But if the swapping of fuel cells takes *any* time whatsoever, the core temperature will drop. The hard part is automating temperature management so that the reactor never cools down. Otherwise you would have to manually heat up the reactor every once in a while, which is not horrible I suppose, but I'd personally prefer not to.
I was running a test of my own because I wanted to try something anyway, and the temperature does seem stable (too lazy to fully test it :p ). Seems like the planner was lying once again
The automation of this reactor will be fairly complex though, but for a manual reactor it could be an option.
EDIT: Yea the buffer thing is annoying sometimes, takes ages to adjust temperature ;p Had this problem in my own designs at least. On the other hand it does give my reactor a huge burst potential
Keep in mind that with these reactors the heat generated will be gone within a few seconds after turning the reactor off, this makes it hard to keep temperature stable reactors using OC vents at a decent temperature. (Although you just gave me an idea there, so thanks ). Another thing to keep in mind is that those single reflectors will only last 1/4th of the complete cycle, and adding 4 thick reflectors is quite expensive copper-wise.
Also, I find it fishy that the core temperature is (very slowly) going up over time. If the reactor really was cooling all the heat, this would not happen. I suggest you test this design in-game first for a couple of cycles and see if the core temperature is stable.
You don't need any other addons than nuclear control for micro cycle reactors, which is not an intrusive addon (and I recommend it for anyone using ic2). CRCS reactors require some more intrusive mods/addons that not everybody might like (such as gregtech or computercraft). It can also be done by more complicated systems (that are even possible even in vanilla), but these systems have a much higher chance of derping somewhere and blowing everything to bits. I suppose the creator of the topic should decide for himself which ic2 addons are reasonable to include in this thread
None of the components will melt, because this reactor is designed to either cool all the excess heat from the OC vents, or lead it back to the reactor core. The advanced heat exchangers are meant to transfer heat to the core (and to a vent). That's why these components will adjust their heat level to the core of the reactor, because they can't transfer their heat to the core if it's hotter than the component itself. I've ran this reactor without any failures, for a couple of full fuel cycles, around 92 % heat (just to be safe).
Not only will this reactor not reach 100%, I don't recommend running it near it because it may melt some of the components. Up to 95% is safe as far as I can tell. That being said, i usually run my reactors at 84% anyway to avoid some of the nasties. Even if the components should fail, however, it will never melt down, because it will just shut down based on the temperature. However, if you manage to mess up that simple redstone circuit (it's a thermometer, a redstone wire and a not gate, ffs... ), then god help you.
And yes, if you need on-demand power, don't use this reactor. It's fairly unsuited unless you use one that creates far more heat than it can dissipate . Personally I recommend c4commando's 4 chamber design for that. If you must, however, you can just put 4 (or even 6) quad cells in there and the startup time will be around 40 seconds (or 12), which is ok, and goes automatically. With 6 quad cells at 85% heat: effi: 21.20, avg EU/t 1020 (cooldown 3/5th of the time), it is still better than any design without OC vents running at 100%, and starts up in 12 seconds according to the planner (Generation time). While heating up, the cooldown cycle isn't needed and the reactor will produce more power anyway. So during starup it actually has an avarage eu/t of 600 * 4.25 / 2 = 1275, ranging from 600 to 2550 (but the efficiency still takes a hit). Additionally, your fuel should last longer than a normal continuously running reactor (around 4.5 hours, not trusting the reactor planner). To avoid shutting this thing down every 2 seconds you can just add some mfsu buffers and draw from those when the reactor is offline, then let them fill up when it's online. Another bonus is that swapping only one kind of item is alot easier to automate. In fact, I like this one, think I'll use this myself .
I'm not saying that it's a new kind of reactor that should replace all others, but I think it's the best option in some cases.
Nice catch on the added heat exchanger, that should work
Hey guys, I've been trying out those MOX reactors and I created a 4 chamber one very close to c4commando's (but his used 4 less components or so, so it's better ). I really like that one and I'll be using that as my lower tier reactor, thanks
I've made a 6 chamber reactor design that maximizes cooling. (636 / 684) As long as you put fuel in there that produces more heat than this, it can be kept at a decent temperature by turning the reactor off for a short while. This lets the reactor cool down. Nuclear control makes it very easy to do this. The downside of this technique is that it can't be turned off and on all the time, because it will lose heat rapidly. This design is intended to run for long(er) periods of time. Just to show the different kind of fuel arrangements, I'll show two (but there are many more).
Some components will adjust their temp to the core of the reactor, so starting at around 95% reactor heat, these components might break.
Design with reflectors in the fuel compartment:
This design produces 1600 EU/t, but needs to cool down for about 1/4th of the time, so around 1200 EU/t average.
The eff is very high, at 5.33 * 5 = 26.65. Because this design produces a lot more heat than can be cooled, it starts up quickly, but does not produce as much average EU/t for the amount of fuel rods.
Design without reflectors:
This design produces 1575 EU/t, but needs to cool down for about 1/9th of the time, so around 1400 EU/t average. The eff is slightly lower, but still good, at 4.85 * 5 = 24.25. Because this reactor doesn't produce that much more heat than can be dissipated, the cooldown period is much shorter, allowing it to produce more EU/t than the previous design. However, this reactor also takes much longer to reach the desired core temperature.
* Not sure why, but the avg EU/t in the planner is misleading at best Probably because it would have the reactor cool down all the way to 0 before starting again.
* Also, the downtime is an approximation from in game tests. I don't trust the nuclear reactor planner for that.
Thought I'd also post the one with the highest EU/t I could find:
This design produces 1500 EU/t, but needs to cool down for about 1/25th of the time, so around 1440 EU/t average. The eff is in between the other two, at 5 * 5 = 25.
This one also starts up very slowly (might be better to help it a little), but it produces a very high amount of energy at a very decent efficiency. It does consume 1 thick reflector per run though.