Alright, so: MOX reactor designs.

  • Two arguments in favor of different MOX efficiency conventions:


    1. Base the efficiency numbers on EU/t alone, as outlined by Omicron above. After all, many people will use AE to automate their reactors in everything except gathering uranium ore, and won't even see the system swap cells around. This would be the most useful to the typical player, I think. It's certainly easier to calculate.


    2. Base the efficiency numbers on how much fuel actually gets burned up in the reactor, with respect to total EU gained from that material, assuming that players have access to a Thermal Centrifuge. As I don't know the various recipes myself, someone will need to fill me in here:
    - How much U235 and U238 go into a regular nuclear fuel cell?
    - How much U235, U238, and Pu does a spent regular fuel cell return when centrifuged?
    - How much U235, U238, and Pu U238 go into a MOX fuel cell?
    - How much U235, U238, and Pu does a spent MOX cell return when centrifuged?


    The efficiency could thus be described along the lines of
    TotalEnergyProducedPerCyclePerCell / (MaterialOut - MaterialIn)
    which would actually return three numbers, one each for U235, U238, and Pu. Since these are all necessarily proportional to each other for any given fuel type, only one figure need be given, except in the case of hybrid reactors.

    If you stare at my avatar hard enough, you'll notice that it consists of three triangular rings, interlocked in such a way that if you were to remove any one of them, the other two would be free to float apart.

  • Ooof, let's not go with case 2, okay? :P I'm as much for accurate models as the next guy, but that just smacks of overcomplicating things on a grand scale.


    I think JaxFireheart made a good argument for case 1, too. It makes sense to focus on power production. Having the advantage of the model being both super simple to calculate and broadly compatible is a great bonus.


    Thanks for your input, guys!

  • Omicron and ALL


    i think i have fix the MOX Fuel location in Reactor Output Bug in Build #288 but it was complex ...needed to chanage(break) the Reactor API if some other mod crash is all your fault :D:D:D

  • Why not use the 360k cooling cell? Сells do not cool the reactor with automatic replacement cell.
    Cooling takes only 360 000EU, and 3 minutes. (Full A.E.S.U ~ 50% of the heat 360k)
    Efficiency at temperature 96,896 (of 96,900) ~ 1 Quad MOX Cell 2386EUt
    Increasing the temperature is better than the use of neutron reflectors.
    Sorry for the google translation.

  • Omicron and ALL


    i think i have fix the MOX Fuel location in Reactor Output Bug in Build #288 but it was complex ...needed to chanage(break) the Reactor API if some other mod crash is all your fault :D:D:D


    Awesome :D Does Shedar know already? I assume that Nuclear Control would be rather directly affected by such a change...


    Also, can you try to explain what you meant in the changelog with:


    "Reaktor run 2 time per cycle a heat and eu calculation run
    (...)
    boost Uranium and Mox Fuel Runtime by 2"


    If you'd have an easier time explaining in German, you can do that too (maybe send PM) :)



    Why not use the 360k cooling cell? Сells do not cool the reactor with automatic replacement cell.
    Cooling takes only 360 000EU, and 3 minutes. (Full A.E.S.U ~ 50% of the heat 360k)
    Efficiency at temperature 96,896 (of 96,900) ~ 1 Quad MOX Cell 2386EUt
    Increasing the temperature is better than the use of neutron reflectors.
    Sorry for the google translation.


    Because that is a GregTech component. I try to make designs that are valid for just IC2. If an addon adds something that allows you to make an even better design, great! However, that's something only a small subset of the playerbase will get to enjoy.


    But yes, coolant cells are not half bad. MOX in general is very good with things that aren't overly useful with uranium, such as reflectors, condensators and coolant cells. That's because you can boost EU/t output without boosting heat output, and because the cycle time is only half as long. On the downside, of course, many of the heat vents and exchangers don't work properly with MOX due to hull heat exchange.


    If I was building a reactor like the one you linked, I would drop one more plate and use a second 360k coolant cell instead. That would allow the reactor to complete a full cycle without swapping coolant.


    However, I would be wary of the result you got. Almost 2400 EU/t out of a design that should do 60 EU/t with uranium tastes of bugged numbers. I think because your fuel rod is in the upper leftmost corner, you're getting the maximum possible advantage out of the location-dependant output bug that Thunderdark just fixed. You may very well see your output drop by a very large margin once you update - I would be highly surprised if you could get even a third of your current number. Maybe less than a quarter. We'll see.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Omicron ().

