http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…c0=1p10101001501521s1r11r
Use the reactor planner. It has all the info and classifications you need for that layout.
Basically its a mark V, wont last long at all before it explodes, Its EU/t is 240, but because its a mark 5 and can only run a tenth of a cycle, the effective eu over longterm is about 20.
You also have a few platings and coolants that are not being used at all.
Also, ignore Rick. He trolls anyone who has a different design than his.
qft
There's nothing wrong with this, hes sacrificing eff for EU/t.
Uranium isn't hard to find, and if he was trying to save uranium, he wouldn't have posted a 1.5 eff design.
You guys should listen to yourselves.
Im not saying you posted it in the wrong place, this is just a suggestion:
This will stay on the front page alot longer in the tutorial forum
Ive been trying to use
but how do you space the mills out for yours setup?
dont even worry about spacing them... just go to the top of the world and do this:
top:
.... 
....
You can space them out a block or so from layer to layer but they generate so much EU up there you dont need too. Unless im wrong on this, every block that counts as a "obstruction" actually only lowers the windmills effective height by one, so at layer 128, those 4 should act like they are on 123ish?
1) Open faithful32whatever.zip open with winrar
2) Create a folder in said zip file named "ic2" without the quotes
3) add the contents of the OP's file in that folder, as in, copy the armor and sprites folder into the new ic2 folder.
this will work with any texture pack. Enjoy.
edit:
Good work on these Piece, nicely polished. 3 energy crystals and one diamond to you.
edit2:
Now do this for BC and RP machines. Go. 
QuoteReactor lags and will lag, if you not gonna use optifine, otherwise minecraft gets unplayable.
Offtopic. How did you get optifine to work without turning stuff into furnaces/fire ?
Is it compatible with forge now?
Edit: Comparing the resources to more conventional methods (like the 16 EU/t 32 solar panel array, a 2.33 efficiency 2 chamber reactor [35 EU/t], or a 2 efficiency 0 chamber reactor [20 EU/t]) seems like this system might be viable. -- Guess it would depend on how many buckets would be required to have everything running smoothly. [And how well the equi-distance splitting on tubes works]
Ed2: Then I build the thing, and it's epic... then I find out you have to tube in from the top to have the buckets go to the bottom slot (also +1 bucket / filter). Time for a minor redesign.
----- Then I don't realize that you would need to use a filter/transposer from the top to pull said bucket back out.... So I don't think it's possible to do with redpower.
lol I wish I had caught you before the edits bud
I laughed so hard when I read "Then I build the thing, and its epic... Then..."
I did the exact same thing with the exact same response like 4 days ago, I even built a dam around it so one side would have water touching it the whole time, and bam..
I can put buckets in, I can take buckets out, BUT I CANT PUT BUCKETS IN AND TAKE THEM OUT. I was so frustrated I spent the next hour trying combinations of transposers and filters and transposers+filters on every side.
Its not possible with redpower right now, not unless we can get an extra side to work with or a two-way transposer or maybe a two way 2 inventory slot filter.
That isn't even a little surprising..
a sort of automatic crafting table and a machine or type of pipe addon that can function like wood pipes, allowing items through one way and pulling them out another way is all rp2 machines really need atm.. If eloraam added those 2 things I would probably delete BC off my pc entirely. The only really neat thing bc did was the quarry and maybe the builders (just for coolness)
Although I will say if I was spacetoad I'd be a little ticked off.
It's worth it if you want a hands-off, always on energy source with the smallest x/z footprint and potentially no surface presence. No need to pipe energy from the surface where shit can get stolen/griefed or make ugly wind arrays in the sky.
Maybe to some people it would be.
But living underground, uranium shouldn't be hard to come by. You could make a long-lasting 20 eu/t 0 chamber reactor thats completely safe and outputs a total of 4mil eu for a fraction of the time and resources it would take to automate water mills with bc.
Im not saying your design was bad, or it was pointless. Its actually quite cool and a nice cluster you have there. 
Yeah. Its not worth it.
Unless you just REALLY wanna make something, its not worth automating a water mill cluster.
Way too many engines and loss of FPS over huge systems, not to mention all the extra resources you have to pump into that to even make it.
If it could be done with nothing but rp2 it would be a different story. Unfortunately, bc is required for it because of the way the wooden pipes work.
windgens are practically as cheap, and offer 12+ times the energy output completely unmanned if they are placed correctly. And when tin cables get buffed, they are going to be even more ridiculous. But on the other hand, I would never make a wind farm simply because its hideous. I cant play on max view distance so placing a windfarm at the top of the world irritates me. It looks like wires from space are powering my house, I would take a MASSIVE watermill farm over a few windgens every day of the week for this reason alone. Unmanned water mills should have their eu/t doubled, or you should get 2 mills for every recipe. I would also encourage wind power having at least 1 effective eu/t knocked out of it, and able to place them at layer 64 and higher without any energy loss, top of the world is retarded.
