Posts by Korlus

    It's been a while since I last dug out the reactor planner. I was looking to find the highest efficiency possible (for fluid reactors) that is easy to automate, and I found this:


    EU/Tick: 260

    Efficiency: 4.33


    HU/s: 1199.99

    Efficiency: 11.67


    Overall Efficiency: ???

    Cost: 372 Copper, 64 Gold, 460 Iron, 10 Redstone, 30 Rubber, 125 Tin, 12 Uranium Fuel

    Running Costs: 9 Iron Plates, 6 Copper Plates

    Reactor Code: 03030C0D11090C0000030C0D0C0D0C0D0C000C0D0C0D0C0D0C09000D0C0D0C0D0C0D1100110D0C0D0C0D0C0000090C0D1109110D0C00



    I think it's one of the cheapest full size reactors I have come across, and provides a high efficiency (and so works well in a fluid reactor). I think the best automatable uranium -> HU conversion is using reflectors, but I think that this is likely a close second. In a non-Fluid setup, it can even be pushed into a five chamber design (as shown above), should you ever need to save on resources, or fit a reactor into a 3x3x2 space.


    ---


    In the quest for the "best" Fluid Reactor, I started exploring Reflector-based designs, and dug up a few older ones (with a few tweaks to make them cheaper), including this:


    EU/Tick: 260

    Efficiency: 4.33


    HU/s: 1343.86

    Efficiency: 21


    Overall Efficiency: ???

    Cost: 512 Coal, 728 Copper, 92 Gold, 4 Iridium Reinforced Plate, 485 Iron, 14 Redstone, 42 Rubber, 646 Tin, 8 Uranium Fuel

    Running Costs: 6 Iron Plates, 4Copper Plates

    Reactor Code: 2303230C09110D0C0903230C0D0C0D0C0D11230C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D110D140D140D110D11



    With ~1,350 HU/s, it appears to be near the peak of HU/s, and also simultaneously requires somewhere around the least fuel input, despite outputting the most power. I understand that makes it a slow MOX Breeder, but does anybody have a superior design for a liquid cooled reactor?

    Meanwhile, a question for everyone:
    What are the best designs that use only dual cells and no consumables or reflectors nowadays? I'm *very* rusty :P Aiming for practical efficiencies between 3 and 4, and minimzed unused space. A quick poke at the planner yielded this modification of an old MOX design of mine, which I doubt is as good as it gets... (3 chambers, two empty slots, efficiency 4.00, 160 EU/t, no running cost)
    000C0D0C0D0C0000000C0D140D14090000000D1402020D0C0000000C0D020214090000000D140D140D0C0000000C090C090C00000000


    I wasn't sure on the double-posting ettiquette, but I realised I might be able to help with this after making the initial post, I haven't been back to edit that one. Is that accepted?


    Anyway, the first post lists this:


    0D02020D000D02020D0C0D0D0C000C0D0D0C0D0C0C0D000D0C0C0D020D0D0200020D0D02020D0D0200020D0D020D0C0C0D000D0C0C0D
    As 360EU/t with an efficiency of 3, with six empty slots.


    I'm fairly sure we can do better. Here's the best I could come up with with ten minutes in the planner:


    0A140D0C000C0D140A0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D14000C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D02020C0D0C0D0C0D0C0202000C0D0C0D0C0D020200000C000C0A11
    Efficiency: 4.33
    Generates: 260EU/t
    Empty: 6 slots.
    Total Vent Cooling: 572 of 580 (max heat generated, 560)


    I'm fairly sure there's a more compact version of that design to be found.


    Pre-posting edit:


    I consulted the first post designs, and this one "Mid power low running cost" is very similar to mine in basic design, but is currently broken:
    02020C0D110A110D0C0202150C0D0C0D0C0D02020C0D0C0D0C0D12020C0D0C0D0C0D0C0A0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D120A110D0C0D110D


    It seems that if we could increase the cooling slightly, and re-adjust some of the vent distributions, it might be able to work? I tried for a while and ended up with the same numbers in a different configuration ( 02020C0D120A140D0C0202000C0D0C0D0C0D02020C0D0C0D0C0A12020C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0A0C0D0C0A0C0D120D140D0C0D140D )

    Yes... in fact, this thread's opening post from 2013 has the same fuel rod configuration with more efficient cooling, resulting in a lower build price. Thus strictly better than yours :P
    The links there are out of order (so I'm not surprised you didn't check them), but here are the codes for all the opening post reactors with the new (current) reactor planner. See "highest overall efficiency".


