Posts by Rick
-
-
Why do you say that? You make the ice in a compressor, you drop it in the reactor, it melts and provides cooling. Am I missing something?Last CASUC reactor i seen using ice needed ~1300 stacks of ice per cycle. In order to provide the ice fast enough you would need like 128 compresors. These compresors would suck up so much energy that both ice based and water bucket based would produce roughly same eu/tick on average. Not to mention the snow and tin needed to make the ice. Thus ice based CASUC reactors are only usable with the help of TMI or creative mode.
-
Or use the fact that water source blocks blunt explosions + obsidian.
Reinforced stone > water or obsidian
-
problem with ice is that its hard to make in the quantities needed and reactors using ice as cooling arent usable in survival ssp/smp. However a bucket based cooling system doesnt have that huge disadvantage.
-
I don't think that the obsidian pipe would work =/ The ice is fired EVERYWHERE around the chamber. I also can't use the steam engine, since it pulls 64 ice at once...
The optimal speed is when it's green, which is also hard to get if it's trying to overheat all the time...
use a water flow so they all flow to a obsidian pipe.
-
So you are simply asking to increase speed?....Just that advanced machines addon has to be added to IC.
-
Rick's reactor will explode if not submerged in water. So, both reactors have environmental installation restrictions. One will survive in a 3x3x3 pit, the other in a 5x5x5 pit. Since the discussion at hand is all about efficiency on the cheap, I would think that someone truly concerned about efficiency would take the time to install a more efficient reactor into a slightly larger pit. Honestly, I don't think clearing a 5x5x5 hole is really that big a deal ... but who knows.EDIT: In the end I really believe both these reactors are really nothing more than academic curiosities. By the time someone in an IC2 game has the resources to build either of these reactors, they've in all likelihood already got an operational 32 EU/t or bigger solar flower installed, making the tiny nuclear reactor pointless. Personally, I've never found a use for Mk-I reactors of any size. Far easier to go straight from solar flowers to a Mk-V CASUC or a Mk-IV redstone timed pure IC2 reactor.
1th mine is a mk1 yours is a mk2
2th mine can be build pretty much anywhere provided you put a 3x3x3 cube of water around it
3th my reactor was meant as a starting reactor for total nubs who dont know much about nuclear reactors thus this one is pretty much foolproof.
4th you need 40 solars to match the output of this reactor thats alot more resources than this reactor will cost. To be precise:
320 iron
320 stone
60 copper
120 rubber
160 tin
80 redstone
120 coal
120 glass
that should pretty much be the cost for 40 solars. -
qft
without feedback the world woulnt be the world it is today.
-
4 layers of reinforced stone will stop any meltdown from making a nice crater.
-
Uh no? This is a 100% uptime CASUC design. For those parties interested ... an increase of 20 heat per pulse is an overall increase of 200,000 heat over reactor lifetime.try get 35 uranium before cycle ends. It will eat your uranium so fast you cant keep up with it.
Also the 20 heat extra is nothing compared to what its already producing (1450 heat) unless your reactor runs with a very very small margin it should be no problem.
-
hmm wont those flywheels turn into epic gyroscopes? XD
-
But thats a mk2 it cant run infinite cycles like mine does. Through for more advanced users its a very good design.
-
Some ppl take minecraft too serious its a game not a reality simulator. If it was like reality 1 nuclear reactor would power thousands of macerators....
Remember its a game and its balanced like a game its not a reality simulator where its balanced to match reality. Through you do want 'some' reality in minecraft but nerfing solars by that much would break solars and nobody would ever use them again and all would switch to nuclear reactors only.
-
I have a Mk II-1 Class C (2.33) 0-chamber that averages 0.25 EU/iron/t and is 0.33 EU/iron/t during operation. The one in the OP is hardly the best, most efficient, or most powerful budget reactor out there.link?
-
Its just 20 more heat from 1454 to 1474 does that make it explode already?
Then i suggest this:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…113010101001010You wont be able to keep it running 100% of the time anyway so i removed that lone uranium cell that was lowering eff. In the end this will give you slightly more eu.
-
but why did you made the uranium like this:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…113010101001010Why not like this:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…113010101001010Quite some diference in eff with such simple change i guess your cooling system can handle that small bit of extra heat.
-
I really like the looks of this reactor. I really want to look at it up close, any chance you could upload the world?
Also, ignore Rick. He trolls anyone who has a different design than his.
Not trolling just being realistic with so many uran cells you want to get highest eff possible you cannot run it 100% of the time it just uses so much uranium. Some simple changes would improve eff by quite a bit.
-
ye per tick but it will use up your uranium fast and to keep it running you want to get more eff.
-
Reactors under 2 eff are pretty useless that measn you get only 1500000 eu per uranium cell.
-
Waste of uranium only 1.5 eff.