Display MoreHello,
I’ve been playing around with nuclear reactors for a few days and found out quite unpleasant thing.
Let's say we’ve got a simple reactor with no additional chambers filled according to the following layout:
It is Mark I-O EC reactor that can produce 4kk EU and emit it at a rate of 20 EU/t. We can see that it’s also very cheap, as it has only two expensive HD and four much less expensive platings.
Now let’s build four of them. We’ll get 16kk EU at a total rate of 80 EU/t, and it will cost us totally 8 HD, 16 platings, 16 cooling cells, and 8 Uranium cells, not counting 8 reactor chambers and 16 advanced circuits required to build 4 reactors.
And here it goes. I dare you to make one six-chamber Mark I-O reactor that produces 16kk EU at 80 EU/t without extra user-provided cooling. I’ve watched through couple of threads here, and the best six-chambers reactors I’ve seen were Marks II with more than one cycle providing about 50 EU/t.
Someone might think that six-chamber reactor is less resource-consuming to build that four single reactors. Well, latter do require more advanced circuits to build, but on the other hand, they need less HD that are more expensive to me.
Am I missing something? Or there really is no point in inventing and using more advanced reactors?
Yeah we've done a bit of research on this before
http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=1973
The math is so close on this that its negligible. strictly speaking the safest and most space efficient way of generating EU is several 0 or 2 chamber(at the most) reactors, or using RP and making some crazy internal cooling machine. The reason for this is that you get more external cooling off single chamber reactors than massive advanced reactors.
The entire extra chamber system should be shelved and redesigned. The columns the chambers add should add an appropriate amount of cooling to the entire reactor when submersed in water, or, at least that column should receive the same amount of external cooling because as it stands right now there are only 2 designs to use for eu/t.
2 extra chambers on a regular reactor should blow away the output on 2 single 0 chamber reactors every day of the week, thats not the way it is right now.
define automatic. If you mean an automatically feeding coolant system with bc or rp2 for casuc reactors rick or brickedkeyboard are probably your best bet to talk to. They've got some pretty good example reactors on here.
If thats not what you mean a bit more of an explanation is required.
So everything thats made with redstone is the same according to you lolz...You must be really blind if you dont see the huge diference between a tripwire system and spiro's system where water breaks a torch. The 2 are totaly diferent except in the fact a block gets destroyed and it reacts on that. If you dont believe me look at the screenshots and you will see the huge diference.
My tripwire topic was on the 1th page of this forum and you can expect ppl to atleast read the 1th page before posting. Not saying you shouldnt post any ideas that have been posted before but some credit to the original maker is nice just like i did with brickedkeyboards creation.
I understand what your saying completely. I will give you credit for the tripwire method over just the simple torch and water method, sure. I will even concede to the fact that your method of applying redstone current to a reactor when it begins to melt down is probably more efficient because its more complex, whether it actually is or not I don't know, I would assume so because there are more blocks available to get destroyed instead of the 8 I used in mine.
However your not understanding at all what I am trying to say in this, which is okay because I'm done arguing with you. I was a bit rude in my response but it wasn't even slightly more rude than your defensive posture to the OP. I'm gonna try to make myself a bit more clear here, and then I'm out of this thread, its going nowhere.
I'll even give you a little acknowledgement in the fact that the OP probably should have read a bit of the 1st page threads before he posted this.
The original idea for appplying a redstone current to a reactor during meltdown was not posted by you, so whether you have any right to be pissed over this in the first place is up for debate, but im done debating it. The OP never claimed it was his idea, he didn't post any pictures, he never once said "my design", he did nothing of the sort. All that was said was "I found this out when: ... ". Jumping on him for a single sentance post on an observation he made is a little much even if you do have a right to be angry for something. Its not like we have a ton of people posting here, try not to run people off.
At any rate I'm done here, feel free to rage at me call me blind or stupid again or whatever makes you happy, I am done. May this thread have an expedient death
Good stuff, you guys should write some step-by-step tutorials and file some more explanation behind this. Alot of users here, including myself, dont have much rp2 experience. Even though it is kinda new ;p
I said brickedkeyboard made the original idea of the bucket generator i just improved it so it worked with 1 deployer and optimalised times.
However this guy just post exactly the same idea as if its his idea. Tripwires where new before that only spiro had a emergency shutdown and tripwires are really diferent than having water destroy a redstone torch.
Just because the 3 current emergency shutdowns are based on heat doesnt mean they are the same. Then you prolly didnt read the topics.
1.) Yes you did, and I gave you credit for that.
2.) No, he didn't post a long drown out idea or explanation, he made a statement. Maybe you didn't read the "topic". He clearly said that he found it out when his reactor accidently over heated and instead of a crater he found a broken wire. He didn't make a statement that said "gen4 nuke emergency shutdown, use wool and redstone wire" did he? He posted a simple observation of what happened to him and suggested it as an idea for a shutdown mechanism. Bravo.
