# "Project Alblaka" Mark I-EC Reactor [QED]

• i discovered IC^2 only a couple days ago and instantly got hooked on nuke engineering. I have a leg up in this area since i am an Computer-science professional who focuses on algorithms (pattern recognitio and computation). Something caught my attention in Albaka's post. the comment about being able to design a 2.17 Mark I-EC reactor. Simply put i wanted to do better than that

Aaaand POOF! there you go!

A 2.33(repeating) Mark I-EC reactor (squeak! JUST BARELY GOT HIM!)

Components:
3 Uranium Core
36 Cooling Core
15 Heat Distrib

Cooling synopsis:
-36/t from Cooling core
-1 from reactor
-12 from reactor chambers
-20 from water (27 aka 3x3x3 - reactor - 6chambers)
total: -67/t

Heat Generation
2 cores X 2 pulses each x 3 faces each x 2 heat per face = +24/t
1 core X 3 Pulses x 2 faces x 4 heat per face = +24/t
total +48

-21 heat diff PER TICK! (HOLY!)
output: 7 ticks ~35eu/t

great care can be taken in the adding and removal of cooling units in exchange for more individual uran rods. This however decreases the efficiency in exchange for immediate power output. (Which wasn't my original objective) if my math sticks and isverified i will begin exploration of it idea of a 50/50 on off clock based Mark II-EB/EA

Now then back to Project Alblaka!

[EDIT]: VICTORY IS MINE! Really! This time i mean it! Verify my math and prove me wrong if i am!

• i discovered IC^2 only a couple days ago and instantly got hooked on nuke engineering. I have a leg up in this area since i am an Computer-science professional who focuses on algorithms (pattern recognitio and computation). ...
[EDIT2}; argh minor number miscalculation... fixing

lol a miscalculation from a computer science professional... Did you ever work on a mars orbiter?

(sorry but you just built yourself up so high in the first paragraph that the second edit made me laugh)

All people dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their mind, wake in the morning to find
that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous people,
for they dream their dreams with open eyes, and make them come true.
--T.E. Lawrence

• I've calculated 21 extra heat (with water cooling). And testing approves it - elements are slowly depleting... It is Mk. II i think.

Blown up: Industrial Blast Furnace, Industrial Wiremill, Singularity compressor, Extractor.

• I've calculated 21 extra heat (with water cooling). And testing approves it - elements are slowly depleting... It is Mk. II i think.

yessir i was totally wrong and for got to teach my algorithm to carry a 1! however there aren't (or damned well shouldn't be since i manually checked this) any errors in the design now. Any errors that crop up shouldn't be from my math, but some known bugs with the heat distributors.

lol a miscalculation from a computer science professional... Did you ever work on a mars orbiter?

(sorry but you just built yourself up so high in the first paragraph that the second edit made me laugh)

You would not believe the number of times a 1 off error nukes (HA) and entire programming operations. I laughed myself as i face palmed really really hard. The actual error wasn't so much as math but it was using the 4 reactor hub grid rather than the all 5 grid. *facepalm!

• Quote

Heat Generation
4 cores X 2 pulses x 2 faces x 4 heat per face = +64/t

Please correct me cause I'm probably wrong :).

Shouldn't it be 3 pulses for each core. 1 for itself and 1 for each adjacent core? It should produce 60 EU/frame (5 per pulse).

4 cores x 3 pulses x 2 faces x 4 heat per face = +96/t

• With each core producing 3 pulses, 4 cores, and 2 elements surrounding each, I got 96 heat/tick as well. Your water cooling then reduces heat by 20 per tick, the reactor chambers 12, reactor itself 1, the 35 coolants for another 35... that adds up to 68. This leaves 28 heat/tick left. Unfortunately your algorithm might need to work a bit more before it comes up with the correct heat/tick value.

• With each core producing 3 pulses, 4 cores, and 2 elements surrounding each, I got 96 heat/tick as well. Your water cooling then reduces heat by 20 per tick, the reactor chambers 12, reactor itself 1, the 35 coolants for another 35... that adds up to 68. This leaves 28 heat/tick left. Unfortunately your algorithm might need to work a bit more before it comes up with the correct heat/tick value.

argleblargle! this is a problem with counting from 0 always.... assuming the 0 pules matters sad face.

