Posts by Omicron

    Multiple people can come up with the same design independently and it's near impossible to verify who was first. Besides, Nonotan: if nobody was allowed to use a reactor that someone else made, then this entire subforum would be pointless. Calm down a bit.

    That said, if this is indeed c4commando's design, then I will of course give him credit on the listing.

    Easy solution: Give the Energy-O-Mat upgrade slots for transformer upgrades.

    It's possible that the only reason it accepts any amount is because explosions are currently disabled. Transformer upgrades could raise both the input power and the output power.

    ...Daaaamn that's a good one :o That's like, my previous 6-chamber design stuffed into 4 chambers. And it's cheaper to boot! Have my like, good sir. I will add this to the list and throw mine out.

    Note, I will apply the same tweak as I did to turkeygiblets' 5-chamber design: add two component vents, and drop two advanced vents down to basic. This basically requires you to spend 8 extra tin, but in return you save 2 iron and 2 diamonds. That's a fairly good trade-off IMHO, what with how diamond hungry IC2 has become.

    EDIT: No, we cannot. Reactor fuels received a duration buff in build 288, they last twice as long now as they did initially. MOX does 10k seconds (as much as Uranium did in classic, and shows in the reactor planner), and Uranium does 20k seconds.

    MOX Reactor Design List

    Does not contain all designs, just some of the best currently known ones in their respective size categories. Will be updated as new designs are discovered. Got something that beats a design here? Something that fills a niche not currently covered? Post it in this thread!

    Does not include CRCS reactors - they are for advanced users, and their performance and price depends too much on the automation setup as a whole.

    Does also not include hull exchange reactors that are not heat stable while off or out of fuel, as they require automation to offset the severely degraded ease of use. If you are still interested in that kind of MOX reactor, you can find a sample list here. Note that I have not doublechecked the math on them.

    Prices are calculated by hand with a spreadsheet. The reactor planner is NOT accurate!

    0-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 450
    • Efficiency: 15
    • Building cost: 130 copper, 43 tin, 266 iron, 12 lead, 10 diamond, 8 redstone, 2 lapis, 2 glowstone, 7 rubber
    • Running cost: 36 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt
    • Safely tileable: Yes, 3 chambers

    1-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 425
    • Efficiency: 17
    • Building cost: 160 copper. 61 tin, 270 iron, 16 lead, 20 gold, 9 diamond, 18 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 37 rubber
    • Running cost: 30 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt
    • Safely tileable: Yes, 5 chambers


    • EU/tick: 600
    • Efficiency: 15
    • Building cost: 173 copper, 67 tin, 352 iron, 16 lead, 12 diamond, 8 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 7 rubber
    • Running cost: 48 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: xaix1990 / c4commando
    • Safely tileable: Yes, 5 chambers


    • EU/tick: 700
    • Efficiency: 11.65
    • Building cost: 173 copper, 35 tin, 349 iron, 16 lead, 16 diamond, 8 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 2 rubber
    • Running cost: 72 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt
    • Safely tileable: No

    2-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 550
    • Efficiency: 18.35
    • Building cost: 206 copper, 81 tin, 331 iron, 20 lead, 28 gold, 8 diamond, 22 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 49 rubber
    • Running cost: 36 U-238, 2 copper, 1 iron per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt


    • EU/tick: 750
    • Efficiency: 15
    • Building cost: 216 copper, 75 tin, 437 iron, 20 lead, 16 diamond, 8 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 7 rubber
    • Running cost: 60 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt

    3-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 600
    • Efficiency: 20
    • Building cost: 280 copper, 100 tin, 445 iron, 24 lead, 40 gold, 16 diamond, 28 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 67 rubber
    • Running cost: 36 U-238, 2 copper, 1 iron per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt


    • EU/tick: 675
    • Efficiency: 19.3
    • Building cost: 247 copper, 99 tin, 433 iron, 24 lead, 24 gold, 14 diamond, 20 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 43 rubber
    • Running cost: 42 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Omicron


    • EU/tick: 800
    • Efficiency: 13.35
    • Building cost: 250 copper, 79 tin, 413 iron, 24 lead, 32 gold. 16 diamond, 24 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 55 rubber
    • Running cost: 72 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt

    4-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 500
    • Efficiency: 25
    • Building cost: 284 copper, 131 tin, 402 iron, 28 lead, 44 gold, 8 diamond, 32 coal, 30 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 73 rubber
    • Running cost: 24 U-238, 20 copper, 32 tin, 1 iron, 32 coal per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt


    • EU/tick: 800
    • Efficiency: 20
    • Building cost: 318 copper, 119 tin, 522 iron, 28 lead. 40 gold, 18 diamond, 28 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 67 rubber
    • Running cost: 48 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt

    5-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 800
    • Efficiency: 20
    • Building cost: 293 copper, 119 tin, 491 iron, 32 lead, 32 gold, 8 diamond, 24 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 55 rubber
    • Running cost: 48 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt


    • EU/tick: 1200
    • Efficiency: 15
    • Building cost: 378 copper, 135 tin, 663 iron, 32 lead, 32 gold, 24 diamond, 24 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 55 rubber
    • Running cost: 96 U-238, 8 copper, 4 iron per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt

    6-Chamber Reactors


    • EU/tick: 1000
    • Efficiency: 20
    • Building cost: 396 copper, 153 tin, 657 iron, 36 lead, 48 gold, 22 diamond, 32 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 79 rubber
    • Running cost: 60 U-238 per cycle
    • Designed by: Blackpalt


    • EU/tick: 1500
    • Efficiency: 15
    • Building cost: 426 copper, 145 tin, 722 iron, 36 lead, 44 gold, 27 diamond, 30 redstone. 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 73 rubber
    • Running cost: 120 U-238, 10 copper, 5 iron per cycle
    • Designed by: Zombie

    The point is, you need to properly compare a reactor who manages to reach performance metric X without incurring running costs, to another reactor who also manages to reach performance metric X while incurring running costs. Maybe the first one is more expensive to build, or it is just the better design, who knows. The difference needs to be expressed somehow.

    People can still decide that the running cost is acceptable to them. Not mentioning them at all, however, will annoy those for who the cost turns out to be not acceptable.

    In the meantime, I threw together an excel sheet to calculate the material cost of components in IC2 experimental (as of build 298 at least), since the reactor planner has been completely inaccurate on that front for ages. These may still change as development progresses but even then this list is more accurate than the planner will ever be again. Unless it updates, of course.

    Gonna draft up a list of the best MOX designs we have and give them some cost ratings, similar to the official design thread.

    In 1.5 versions of GregTech and IC2, they also cost like 400-500 UU-matter worth of materials. That probably won't change much with the update - if anything I expect the price to triple or quadruple. The fact doesn't change that unless you can make it from materials you already have, it's going to kill your efficiency dead.

    Nice design! We didn't have a good 4-chamber yet. That will run at efficiency 25 too, which is outstanding. (Link-clicking is broken, you need to copy&paste from the post)

    Of course, it only works if you have excess copper, tin and coal lying around, because as soon as you start fabricating them out of UU-matter, your efficiency will take a sharp nosedive towards 0. :P

    Those are base efficiency 4. Since you can't get 100% reactor heat for the 5x multiplier and blocks melt above 85%, it's not really accurate to call them "efficiency 20". For the sake of standardization, can we please refer to MOX reactor efficiencies using the base, 0-heat values? I've seen some people mention efficiencies at ~70% heat, some at ~85% heat, and some at 100% heat, and it's confusing without adequate context.

    That's what I thought when I originally started this thread, too.

    Then I put a reactor to 9,996 of 10,000 heat just for the heck of it, and observed it complete multiple full cycles without melting a single block anywhere. Other people independently arrived at the same conclusion. I cannot tell you when this changed or why, but the current situation is that above 85% heat, the reactor randomly starts setting nearby blocks on fire instead of melting them into lava. Since the reactor itself cannot be harmed by fire, and neither can cables, this has absolutely no effect on the safe operation of the reactor. Additionally, if you encase the reactor in something nonflammable, for example glass blocks, you will not even get the fire effect at all. Thus, you can easily reach the x5 multiplier, unless you need to leave a safety buffer for automation reasons (CRCS etc).

    Additionally, Thunderdark has stated in this thread that getting MOX up to x5 is intended by design.

    So, for the sake of standardization, all values are given at the theoretical maximum, which is base efficiency x5. For further reading, have a look at post 13 on page 1 of this thread, which describes a formula to accurately calculate the efficiency of any reactor (uranium or MOX at any heat) from nothing but the EU/t value you see ingame. (Just keep in mind that the numbers used in the examples are pre-bugfix and way too high for the design in question.)

