[Official] New Reactors design thread.

Dang Gorzak, you have my design beat
back to the drawing board i guess

I'll submit a couple of reactors that work well
reactor 1 is a 365 eut with a running cost of 6 quad cells
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…ve5rdkqrn07w495lpr5sbo268
and a modified version with no running cost
http://two66.com/reactorplanne…rm1r7iuqn9oyrao532edf18g0

they are not the highest eut but the have less build cost.

remaide the second one.
http://two66.com/reactorplanne…tawq0cxir66qdrp5wei21q4u8

Uraniumcell dont like to be lonely try to group them togheter, then the overall reactor Happiness will increase drasticly

Regarding breeders and GregTech 3.x... what do you think of this desing? http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…00r2chc4oghtvi6mtltb1h81s

The reactor planner shows it to overheat, but single thorium cells with four neighbours dropped from 15 to 12 heat in the update, so it should be stable at 64k heat regardless of whether or not any breeding is happening (take one isotope away to check). Just 4 chambers for the maximum stack of heating cells.

I also briefly entertained the thought of using plutonium for breeding, since it pulses twice per tick and therefore should charge isotopes like nobody's business. But then I looked at the 240 heat for the single cell, lol'd IRL, and went back to thorium. If you used a double thorium cell, which costs just 1 copper per cycle, you'd have the same breeding speed as single plutonium for just 34 heat (down from currently 42).

Hey all you smart people. I just recently got into reactor design, I want to use my own creation for my first!

I came up with this one: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…827gix2wrwsmt1tjorr3rnegw

I asked a few people and they are telling me it is one of the worst they have ever seen. My question is: why?
Please keep in mind that this is only the second Mark 1 I have designed myself, so whats wrong with it?

then these people who told you that are retarded,

i think it is great for a first design.
it has a good eff, average power, its very safe and forgiving, doesnt eat copper.
8/10 for your first design.

you used a bit to much heat exchangers and 1 or 2 unnecessary OC heat vents.
Uraniumcell put their heat directly into surrounding components so you dont need the heat exchangers that close.
(currently heat exchanger usualy get used to keep the components Balanced in heat level.)

I removed 1 chamber, the platings, 2 OC vents and 8 exchangers.
here is my improvemnt:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…iiuwja4z32j22kcddcp3mascg

Wow thanks a lot, thats a nice improvement on it. I fixed the plating thing just before you posted as it does save on resources also.

Thanks again! I'll give that a try.

Updated spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spread…VHhEZzUtX0dTZ3E2aVE#gid=7

New tab for GregTech 3.04c for 1.5.2, with new numbers for plutonium, which Greg added in one of the recent updates. Makes plutonium much better. (thanks, Greg!) Although the scaling looks a bit odd. As if the double-pulsing feature only adds half output on the second pulse somehow. But hey, if it works...

Added centrifuge calculation for new plutonium numbers.

Also toyed with some different efficiency measurements in the new tab. Cell efficiencies compare each fuel type to itself, while uranium efficiencies compare all fuel types to uranium. Value efficiencies compare total output (and thus factor in runtime), while power efficiencies compare EU/t (and thus do not factor in rutime). Unsure if these metrics are of any use (cell power and cell value are always identical, for instance).

All I can say for the new plutonium numbers is... wow. Now the extra power generated more than makes up for the extra heat. The example I was thinking of, with my CRCS setup, involves a 4*2 rectangle of quad cells, with neutron reflectors on the ends. With uranium, this generates 960 eu/t and 2688 heat/t, same as before. With plutonium however, we're now looking at a whopping 2400 eu/t, and 8448 heat/t. Thats a 150% increase in power, for a 214% increase in heat. For a CRCS system, where extra heat generated is less of an issue anyway, i'd say that's pretty damn good. Thanks Greg

EDIT: Just noticed the hybrid effect is now completely gone. I wonder if the plutonium buff will make hybrid reactors still worth doing? (Not that I ever used them, too complicated for me).

The advantage of running a hybrid reactor is, for example, that it consumes both plutonium and thorium in a single reactor. Then you only need to build that one instead of multiple in order to utilize all of the centrifuge output. It may also allow you to hit a specific heat or power target better if you use thorium or uranium cells for the fine-tuning since plutonium cells would likely overshoot it.

If you're the kind of guy who builds dozens of reactors anyway, then it probably has less appeal since it's more tricky to automate (pure reactors don't need an advanced regulator, for example).

Quote from Shakie666

All I can say for the new plutonium numbers is... wow. Now the extra power generated more than makes up for the extra heat. The example I was thinking of, with my CRCS setup, involves a 4*2 rectangle of quad cells, with neutron reflectors on the ends. With uranium, this generates 960 eu/t and 2688 heat/t, same as before. With plutonium however, we're now looking at a whopping 2400 eu/t, and 8448 heat/t. Thats a 150% increase in power, for a 214% increase in heat. For a CRCS system, where extra heat generated is less of an issue anyway, i'd say that's pretty damn good. Thanks Greg

Agreed completely. I can accept a 1:3.52 EU/Heat ratio. It'll still be a bugger to work, but at least it CAN be done.