    Don't let it get to you though. :) The more efficient use of components comes down to knowledge of how exactly the reactor internally iterates from itemslot to itemslot for each of its "ticks", and that kind of stuff can border on the arcane. For your own work, coming up with the design you presented is quite good - you successfully identified the highest possible zero-reflector efficiency configuration possible under internal cooling, and set up a configuration for it that works reliably.


    Thanks. The old reactor planner page no longer works for me, so I had dismissed the first post as unable to be read. I'll have to go through the post that you linked to to see if I can have some more fun with the reactor planner.


    I've been looking around, and I am struggling to find an item that provides some way to directly access specific slots from within a reactor that isn't GregTech or Factorization. Do you (or anybody else) have any suggestions? Without it I am hesitant to automate some of the more complicated designs - e.g. I was looking at setting up a reactor using coolant cells and a second (single chamber) reactor to cool them, as both cells and fuel rods will need regular replacement.


    The alternative is to work on timers and select two timers which pause one another while the swap duration is on, and factor into one another such that they will never overlap. This seems plausible, but also susceptible to some form of problem (it's less fault resistant), which is not what you want when dealing with potentially explosive reactors.

    This is the best I could come up with that is both reasonable EU/t and also reasonable efficiency:


    Code: 0A140D0C0A140D140A140D0C0D0C0D0C0D140D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D140D0C0D0C0D0C000C0A0C0D0C0D0C0003020C0D140A140D0C0203
    EU/t: 280
    Efficiency:: 4.67


    Cost:
    443 * Copper
    5 * Diamond
    104 * Gold
    551.5 * Iron
    16 * Redstone
    48 * Rubber
    137 * Tin
    12 * Uranium Fuel


    It uses a mixture of dual and quad cells. I am sure that there are better designs out there. Has anybody put something together that's strictly better yet?


    Misc. Notes - 4 blocks used for generation, and 640 total vent cooling.

    In a server running on the Test Pack, Please Ignore modpack (IC2 Experimental 2.0.397), making the previously stable reactor listed in the original post as "Mid Power, low running cost" (link: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…6ucaceovy6uixc92gxt2grpxc ) is no longer stable, and overheats after a relatively short amount of time, after the Heat Exchanger in the bottom right overheats, causing the Overclocked Heat Vents around it to also go up.


    Does anybody have a simple suggestion for a solution that won't require an entire reactor redesign? I didn't think much had changed as to the internals of reactors in that build.

    Greg - I see that you've been playing Morrowind lately. Do you use much in the way of mods? I don't want to give you an unsolicited list of my favourite 20-40 mods, but it's always been one of my favourite games, and nowadays instead of keeping my install CD handy, I have a zipped file with the correct registry entries to run the modded game and save me a few hours of modding on install.


    Edit: I've been waiting to start my next Morrowind Playthrough until OpenMW is ready for it: https://openmw.org/en/
    That probably means waiting a while for me, though.

    What about THIS?
    It has a cheaper running cost (4.80UU vs 9.60UU, so half) for the same 160EU/t but costs about 100UU more to set up, making it more efficient only after about 22 full cycles. It also sits inside the same 3 chambers.


    I also have THIS, which has no running cost and 409UU for 140EU/t, which is just lower than the one above but benefits from only needing uranium (making it a slightly cheaper alternative).



    This is all regarding the first reactor design:


    The first one is *significantly* more expensive to create - 228 more copper, 72 more rubber and 62 more gold, with marginally less iron and tin (40 and 16).
    While you're correct about the UU to continue to run, measuring in UU is difficult to get your head around what with the latest changes to how UU works, or if people are using Gregtech etc. To put it in more easily comprehensible figures:


    Each cycle (2 hours, 46 minutes) uses up 32 copper vs. 16 copper - to make back the 228 copper difference in construction, you're looking at around 14 cycles (on the old system), or ~38.5 hours of run-time before you break even.



    Under the new system, using copper plates instead of dense copper plates, and with new recipes as under experimental, the cost difference to start with goes down slightly, but the run-cost difference decreases significantly.