• I'm pretty sure this time you've got it down, but still a bit of bad math. I count 6 reactor chambers, not 5 (you have a 6*9 grid, and 6*3 is standard no chamber reactor). So, 48 heat/tick, but with 36 coolants, 6 chambers, and the reactor itself, that alone looks to be making -1 heat/tick, unless I've got my own math wrong. Add water and you've got -21 heat/tick total (20 from the water where that 3*3*3-1-6 = 20).

• I'm pretty sure this time you've got it down, but still a bit of bad math. I count 6 reactor chambers, not 5 (you have a 6*9 grid, and 6*3 is standard no chamber reactor). So, 48 heat/tick, but with 36 coolants, 6 chambers, and the reactor itself, that alone looks to be making -1 heat/tick, unless I've got my own math wrong. Add water and you've got -21 heat/tick total (20 from the water where that 3*3*3-1-6 = 20).

yep, yep, yep, your right in full. Thanks for pointing out the -1/t error i'm certain i would never have spotted it otherwise :D. well now that i have some verification I'm moving on to a Mark II-EB 50/50 reactor which with a redstone clock it might as well be a Mark I-EB.

• [EDIT]: VICTORY IS MINE! Really! This time i mean it! Verify my math and prove me wrong if i am!

I had a 2.33 running but it came out to be a mark two, the 4 cooling cells next to your u-cells and IHD will burn out if you try to perma run this I am remembering correctly.

• I had a 2.33 running but it came out to be a mark two, the 4 cooling cells next to your u-cells and IHD will burn out if you try to perma run this I am remembering correctly.

that's strange. my setup hasn't burned out at all and i have done a 4 sets of 3 run with only a small time between. it might have something to do with orientation or placement (gridwise) that effects Alblaka's computations. Don't know what to say.
[EDIT]: after some though even if it is the case of burn out those 4 could be swapped out for distributes, and you would still retain a -17/t efficiency

• that's strange. my setup hasn't burned out at all and i have done a 4 sets of 3 run with only a small time between. it might have something to do with orientation or placement (gridwise) that effects Alblaka's computations. Don't know what to say.
[EDIT]: after some though even if it is the case of burn out those 4 could be swapped out for distributes, and you would still retain a -17/t efficiency

I very well could have made a mistake in my design just wanted to make sure you checked those 4... besides that, great job!

• No heat buildup confirmed, no c-cells will burn out with this design.

Here's proof: reactor(just click cycle)

the heat builds slightly, but levels out and stays even. No buildup in any cell.

• You can build a non-heating reactor burning 3 fuel rods in line using only 2 added chambers...

I'm gonna build 4 of those in an awesome reactor pool. 140 EU/tick here I COME!

• http://test.vendaria.net/index…HXXXXXXCHCHCHXXXXXXXXXXXX

This reactor design also fits to the 2.33 Mk I-O-C specification. While it's not as resource friendly as the above design (takes 3 more HDs), it's got an even heat distro and 0 excess heat, thus taking 3 less coolant cells.

http://test.vendaria.net/index…CXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

While not a Mark I design, it's a 2 chamber Mk II-EC (19 cycles if I do my little bit of math right). It has an excess of just 1 heat/tick, uses 9 HDs, and 18 coolant cells. Just add a third chamber and it's a Mk I-O-C though! So there, even higher resource efficiency and still keeping in the 2.33 efficiency of the uranium cells.

(Note to self: make a thread with a bunch of my designs...)

Edit: Well, Vendan's post came in before I finished making mine... so my references are to be 2 posts above. That and his design is pretty much optimal. Only other way to get an equal reactor to that is a y-axis flip of that design.

• TBH i think that there are many good designs here but I think that the point was that His reactor needs extra no external cooling noted by the fact that in water it will have -21 heat production
personally I am looking towards high power reactors which are not necessarily very efficient but they do produce lots of energy simultaneously here is a Mark II example:
http://test.vendaria.net/index…CCCCCCCHUHHUHCUCCUCCHCCHC
quite a high energy yeild for a Mark II
I can do >25% better with the iridium custom nuclear pack items but thats almost cheating

• TBH i think that there are many good designs here but I think that the point was that His reactor needs extra no external cooling noted by the fact that in water it will have -21 heat production.

I can't tell for sure because the E means pretty much nothing in terms of a Mark I reactor (both in this thread and Alblaka's tutorial posts). If it had said Mark I-IC specifically, then yes, I'd have also worked on a design fitting to the internal only cooling method. Well... I could still look into my own design that fits that anyways as well...