Posts by Shakie666

    At the time the list was assembled, you could run it at 99.9% heat because there was no melting behavior then (just spreading random fires around). Then came a moment when reactors were changed to melt indestructible blocks to stop people encasing them in such things and completely disable the random fires. Which of course had the entirely foreseeable side effect of being able to melt bedrock. This led to the melting behavior being changed again, restoring the standard melting behavior from the days of yore.

    I ultimately decided against recalculating the numbers because it was unclear where the final intent of the devs lay. And then I kind of stopped having free time so I also stopped maintaining the list. (Thankfully it seems like no new direct exchange reactors are cropping up for the time being.)

    For now, you can easily get performance at 85% by dividing output/efficiency by 5 and then multiplying by 4.4. Or just multiply by 0.88 if you're using a calculator.

    Well that's annoying. In the version of IC2 i'm using, reactors can melt anything, including themselves (which is really the only thing keeping me from running them at 9999 heat). Still, 1320 eu/t isn't much less than 1500, so I guess I can make do. Now I just have to work out how to make uranium 235...

    The list I've maintained in this thread on page six (linked from the OP) is exactly that - all of them are direct exchange reactors that are heat stable even when turned off / out of fuel. All you need is have a look at it.

    Now, I understand that you can't open the reactor planner links (though temporarily toggling your security settings down and then back up after you're done would solve the problem), but unless you tell us what you want, we cannot really help you. The answer to "could someone come up with a powerful and efficient reactor without hull exchange" is "yes, we already did that". But I could link you 0-chambers or 6-chambers, reactors focused on efficiency or focused on output, reactors with running cost and without running cost, reactors with reflectors and without reflectors, reactors with low diamond cost and ones that make diamonds cry... unless you specify your use case and/or your desired specs, it's pointless trying to guess :p

    Sorry, I didn't see the designs on page 6. I think I'll go with the 1500 eu/t one (with the 5 quad cells). Its a bit misleading to call it 1500 eu/t though, that's just the theoretical maximum (you can't reliably run it past 85% heat).

    The main disadvantage of MOX reactors is that you have to heat them up every time you want to use them. This problem can be negated by only using advanced heat vents and component heat vents, since they only pull heat out of the fuel rods and not the reactor itself, meaning it'll retain its heat forever. I saw such a design in this video, but its the efficiency is pretty bad. Since my security settings are preventing me from using the reactor planner (and because I suck at reactor design anyway), could someone come up with a more powerful/efficient reactor design, without using any components that draw heat out the reactor hull?

    While reading about MOX reactors is interesting, how exactly do you get the reactors up to these high temperatures without heating cells? Equally important is how you stop them overheating once you've got them nice and toasty.

    Omicron, I'm not on 1.6 yet so i'm not 100% on how MOX fuel works, but couldn't you just leave out 1 heat vent or something, until the reactor gets nice and hot, they put it back in? Trouble is then you'd need a cooling setup that EXACTLY matches the heat output of the fuel.

    By the way; in the face of craftable quantum generators (aka compact solars) is 8 depleted cells per uranium really that crazy?

    Nice design, though I have to wonder is an efficiency of 7 is worth the disadvantages. I'd be tempted to just go for a full-blown CRCS reactor.

    I've gone off CRCS for a while though. I've been unable to come up with a reliable way of removing and replacing the cells correctly. With RP2 in 1.4.7 or AE in 1.5.2, nothing works. These days I just use LZH condensators fed by lapis bees.

    Also, you're right about plutonium producing less heat now. Greg gave it a buff.

    Well, I meant on average 1.5 per cell. What happened is that every one of the quad plutonium cells I was using gave a stack of at least 4 depleted cells, with some giving 8 or even 12. In total, I got 96 depleted cells from 64 plutonium cells.

    I've noticed that plutonium cells seem to give a lot more depleted cells than before (appears to be about 1.5 per plutonium cell). Though its still not enough to replenish the supply of plutonium without also having loads of uranium reactors going. I guess aside from that, silk-touching uranium ore would be the quickest way to get plutonium now?

    Incidentally, I actually re-enabled the 8 depleted uranium recipe so I could actually make a nice plutonium reactor, something I couldn't do before due to its prohibitively high heat production.

    The secret is AE v12b. It permits fuzzy buses to recognize damage values of greater than or less than a particular percentage, dependent on where the item in question is in relation to that percentage.

    For example, if I set the fuzzy import bus to 25% and put in a cooling cell with LESS THAN 25%, then anything less than 25% left will automatically get pulled out.

    This is not functioning properly in versions prior to 12b, but seems to be fixed in this version.