    Depending on how you're automating, getting an equal amount of both single and dual rods can be problematic, as can getting them into the right slots.




    ... That doesn't mean it won't work for you, just that I wouldn't recommend it to somebody over the other.
    (Note: I understand the advantages, but as you've already listed them, didn't see the need to contrast)



    For the second reactor:


    It's actually a pretty good design. Having had to run 0-cost reactors for a long time, I quite like it, but again, when you're looking at higher efficiency and higher output vs. lower running cost, you come to the classic tradeoff; and the reason why there are multiple different reactors for each "type" in the first post of this topic. Depending on what you're willing to afford etc, either would be good.

    The highest efficiency reactor I've ever been able to make that has semi-decent output is basically the same as the one in the main reactors thread - credit to Zombie who made it first:
    LINK


    280 EU/t @ 4.67 efficiency. Not the easiest of reactors to automate, but it has pretty much the highest efficiency possible without the use of neutron reflectors. Also pretty decent output.



    Overall, not bad, but it costs more in everything but iron vs. the mid level #1 reactor: LINK.
    It also has greater running costs as well as setup.


    MFSUs can be set to output a redstone signal when they are full, or empty (or partially full, but that one can be problematic to use). My suggestion is either to throw another storage unit in front of it (in series), so that when the MFSU empties (and your storage gets low), turn on the reactor by sending a redstone signal.


    Alternately, the easier method for automated power generation is to use the redstone signal it can give off when full, invert it (simple redstone torch on top of a block, or a NOT gate from any redpower-type mod, and use that to turn on your reactor whenever you don't have full storage capacity.


    Water got a nerf too, otherwise they would basically be nuke proof. I think most other blast resistances have stayed the same.

    Anyone want to try for a "Most EU/t in a 4-chamber, efficiency be damned" setup? I hit 305 EU/t but it required some abomination of single/dual/quad cells in a messy setup. I can get 300 with five quads or a symmetrical setup using four quads and two duals, which is rather unpleasant. I'm sure other nuclear engineers could do better.


    The best I can manage is 260 EU/t at efficiency 3 after five or ten minutes of trying, so nowhere near your best.


    Why only four chambers?


    Edit: I made 260 in my next attempt, instead of 240. Still nowhere near 300.


    Edit #2: I made 300 and 305 a fair while later.


    Edit #3: Finally hit 320. I think you can tell it's 3am: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…w6kln7fljtnvm1b3ykfg7u2o0

    I like the idea, but not the suggestion for implementation. The reactor itself isn't a computer, so I don't much like the sound of using a disk. I'd rather just make the layout and ask it to remember it with a check box, or fill a second reactor area next to the first with "ghost items", than have to move disks around and not be able to see what was on each disk.


    At least, tat would be my preferred method of implementation. However it is done though, it would be a lovely feature. It would make automation without things like advanced regulators much easier.

    Not sure if this is the sort of thing we're after, but...


    • You can often find both Chrome and Manganese in dungeon chests, making getting stainless steel (qnd an Industrial Centrifuge) early much easier.


    I was speaking to somebody the other day complaining about bow difficult it was to get hold of them. Now if only lapis was grindable by hand we could mostly skip the sturdy grinder entirely... :p

    Steam machines have a steam vent on them. If the vent is blocked, they will stop working until they can vent.


    You can reposition the vent with a wrench. Also note that the vent will hurt you if you are standing in front ooopf IIT when it vents.

    My question is somewhat related:


    I cannot find anywhere that tells me the resistance of different cables. I was wondering if anybody had some exact values on how cables work etc? So much has changed now, I find it hard to keep track.

    Is there any chance of making Lapis Lazuli grind-able with a mortar?


    I moved up from a very old build of Gregtech (2.78f, I think?) to the most recent, and I got confused (as many others did) about the Lapis Lazuli Dust recipe. I did a quick search of the thread and found that you need a sturdy grinder to get a macerator, which does make a kind of sense. It just seems odd that it can't be ground up like most of the early ores (and similar) can be by hand.



    Question for everybody: Is Zinc purely a mid-game onwards item? I was looking to craft some Brass and all of the ways of obtaining it appear to require something akin to an Industrial Centrifuge or similar.