3.) Yes, they are. If you really had paid attention to spiro's post and had built it yourself you would see it used redstone wire. the WIRE broke OR the torch broke, hence tripwire.
There are no 3 "current" emergency shutdowns. Its a redstone signal thats turned off once the block thats sending the signal breaks. The whole idea is a nuclear reactor receiving a redstone signal will not function. it doesn't matter if you use a torch or a wire and lever.
You need to go back and look at the post again. he had a torch powering a length of wire attached to the reactor. I modified it and actually posted a tutorial on youtube(giving him full credit because i made it from his post) about a completely different way to achieve the exact same result. In his design the block broke and/or the redstone broke, turning off the reactor, in mine, it was just a torch.
the only difference at the very slightest between the two is one is a NOT gate that is exploited to control the reactor and another is an OR gate that controls the reactor.
and for the record I didn't mean that heat was a common factor that made them all the same, I meant that the heat and destruction of the blocks are responsible for changing the NOT or the OR gates. Try again.
Edit: The other gate could be pronounced as an XOR gate I guess, or just a SGate, but for the sake of argument and adding the reactor as the subject of the power just deal with it. One version is on if the reactor overheats, and the other is off (which turns another on) if the reactor overheats.
Ye nice for stealing my idea? This is my tripwire idea....Also you dont need redpower for this it can be done with vanilla too:
http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2154
I cant take it anymore.
Before I start my rant, I would like to state a few things:
Every possible reactor design and math problem has most likely already been done, in one form or another.
CASUC reactors with buildcraft is not new, there might be a few unique idea's left in it, but I doubt it.
redpower2 CASUC reactors was slightly new, but changing a few timers on someone elses design doesn't make you Einstein.
I kept my mouth shut when you quaintly modified brickedkeyboard's design with a few minor changes and re-posted it as "gen3" because you gave him credit for the original idea, something that you did that one time, and never again or before. You just had to get that one-up gen3 in there though.
I bit my tongue when you spammed your casuc reactors in every forum post on here even if it was totally unrelated and unwanted.
Instead of updating/editing your threads when you make a modification you choose to make a whole new thread. Actually, this one isnt THAT irritating, but frustrating when you have the same 2 threads about the exact same concept on one page.
I cant keep my mouth shut on this one.
The OP was just stating something he found accidently that he thought would help the community. Then you have to come in here and bash him saying "I designed it, its mine, gtfo for stealing my idea". He didnt even post a howto or CLAIM it was HIS idea, unlike you. I dont even know how that came off as a "look what I made" thread, I really dont.
It wasn't your idea, it never has been. I dont know whether or not nou_spiro came up with it first, and I really dont care. But the e-shutdown has been around for a while. Every single design is redstone power with water and/or heat as a trigger. You could take the water away and make a spiral redstone wire block around the reactor, its exactly the same thing. Its not original, no matter how much crap you add to it.
Even if it was an original idea and you posted proof you came up with and published it first, you still dont have to be so defensive on a post like this, the guy is not claiming anything. He said he found it out on his own accidentally, wow, what a concept.
For someone that is constantly posting his original designs and idea's, im not convinced you have come up with a single one. I'll give you credit for a nice redpower 2 designed reactor, even if it was originally a modification or not. That was a good post, and it was somewhat informative and useful. Its almost like you took the positive reinforcement that you got from that and decided to develop a complex of some sort and have been accelerating your post count and "original idea" posts ever since that.
If you really wanna help the community why dont you take some of those idea's and write a few tutorials or make some video's, instead of stalking here and claiming to be smarter, better, or original and attacking people for saying "Oh look what I accidentally found?" Also I would suggest throwing down your idea's, whether they be original or not, and let the community decide how useful they are and how long they want it on the first page instead of your current strategy where you throw your idea at every new poster within eye-shot.
Dont slink away too far nobody in the nuke forum takes themselves THAT seriously, I promise.
I'm sorry, but everything about that statement is wrong. You hear people say "it's going critical!" too much in fiction, when in reality, that means the reactor is functioning perfectly normally. Supercritical is still not much to worry about. Prompt Critical is what you're looking for. When translated into everyday English, it means "The reactor is about to meltdown. Get the hell outta here!" or "Well, fuck it. I'm outta here! Peace! -runs madly in the other direction-", and then there's prompt supercritical, which is entirely impossible for reactors to do.
Just though I would mention it.
Are you serious?
somebody has done research on this, and from what I remember it actually is pretty significant as far as shielding the explosion but you need a lot of it.. im having a really hard time finding the pictures but i'll edit this if I can find them
edit:
I give up. But I believe water is 5 times weaker than stone in containing an explosion, so it would have to be pretty far out unless you wanted to put in one layer of reinforced stone anyways.
But honestly, there's no reason for reactor containment unless your either making some weird buildcraft suc reactor, or your planning on having a meltdown.
there's no shortage of mark 1 and 2 designs on here. I dont contain mine at all anymore and I wont unless I decide to break down and try a buildcraft build one day.