For that matter, Precise Buses and Fuzzy Buses are now in Applied Energistics as of 1.5.1. These should significantly aid in automating a reactor. Use an ME Chest as your storage buffer and you won't even need a Disk Drive or Terminal for it. And hey, it's not like you aren't producing the power necessary to keep it going... hook it up to an MFSU that feeds from the output of the reactor and you're gold. Also, if you can normalize the heat buildup of the cells, you can use Precise Buses to automate the whole blinkin' thing. Just like you can calculate based on the time, you can precisely calculate the damage value at a specific time of any given cell.

I'm still working out the details, but I'm quite excited by this.

Okay, would somebody like a design challenge? http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…nqcrvacz7dkk2a3c33bvd7ri8

I'm not sure this is even possible, but I'm not that good at cooling systems, so I'll defer to the cracks in this case. Can you cool the above using just internal vents in five chambers?

Mind you, this is for 1.5.x, meaning the heat output is not 399, but rather 625. The corners around the cross can be safely occupied by heat vents to siphon off some heat from the thorium (dual cell: 9.6, single cells: 2.4), so that leaves roughly 610 to take care of. You could use something like this to model the heat load in the current planner. Feel free to move things around and/or use other components in place of the heat vents if it helps.

Quote from ShneekeyTheLost

Agreed completely. I can accept a 1:3.52 EU/Heat ratio. It'll still be a bugger to work, but at least it CAN be done.

For that matter, Precise Buses and Fuzzy Buses are now in Applied Energistics as of 1.5.1. These should significantly aid in automating a reactor. Use an ME Chest as your storage buffer and you won't even need a Disk Drive or Terminal for it. And hey, it's not like you aren't producing the power necessary to keep it going... hook it up to an MFSU that feeds from the output of the reactor and you're gold. Also, if you can normalize the heat buildup of the cells, you can use Precise Buses to automate the whole blinkin' thing. Just like you can calculate based on the time, you can precisely calculate the damage value at a specific time of any given cell.

I'm still working out the details, but I'm quite excited by this.

To be honest, I think it would probably be simpler to use fuzzy buses (buses? bi?). Its not as if you're going to be pulling cells out of the coolers that aren't fully cooled anyway. Another thing is: with my current CRCS system (automated by RP stuff), i've noticed that cells that are only 1% damaged aren't considered to be damaged at all. I don't know if this glitch affects AE (I suspect it probably doesn't), but it would make the use of precise buses/bi a bit harder.

Having said that, i'm still an AE novice, when I update to 1.5.1 i'll have to spend quite a bit of time tinkering until I find something that works.

By the way, Omicron: what motivation do you have for your design challenge? It just seems like a rather arbitrary set of rules (only 5 chambers).

Because I have a building layout in mind where it would be visually appealing to have a few five-chamber reactors, whereas six-chamber ones wouldn't really fit.

If it can't be done I'll have to come up with something else, but it would be cool if it could fit this way.

Omicron
i bet it is possible with 6 chambers.
5 could work too but it is very dificult to do this with the reactorplanner as it has wrojng heat levels, i will try my designs later in gregtechs CC

Yeah, unfortunately I am stuck at work (and it's a slow day) so the reactor planner and my imagination is the only thing I have at my disposal :p

Hey, i played around with the planner a bit and managed to reduce the building costs of a few reactors from the first page. (at least in UU Matter)

Beginner reactor 2
new
Copper: 197 -> 175
Tin: 19 -> 17
Iron: 68 -> 73
=> UU Matter: 169.83 -> 167.46

Mid level 1
new
Copper: 399 -> 410
Tin: 63 -> 62
Iron:207 -> 201
Gold: 24 -> 20
=> UU Matter: 430.96 -> 422.17

High efficiency zero running cost reactor
new
Copper: 625 -> 598
Tin: 91 -> 88
Iron: 279 -> 272
Gold: 34 -> 28
UU Matter: 613.32 -> 587.98
Also just a slight rearrangement already saves 2 component heat vents.

They're no big improvements and probably dont matter when you're far enough to build most of them. But you never know, when it might come in handy

omicron can you post the exact heat values of every element?

with that i could work way better

It's in my spreadsheet. Dual plutonium 4-neighbour, 608. Dual thorium 1-neighbour, 9.6. Single thorium 1-neighbour, 2.4.

I've tried a few configs so far but I'm always short a few points of heat =/

with these values iam certain that a 5 chamber is possible

this should work as a 6 chamber.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…doukp1ymlu7jl5ta6ef8sxpmo
its not cost efficent...