    I see. Well then, I guess a CRCS ultra-power thingy will be a priority when my modpack gets updated.

    This, Mr Shneekey, is utterly ridiculous. That's why I love it :D

    Unfortunately, whenever I tried to get a CRCs system to work with AE, it never worked - the fuzzy buses kept ignoring the cooling cell damage values. You've apparently avoided that problem. I managed to get an ultra-powerful reactor going, but I'm using condensators instead, fed by lapis bees. I'd prefer to use CRCS, but this is less hassle to set up.

    Also: as you said, plutonium is amazing now. Not only does it have reduced heat from before (its exactly double that of uranium, which makes sense), you also get way more depleted cells - you get around 1.5 per plutonium cell, which is more than uranium.

    I hope no-one considers this a necrobump, but given how little activity this forum gets I don't think anyone will mind. I've been trying to get a CRCS system going with AE now that I have access to fuzzy buses. However, i'm not sure how to use them. I've tried them on different settings and with cooling cells with varying amounts of damage - every time it gets pulled out of the reactor. Unfortunately I can't just use precision buses because they look at the exact amount of heat stored, rather than the percentage heat as I originally thought. This means I have to use fuzzy buses. Could someone please explain how to use them in a CRCS setup?

    As a sidenote, plutonium is amazing for CRCS now. It produces 10 eu/t base and has the same efficiency scaling as uranium. However, it now only has a base heat of 8 rather than 10, meaning its stats are exactly double those of uranium. This basically means that as far as CRCS is concerned, there's no reason not to use plutonium (though of course you have to get enough of it together in the first place).

    Guys, maybe you didn't notice but the main advantage of this is space efficiency. This reactor power tower takes up a 5x5 area, giving a space efficiency of 14400/45=576eu/t/block. Thats higher even higher than an ultimate hybrid solar panel (512 eu/t/block since you can't stack them). Its sad that you have to do something this complicated to only just beats solars though.

    The only thing I can think of is that your AE network is eating up some of your power. Granted, it'd have to be a huge network to consume 460 eu/t, but if you're running the network all around your base then its not hard to imagine that happening.

    This reactor as linked in the gregtech design post isnt producing as much eu as it should. ( http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…sm9upgcbzzc239mx3b3o7pvr4 )
    I get 165 eu /t while it states that it produces 367 eu /t ? I tested in the computer cube, same thing happened.
    Were there any changes to plutonium / thorium eu/t as of gt 2.90h?

    I guess you haven't read any of this thread...

    There have been several changes, most notably the removal of the 'hybrid' effect/glitch, which caused mixed cell types to produce way more eu than they should - up to 75% more with quad thorium/single plutonium. However, the reactor planner is being mothballed AFAIK, meaning you'll need to rely on the computer cube for testing reactor setups.

    Because it can add up severely for people who play without GregTech. Direwolf20 discovered this the hard way with his lapis condensator reactor. He ended up having bigger issues trying to come up with enough copper than coming up with enough lapis. It cost him 720 copper every 2 hours 46 minutes.

    Now if you step back a moment and stop taking Mystcraft mining ages, Redpower frame tunnelbores, turtle armies, lava centrifuges and tesseract quarries for granted (because not everyone plays FTB ultimate, and not everyone has access to these technologies or even knows they exist), you can see why running costs might be daunting for some people. The zero running cost reactors are there as one option among many, not as the one end-all solution.

    What I meant is the copper costs of multi-cell reactors is made up for by the extra energy. If you used some of that extra energy to make copper out of UU matter then you'd still get more energy overall (at least I think thats what it means by overall eff). Of course in GT UU matter is more expensive so it doesn't apply there, but you can always centrfuge lava (though that can causes its own problems).

    I don't know why people are so bothered by running costs. Its only an advantage if it leads to a higher overall efficiency, which it doesn't in the case of your 1st reactor. Granted, it does for the second reactor, but there's probably a design out there with higher overall efficiency by using multiple cells.

    Anyone managed to get a CRCS reactor set up with AE fuzzy buses? Testing in the FTB 1.5.2 beta, it seems to not be able to differentiate between damaged and non-damaged 360k coolant cells, and certainly doesn't let you set a damage range to use. Precision import buses suffer from the opposite problem of being too picky about exact damage values, meaning that chances are your coolant cells will not be extracted before they melt down.

    Isn't the whole point of a fuzzy bus that it can tell if its damaged or not? Is this a bug thats being fixed? Or is it supposed to be this way?

    If it is supposed to be this way, then that would knock the skids out from under any future CRCS systems. I guess i'll have to stick to 1.4.7 for as long as possible.