Sab, you need to go tell the US and the EU that fusion power can't work. They're wasting $150 billion a year on it as we speak.
Actually we probably /are/ wasting 150B a year instead of /investing/ 300 billion a year. A lot of times we try to accomplish things on budgets instead of building a more modular system that can be modified to fit a whole generation of tests instead of just one. Penny wise, pound foolish.
We already have miners.
If we had /programmable/ miners we'd need neither quarrys nor fillers.
I will elaborate however.
Fission and Fusion are reactions that alter the very structure of mater; they are not mere re-arrangements like relationships on a soap opera, but entirely new things such as trading in two bicycles for a motorcycle.
Fusion (hydrogen) is something most recently Hollywood physics bent to make Iron Man's arc reactors; the (SPOILER movie #2) adding what is effectively a reaction catalyst/medium. The giant doughnut reactor you see in the first movie is a good 'inner' view of what one of these may actually look like if built in a working way.
Fission is the easier and more realistic matter splitting type.
In both cases the general idea is that shifting the configuration of mater results in a few different pieces of mater, some 'leftover parts' that go on to further the reaction (alpha, beta, gamma; radiation) and a /lot/ of heat which can be used in more conventional energy production methods, such as steam turbines.
The Fission reactions all tend to be 'messy' because they leave a bunch of unstable leftovers laying about that can take quite a long time to stabilize. This is /partly/ due to the fact that fuel reprocessing to concentrate it back to reactor grade material is banned in the US due to a retarded fear that all such activity /could/ lead to weapons proliferation (as if dirty bombs aren't nearly as bad). Were that material reprocessed and the full energy extracted the waste products would largely fall in to two categories: things with very short half-lives (go away in a few days to weeks at most) and things with -very- long halflives (a slow trickle of radiation; extremely useful in medical applications and nuclear based batteries; possible applications in electronics).
Fusion reactions, meanwhile, are notorious for having issues actually producing a net gain of energy. I hope we'll be able to build such systems eventually, but within the short term gen III/IV fission reactors and reprocessing are the options I'd love to see in use. Remember, it wasn't the earthquake it's self that ravaged the older, poorly run and management crippled reactors in Fukushima; it was poor management and failure to account for tsunami flooding with properly laid out equipment that produced that result. Newer plants would doubtlessly be built even more idiot proof (with automated systems to do what was necessary in the first place) and with more extreme murphy's law scenario writers listened to.
For how slow it moves? Yeah, sounds legit to /me/.
As far as the energy mechanics; ouch, how very stoneage. I agree that is an inherent flaw in buildcraft its self. It's like everything is a leaky faucet that you just can't dial down to the sip of water you want.
New stuff!
- A "More Info" tab to display .. gasp .. mooore info!
- An attempt at adding breeder options.
- A resource total tab for the cost of building the reactor design from scratch.
I think there may be two glitches related to temperature and CASUC options.
1: When starting with lavacell heating (or any other form) the 'maximum' temperature should at /least/ be that.
1.b: Do partly depleted uranium cells only count heat from uranium ticks as enrichment?
2: The options for buckets/sec appear to have zero effect on actually /limiting/ the flow of buckets (if, for example, I wanted a CASUC sustained high-temp breeder with a bucket just often enough to aid in keeping a stable temperature).
Feature Request: Temperature delta per fuel cycle, temperature delta during downtime (unit/time), minimum temperature.
Read all the recent threads here (esp about MK IV and MK V reactors). Automated coolant systems require other mods, Redpower2 is best, buildcraft can work if you also have other mods that selectively extract items.
'turning off' a reactor can be done with redstone, but that only stops the uranium pulses. Think carefully.
Let's look a a typical mining op for /me/:
1 miner + pump; Diamond drill, OV Scanner. Average eU/t is ~25
Average cost to go from Y=64 to depth: ~1M eU
Yes, powering this with a Laptron crystal is the correct answer.
Integrating the scanner and drill with full/0 power seem like sound modifications to the block; it only requires 9 different damage values to encode yes/no on diamond drill and ov-scanner as options; 25 states if you also include normal drill and OD scanner charged/discharged as options.
BTW, if receiving power from Lapotron crystals this should require an advanced machine block to make. Advanced machine block based machines should /all/ be able to receive up to 512eU/t and discharge anything up to lapotron crystals.
Edit:
While I'm at it, please also integrate the pump in to the advanced miner.
What I mean is, instead of associating input and output with faces, be smarter about it. If I shift-click fuel in to a Generator it shouldn't matter the face, it should always go in to the fuel slot. Similarly if I shift click a rechargeable in it should never go to the fuel slot and always the charging slot.
It would be a wonderful improvement if the coupler could detect that the target was 'full' and not transfer any further energy. Whenever I turn these on to power anything in buildcraft they seem to simply sink whatever the maximum energy is directly in to the target machine or wooden pipe.
Is it possible to have the slot placement based on item rather than face?
yes; they also go through earth.
Excellent, I was afraid that putting in those values would try to have it use the drill on said blocks until they were broken; which wouldn't work and thus would make it get stuck.
The redstone signal need only reach the block of the teleporter. This is easy enough to do even with normal redstone.
This is not my design, it was linked via a third party I was chatting with about the design I made yesterday. It is very slightly resource cheaper.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o10101001501521s1r11r10
It too has an easy pattern to remember, though maybe not to spot. Three uranium slightly offset, a heat plating between them and the edge. Everything else is filled in by as many 3 petal IHDs as possible.
This seems like standard block behavior to me. The pads 'fill up' the cube they occupy. The redstone happily goes on top. The only solution would be to make it so that you couldn't put redstone on the pads. (think half-tile slabs)
Here's a 2.33 with less resources:
Mark I-0 EC : 35eU/t eff=2.33 Core+2
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…x6=1o10101001501521s1r11r
This is also cheaper than the 6HD design above since the chambers it adds consume HDs and other resources.
Here, this should probably blow up slightly after 15 min according to the generation time portion.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…s0=1o10101001501521s1r11r
It's designed to be a column reactor within a waterfall so that the surrounding blocks don't evaporate and rapidly shorten the lifetime.
There are no fancy components to make things complicated or make the simulator lie to you about when to stop running it.
I wonder if the miner could hold on to drills and 'scanners' if said items were fully charged/discharged? It would be absolutely lovely to stack up miners in my inventory that had that; or even if I couldn't stack miners hold them but no longer had to carry around drill and scanner.
How about this 'advanced' miner supports 512 eU/T and the advanced scanner upgrade that might actually consumer more than 128eU/t to run to justify that?
I know going from 2-3 cable types and 2 TFs + an MFS unit down to just one cable type and an MFS unit would be a MASSIVE upgrade for me.
You're crazy. The ordering is static and repeatable; yet has no reliable correlation to file time or name. Having given my above explanation I can however make a slightly educated guess that it's most likely related to the /hash/ of the filename used as the key for storing the file's information. This would explain the observed behavior perfectly.