  • "Reaktor run 2 time per cycle a heat and eu calculation run
    (...)
    boost Uranium and Mox Fuel Runtime by 2"


    Reactor run 2 time per cycle a heat and eu calculation run <-- its a internal info people the use the API ;)
    internally runn the code 2 time first run to calculate heat..second run to calculate eu


    boost Uranium and Mox Fuel Runtime by 2.. simpel


    before 1 Uran Cell make 1.000.000 EU Total now 2.000.000 EU Total... Outpt EU / t is same... boost run time per cell

  • Ah, okay. Wasn't sure if the second line wasn't also internal and just a necessary tweak to keep external behavior consistent.


    Looking forward to future enhancements! Please don't forget neutron reflectors, the runtime boost just made them lose what little value they still had :P (You're just never done with things in game development, are you... ;))

  • Had a quick look at the new GUI today, not bad at all, the EU/t and heat are a nice touch (though eyeballing where exactly the thresholds for hurt and melt lie will require a very well practised eye). Just one thing, Thunder - please by all that is holy, center the grid! My blood pressure! :D:D


    At first glance the numbers with MOX fuel look stable, but I didn't have time to do much beyond moving a single cell around. Will take a closer look once I have more time (and once Nuclear Control checks out against the API changes).

  • Quote

    Just one thing, Thunder - please by all that is holy, center the grid


    ?? i have no room for center in the Gui....


    Build #296 fix more MOX bugs... MOX has finally the planned1-5x more Output than Uranium not 10-20x and is 100% position independently....



    confidentially..fill all reactor slot with Heatplatting is no useful... essential is the % difference between heat and maxheat.. ;)

  • ?? i have no room for center in the Gui....


    What I meant was, the reactor GUI is not in the middle, it is sitting to the left: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…0/2013-11-05_20.09.26.png


    I was making a bit of a joke about desperately needing everything perfectly aligned ;)



    And ah, so the absolute heat dependency was also a bug. Good to know. Thankfully the efficiency formula we agreed on works anyway, the numbers will just be lower. Let's see if I can test some designs now that we have a "final" release of MOX...

  • Oh snaaaap. 8|


    Well, it seems you can't get the coolant into the reactor yet, but I did notice that advanced vents (which usually don't heat up the hull) do heat up the hull when the reactor has no coolant. Looks like components are changing too, then.


    You realize this means that you need to select some poor soul on the team who gets to write a massive post like this? :P (I might volunteer to do it... maybe...)



    EDIT: In the meantime I confirmed that for now, MOX reactors are independent from absolute heat level (scaling only off of relative heat percentage), and are location independent. The reactor that previously gave me 577 to 585 EU/t now gives me 176, regardless of whether I use plating or not. That is still a satisfying 8.8 efficiency score, though... and the fuel lasts twice as long as before.


    Nuclear Control is kinda broken, reporting an output of 563 mB/t instead of 176 EU/t :D Heat monitoring remains working. MOX fuel still shows 0:00:00 for time remaining, that didn't change from older builds. Uranium shows the old runtime, but only ticks down once per two seconds.


    Screenshot: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…0/2013-11-05_21.18.54.png

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Omicron ().

  • Oh snaaaap. 8|


    Well, it seems you can't get the coolant into the reactor yet, but I did notice that advanced vents (which usually don't heat up the hull) do heat up the hull when the reactor has no coolant. Looks like components are changing too, then.


    You realize this means that you need to select some poor soul on the team who gets to write a massive post like this? :P


    its very work in progress...therefore default = false... if it is ready for All i will make a Post... but the change is complex and take some time....small hint primäry cooling circuit of a pressurized water reactor... coolant flow in...and hot coolant flow out

  • Okay, Thunder, another question:


    Compared to the screenshot in my post above,
    - MOX fuel seems to not gain any bonus from reflectors anymore: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…0/2013-11-05_21.39.15.png
    - MOX fuel seems to not gain any bonus from being grouped up anymore: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…0/2013-11-05_21.39.30.png
    - MOX fuel does still get a bonus from being a multicell: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…0/2013-11-05_21.41.33.png


    Considering the multicell bonus kind of simulates fuel rods being grouped up, and only one of the two is still true - is this working as intended?


