup* you saw nothing! that was always there... yea...
Can't you do it without the redpower mod
Can't you do it without the redpower mod
I guess you can since you can put redstone on wool but I like to hide my wires.
What I did was at the bottom of my reactor I put a redstone torch to invert then signal so when the switch was off so was the reactor. I used redstone wire under some wool and hooked up the torch to the switch. So I flipped the switch and turned on the reactor. When it overheated the wool burned two blocks away from my reactor pool and broke the wire turning off the reactor.
what about attach redstone torch on wool. if wool burn down torch fall off so it stop powering a redstone. make it throuth NOT gate to the reaktor and you stoped the reaktor.
also which materials are unmeltable?
also which materials are unmeltable?
I think its all about how meltable they are. Nothing right now except bedrock stops a nuclear explosion at one block thick. Its just that wool burns so its one of the first to go.
Also, if you do this, make sure to put the redstone on stone or cobble. When I did this, the dirt under the redstone going to the reactor caught on fire, therefore leaving the reactor running :O
Ya mine was a glowstone pool that I had the reactor in.
A slight issue though is that if you have water surrounding the reactor, it will put out any fire.
I know the water is supposed to evaporate, but it won't if the water source is too far away (like mine, its in the ceiling).
I think the best idea is to just make something that can go a full cycle without vanishing from existence, or just make plenty of world backups.
I cant take it anymore.
Before I start my rant, I would like to state a few things:
Every possible reactor design and math problem has most likely already been done, in one form or another.
CASUC reactors with buildcraft is not new, there might be a few unique idea's left in it, but I doubt it.
redpower2 CASUC reactors was slightly new, but changing a few timers on someone elses design doesn't make you Einstein.
I kept my mouth shut when you quaintly modified brickedkeyboard's design with a few minor changes and re-posted it as "gen3" because you gave him credit for the original idea, something that you did that one time, and never again or before. You just had to get that one-up gen3 in there though.
I bit my tongue when you spammed your casuc reactors in every forum post on here even if it was totally unrelated and unwanted.
Instead of updating/editing your threads when you make a modification you choose to make a whole new thread. Actually, this one isnt THAT irritating, but frustrating when you have the same 2 threads about the exact same concept on one page.
I cant keep my mouth shut on this one.
The OP was just stating something he found accidently that he thought would help the community. Then you have to come in here and bash him saying "I designed it, its mine, gtfo for stealing my idea". He didnt even post a howto or CLAIM it was HIS idea, unlike you. I dont even know how that came off as a "look what I made" thread, I really dont.
It wasn't your idea, it never has been. I dont know whether or not nou_spiro came up with it first, and I really dont care. But the e-shutdown has been around for a while. Every single design is redstone power with water and/or heat as a trigger. You could take the water away and make a spiral redstone wire block around the reactor, its exactly the same thing. Its not original, no matter how much crap you add to it.
Even if it was an original idea and you posted proof you came up with and published it first, you still dont have to be so defensive on a post like this, the guy is not claiming anything. He said he found it out on his own accidentally, wow, what a concept.
For someone that is constantly posting his original designs and idea's, im not convinced you have come up with a single one. I'll give you credit for a nice redpower 2 designed reactor, even if it was originally a modification or not. That was a good post, and it was somewhat informative and useful. Its almost like you took the positive reinforcement that you got from that and decided to develop a complex of some sort and have been accelerating your post count and "original idea" posts ever since that.
If you really wanna help the community why dont you take some of those idea's and write a few tutorials or make some video's, instead of stalking here and claiming to be smarter, better, or original and attacking people for saying "Oh look what I accidentally found?" Also I would suggest throwing down your idea's, whether they be original or not, and let the community decide how useful they are and how long they want it on the first page instead of your current strategy where you throw your idea at every new poster within eye-shot.
I said brickedkeyboard made the original idea of the bucket generator i just improved it so it worked with 1 deployer and optimalised times.
However this guy just post exactly the same idea as if its his idea. Tripwires where new before that only spiro had a emergency shutdown and tripwires are really diferent than having water destroy a redstone torch.
Just because the 3 current emergency shutdowns are based on heat doesnt mean they are the same. Then you prolly didnt read the topics.
1.) Yes you did, and I gave you credit for that.
2.) No, he didn't post a long drown out idea or explanation, he made a statement. Maybe you didn't read the "topic". He clearly said that he found it out when his reactor accidently over heated and instead of a crater he found a broken wire. He didn't make a statement that said "gen4 nuke emergency shutdown, use wool and redstone wire" did he? He posted a simple observation of what happened to him and suggested it as an idea for a shutdown mechanism. Bravo.
3.) Yes, they are. If you really had paid attention to spiro's post and had built it yourself you would see it used redstone wire. the WIRE broke OR the torch broke, hence tripwire.
There are no 3 "current" emergency shutdowns. Its a redstone signal thats turned off once the block thats sending the signal breaks. The whole idea is a nuclear reactor receiving a redstone signal will not function. it doesn't matter if you use a torch or a wire and lever.
You need to go back and look at the post again. he had a torch powering a length of wire attached to the reactor. I modified it and actually posted a tutorial on youtube(giving him full credit because i made it from his post) about a completely different way to achieve the exact same result. In his design the block broke and/or the redstone broke, turning off the reactor, in mine, it was just a torch.
the only difference at the very slightest between the two is one is a NOT gate that is exploited to control the reactor and another is an OR gate that controls the reactor.
and for the record I didn't mean that heat was a common factor that made them all the same, I meant that the heat and destruction of the blocks are responsible for changing the NOT or the OR gates. Try again.
Edit: The other gate could be pronounced as an XOR gate I guess, or just a SGate, but for the sake of argument and adding the reactor as the subject of the power just deal with it. One version is on if the reactor overheats, and the other is off (which turns another on) if the reactor overheats.
So everything thats made with redstone is the same according to you lolz...You must be really blind if you dont see the huge diference between a tripwire system and spiro's system where water breaks a torch. The 2 are totaly diferent except in the fact a block gets destroyed and it reacts on that. If you dont believe me look at the screenshots and you will see the huge diference.
My tripwire topic was on the 1th page of this forum and you can expect ppl to atleast read the 1th page before posting. Not saying you shouldnt post any ideas that have been posted before but some credit to the original maker is nice just like i did with brickedkeyboards creation.
I understand what your saying completely. I will give you credit for the tripwire method over just the simple torch and water method, sure. I will even concede to the fact that your method of applying redstone current to a reactor when it begins to melt down is probably more efficient because its more complex, whether it actually is or not I don't know, I would assume so because there are more blocks available to get destroyed instead of the 8 I used in mine.
However your not understanding at all what I am trying to say in this, which is okay because I'm done arguing with you. I was a bit rude in my response but it wasn't even slightly more rude than your defensive posture to the OP. I'm gonna try to make myself a bit more clear here, and then I'm out of this thread, its going nowhere.
I'll even give you a little acknowledgement in the fact that the OP probably should have read a bit of the 1st page threads before he posted this.
The original idea for appplying a redstone current to a reactor during meltdown was not posted by you, so whether you have any right to be pissed over this in the first place is up for debate, but im done debating it. The OP never claimed it was his idea, he didn't post any pictures, he never once said "my design", he did nothing of the sort. All that was said was "I found this out when: ... ". Jumping on him for a single sentance post on an observation he made is a little much even if you do have a right to be angry for something. Its not like we have a ton of people posting here, try not to run people off.
At any rate I'm done here, feel free to rage at me call me blind or stupid again or whatever makes you happy, I am done. May this thread have an expedient death