It became a mark II-E that can run for infinite cycles somehow.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…woow716dngqn8ppe8pdgo1nao
EDIT: Nevermind it's a mark II-3. Still effective EU/t of 258, but safer (I guess).
Posts by paulcdejean
-
-
Sure, that might be a mark II, but this produces more EU/t effectively.
Yeah the total cooldown time is less with that sort of design, but I'm a big fan of "safety first"
If my goal was to create a computer controlled mark III or higher, then I'd make a much more efficient reactor than the one in the OP.
-
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…bmbnhmdgyiboudxl465sbjjeo
The double quad plutonium was really hard for some reason.
-
20 excess heat is all I can get out of this layout of uranium. It brings the effective EU/t to 243.8. It's a Mark III with a long generation time and a sort cool down period, but still 20 heat of a Mark I.
It's a good mark 3 reactor.Through some tinkering I managed to get the generation time up by eight minutes: Nevermind.
EDIT: I cheated: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…a7qbougp1exnny6vuqjj9vxfk
-
A refinement of the second design.
2 chambers. Same efficiency. Lower cost. Way lower running cost.
-
First one isn't good. It's just not a efficient way to use a neutron reflector each cycle.
The second one is good for its size. I wonder if I can make a more efficient 2 chamber reactor.
-
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…xka7km3j9a0diyjxpg8q7ka9s
I had to compromise by replacing one of the uranium cells with a thick neutron reflector in my design.
However maybe the talented folks in this forum can succeed where I failed and find a way to cool that 11 cell setup.
-
Yes it is. I took that reactor from the OP, but you've made it cheaper. -
Display More
U-4: (yes not much different)
Cost optimized a bit.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…ncpfjaw1flcfb3dzu7cnkjxfkReduced cost from 944.37 UUM to 785.76 UUM
-
This one is even more efficient, with a score of 24.4135852084541: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…au3q4g28pqve9ml4th4nrgr28
It's also A+ classification. Oooh shiny.
I know the cost can be optimized a bit more, but I didn't include said optimizations because this point is easier to cost optimize from and I know you folks could do a better job at it than me.
Spreadsheet I used to calculate the efficiency: https://docs.google.com/spread…SGhycXFoamxTLUZYckE&gid=1
Yes I said it took one thick neutron reflector. That's because there are two, but they each last two cycles.
EDIT: Even more efficient: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…ywjubr6t851q93ki3lnud4ao0
Sorry for the spam.
-
Alright here we go, THIS is the most efficent reactor in the thread in terms of "total profit per uranium per cycle in UUM" : http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…zdazkwkw50df7iedmult0gnpc
-
Display More
Im not sure if I did it right but it looks like that spreadsheet says your reactor is using 7 cells (and producing 36M EU) but actually using 8 leading to the wrong values. : P
Values when using 8 Uranium cells.
Profit per uranium per cycle: 4226123.875
Profit per uranium per cycle in UU-Matter: 23.62190341909484
After the fix:
Mine: 23.6219034190948 profit per uranium
Yours: 23.6349883831637 profit per uraniumSo close! You win again though.
-
Display More
Im not sure if I did it right but it looks like that spreadsheet says your reactor is using 7 cells (and producing 36M EU) but actually using 8 leading to the wrong values. : P
Values when using 8 Uranium cells.
Profit per uranium per cycle: 4226123.875
Profit per uranium per cycle in UU-Matter: 23.62190341909484
Doh. Thanks -
The "total profit per uranium per cycle in UU matter" is different depending on wheather or not you count using scrap for mass fabs. Without the use of scrap the running cost of your reactor makes it an effective eff 3 reactor (the first page has about half a dozen ones that fare better). On averadge for your reactor to reach a max eff of 4.25 you would need to feed your recyclers 3264 pieces of garbage every cycle.
Either way my reactor is more efficient than Zombie's (which has an even higher running cost). -
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…bpxw2ac8ledatqc1mspby2tj4
Same overall efficiency as reactor 9, with a cheaper construction cost.
It has way less power output though.
I prefer it because I find 6 chamber designs unwieldy to use in practice relative to 5 chamber designs.
EDIT: My reactor is the most efficient reactor in this thread when measured by "Total profit per uranium per cycle in UU matter" and it should be put in the OP because of that: https://docs.google.com/spread…SGhycXFoamxTLUZYckE&gid=1
Also if anyone out there has a reactor design that is more efficient when measured in "total profit per uranium per cycle in UU matter" then I'd be very interested in seeing it.
-
Why can't I get reactor 3 to work upside down?
-
-
Nice, but don't forget to replace your component heat exchangers with regular heat exchangers where posible.
Thanks. Saves quite a bit of gold.
-
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…aj9aqsetumxei3uehk7p401kw
Mark 1 EB
eu/tick: 165
Efficency: 3.67
Costs: Iron 185, Copper 444, Tin 65, Gold 46
Running costs: 0 UUReactor heat exchangers are secret tech.
I think this is pretty neat, but as Mesarune showed you can get slightly lower cost by adding another reactor cell.
