# Does This work? (Various Cooling Tower designs)

• Okay, I was working on a crazy idea for a CRCS cooling tower, using quad-uranium cells to simulate a nearly empty cell to show heat distribution.

Instead, I get this. Which supposedly works. Even though it shouldn't.

As the observant of you have likely already noticed, this is a modular design, with a cell in the middle of a square with gold fans in the corners, component heat exchangers above and below, and component heat vents on the sides. Then copypasta this six times.

It shouldn't be cooling 96 H/s according to my calculations, however. Each of the heat exchangers should be pulling in 36 H/s, and the component vents each cooling 4/s. In other words, it should only be cooling 80 H/s, not 96. Where is the other 16 cooling per tic coming from? Have I beaten the C00ld0wn's record, or is there a glitch in the system somewhere?

It's a fairly sub-par stand-alone as is. The efficiency sucks, it's an absolute gold hog, and there are other reactors which produce more EU/t. However I don't see why it makes it to the full cycle in the first place.

• the limit of 36H/s is per side. the uranium cells heat the exchangers themselves, allowing them to distribute all of their heat to the vents. each cell has 4 vents plus 8 cooling from component vents, for a total of 96. With cooling cells instead of uranium cells, you would get your calculated 80H/s.

• I think I found a cooling tower which cools 144/t, however it only has room for two cells in a six-chamber cooling tower. Build found here, using Quad-Plutonium to demonstrate the cooling capacity.

Yes, the central gold vent is shared, however it's a marginally used vent anyways, as you can vent all available heat able to be pulled by the gold component heat exchanger with seven gold vents and simply be shy by four heat.

Due to how cooling cells transfer heat (or rather, how they don't), 144/s is the theoretical cap of cooling per second per cell, as it is the fastest you can pull heat out of them (at 36/s from the component heat exchangers, and having one on each of the four sides).

• here is another design I've worked on, however I don't know if it works as well as I think it does.

Optimally, it should be cooling 112/s from the three component heat transfers and one component heat vent. It's got enough vents to vent that much heat. And it would be able to be stacked so you get six of them in a six chamber larger version. Or just stack individual two-chamber two-cell ones. Whichever you prefer.

• I don't see how you would able to stack six coolant cells in a six chamber version without reducing the amount of cooling for each cell. the most I can get is four.

• I don't see how you would able to stack six coolant cells in a six chamber version without reducing the amount of cooling for each cell. the most I can get is four.

Hmm... point made. Yea, you can only get four, but 112 Cooling/second is still pretty boss.

• depends. the real metric for cooling tower effectiveness is amount of cooling for the cost. It doesn't matter if you need 6 or 8 cooling towers, just how much it costs to build all of them.

• depends. the real metric for cooling tower effectiveness is amount of cooling for the cost. It doesn't matter if you need 6 or 8 cooling towers, just how much it costs to build all of them.

Needing six rather than eight towers is almost certainly going to be cheaper...

Compare/contrast with the C00ld0wn towers at 95 Cooling/tic with approximately the same cost.

• it depends on the size and contents of the towers. reactor chambers are relatively cheap now. the 6 to 8 number was just an example, I haven't actually run any numbers. for example, your design that cooled 144/t per cell would not be very efficient, even though it provides maximum cooling per cell, since its cost per cooling is very high. Your other two designs seem very similar in cost, though. That would make your initial design better, as it provides 480 total cooling instead of 448.

• Size of the tower is relevant as well, since if you need 10 towers a 6 chamber will take up a *ton* of space, but 15 4 chamber reactors will be more modestly sized thanks to easy stacking.