    There are two different efficiency 20 designs available, here and here. That's the best I've been able to do without relying either on condensators or coolant cells + CRCS.

    The problem is mostly the fact that any high efficiency design will run into issues with fitting enough heat spreading components next to all the cells. Without even thinking about cooling yet, it becomes incredibly difficult just to move the heat outwards quickly enough to keep the inner components from simply being overwhelmed.

    Okay, testing that design, it indeed melts down in short order. Replacing it with any other kind of vent also fails eventually. Interestingly enough, replacing the reactor plating with a reactor heat exchanger does not fail. That one runs perfectly fine, even though the reactor planner says it shouldn't, and hand-math also says so. The fuel rod is dumping 120 heat into it, and it can only transfer 72 - even with the 12 extra from 3 surrounding component vents, it shouldn't survive that. The only way this can possibly work is if the reactor exchanger got buffed.

    Hmm... buffed?

    Observe this: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…wf7zgoihr5w97ifu0820jwef4
    All I did there was replace the basic heat vent in the fourth slot of the bottom row with an advanced one. This advanced one has twice as much transfer as the basic one, and because of this, it starves another cooling component, with the result that that component isn't working at full capcity, causing the reactor to cool less heat than it outputs overall, and eventually the weakest link (the bottom right corner) fails.

    So that means, if all heat exchangers were somehow buffed, then the basic vent now acts as if it was an advanced, and voila - you have your reason why this reactor is no longer stable!

    And how could it be that heat exchangers were buffed? Well, quoting the changelog of build 288: "Reaktor run 2 time per cycle a heat and eu calculation run"
    If the heat calculation runs twice, then heat exchangers tick twice, bringing their transfer ratings to bear twice. In order to maintain the previous status quo, the transfer values of exchangers would have to be cut in half, but they were not cut in half. Hence they now work as if they were twice as good as they were before build 288.

    There is your bug, ladies and gentlemen. ;)

    (But is it a bug, or is it a feature? Maybe it's intended. I'll try and get Thunder to look at this thread, maybe he'll share what his intention was. In the meantime though, you can get your reactor stable by employing a reactor vent in place of the plating, as demonstrated above.)

    EDIT: Bug report submitted.

    Not sure if you made a typo, build 298 does NOT work properly. I tried build 215 and the reactor works as intended, so I will have a specific build number for you shortly. *rubs hands* Time to get to work!

    Erm, no. I did not make a typo. I am on build 298, and the reactor I have in my test world works flawlessly. As you can see from the remaining lifetime, it has been on for more than half its duration - i.e., for more than an entire cycle in pre-buff terms. None of the components show any signs of failing anytime soon. Mouseover damage values for all components are constant and/or flicker around a constant median. This reactor will not blow up no matter how long I run it.

    Instead, set up a reactor with this design, connect it to an industrial display panel using a sensor card, and turn it on. It is supposed to run at 0 heat, but in build 288 or newer, it will show 32 heat... for some reason more heat is being generated.

    This is perfectly normal. No reactor that employs any kind of hull transfer will stay at perfect zero at all times - after all, if there is nothing in the hull, then a component like an overclocked heat vent cannot draw anything from the hull, and therefore it cannot do any cooling and will be skipped. And a skipped cooling component will result in the next cycle being slightly more heat to handle, since the fuel rods still dumped their full rating. But since there is now excess heat in the hull, all components can draw when it is their turn and the reactor is stable.

    This is especially easy to see when it comes to heat exchangers of any kind. They balance their own heat percentage with whatever they exchange with, so if whatever they exchange with has zero heat, then the exchanger keeps itself at zero heat as well and doesn't do anything. The hull cannot ever be at 0% heat by definition if a heat exchanger is supposed to exchange heat with the hull. In fact, the heat exchnager will transfer any heat it can find into the hull in order to attempt to lift the hull heat up to the same percentage as the other components in the reactor. Refer again to the screenshot I linked above - that reactor makes heavy use of exchangers, and as you can see, many components have some amounts of heat in them. But nevertheless, they are all stable on that heat level. That is simply because that is the amount of heat they need to make the entire cascade of heat exchangers from the hottest to the coldest place in the reactor work properly.

    I will try and test this design next, maybe that will fail on me. But the one I am currently testing is rock-stable in my build.

    Yes, this has happened to everyone, because Refined Iron no longer exists ;)

    If you have NEI installed, familiarize yourself with the new recipes. There are a LOT of changes.