    EDIT: grouping up still increases heat generated, but not power output: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…0/2013-11-05_21.46.46.png

  • Build 297

    Quote

    is a experimental Version ;-)

    Oh the irony :P

    145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // I just don't know what went wrong :(


    I see this too much.

  • Time for some designs!


    You can easily design a MOX reactor with the reactor planner for the time being. At 8,496 degrees, the output multiplier is 4.4 with a high degree of precision. So now that MOX runtime is the same as the old value the reactor planner shows for uranium, all that you have to do is build an uranium reactor and then multiply the "Active EU/t" and "Total EU" figures by 4.4 each in order to get the numbers this design would give with MOX in build 297, at that temperature. I cross-tested several designs ingame yesterday, and this method is reliable.



    1.) Let's start off with this design. You've seen it all before - it's the reactor I've been running my tests with. It's a reasonably good first MOX reactor because of its very high efficiency, and because it requires only 4 MOX fuel rods - and if you wonder why this is important, you probably haven't tried to produce enough plutonium for that through legit gameplay yet. An uranium reactor with 9 fuel rods would have to complete 12 cycles of 5 hours 33 minutes each in order to provide the plutonium. In other words, you would be waiting for it for a minimum off 66 hours 40 minutes. RL hours, mind - now try doing this in a singleplayer world and get back to me next month. :wacko:


    Anyway. The downside of the reactor is that it has a running cost, due to the reflectors. You need thick reflectors, and each pair is good for two cycles. If you have the resources lying around, great, go for it. Because of its high efficiency, MOX fuel is much more valid with reflectors than uranium ever was. But eventually you might want to migrate to a better design.


    If you want to spend a lot less diamonds at the cost of adding two more chambers and more pure-metal components, you can also build it like so.


    Bottomline: 2 chambers, 2 dual fuel rods, 2 reflectors. 352 EU/t, 70.4m EU/cycle, efficiency 17.6 @ 8,496 degrees



    2.) Super basic MOX reactor. This design was highly popular before because the location dependant output bug and the heat plating stacking favored it. It's not as good anymore as it used to be in the bugfixed build 297, though. It's main selling point is that it's cheap and compact to set up, but efficiency is lacking.


    This base module can be repeated over and over in the same reactor for extra output. Four such modules will fit in a 0-chamber reactor.


    Bottomline: 0 chambers, 1-4 dual fuel rods. 88-352 EU/t, 17.6-70.4m EU/cycle, efficiency 8.8 @ 8,496 degrees



    3.) The vest pocket reactor. Okay, portability probably isn't really a given when you need special equipment to heat the reactor up, but this sure is one of the most attractive 0-chamber reactors around. Decent efficiency, decent output, decently low on diamond cost.


    Bottomline: 0 chambers, 1 quad fuel rod. 264 EU/t, 52.8m EU/cycle, efficiency 13.2 @ 8,496 degrees



    4.) The reactor affectionately known as the Z-snap. Probably one of the best beginner MOX reactors around, because you can use the single fuel rods for extra-precise initial heatup without crafting an extra uranium rod that will never be used anywhere else. The major downside is that it needs 6 fuel rods to set up, which are tough to come by initially. Output and efficiency, however, are very impressive for something with zero running cost.


    Bottomline: 3 chambers, 2 single + 2 dual fuel rods. 484 EU/t, 96.8m EU/cycle, efficiency 16.13 @ 8,496 degrees



    5.) I like to call this one the tsunami, both because of its ripple shape, and because it buries you under a deluge of power. This is what you can expect, roughly, from a high-end MOX reactor with internal cooling. You can start with a smaller reactor when you have just a few fuel rods, and then later when you have enough plutonium to make 8 at once, upgrade to this while reusing pretty much all your components. It'll give you a performance you've never before seen in an internal vent cooled reactor - not even in the legendary age of GregTech hybrid reactors!


    Bottomline: 6 chambers, 2 quad fuel rods. 704 EU/t, 140.8m EU/cycle, efficiency 17.6 @ 8,496 degrees



    Now I'm eager to see what kind of designs you guys can come up with :)

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Omicron ().

  • Can you advice mods for heat control that works with latest builds? I looked on CC OpenPeripherals and IC2 NuclearControl, but don't know if I could rely on it due to last changes in exp.