Posts by snahsnah

    To prevent filling reactor with 4 quads, use toggle bus and level emitters: If level of certain cells drops below limit, just turn off the cable that goes to reactor. And maybe light up a red lamp in control room.

    For that to work, the number of cells in your AE-nework has to be related to the status of the cells in the reactor. I don't get how that would work, except if you have only 1 reactor per subsystem and that reactor doesn't use reactor heat exchangig stuff.

    This is going to be a list of reactors exchanging heat between their components and their hull. If you want to understand how and why these work, please look at the first post in this thread from Omicron, it explains it very well.
    These reactors, in comparison to the ones on Omicron's list, require more complex automation, but in return offer a higher efficiency and/or output (whichever you are going for) and they require less resources, especially diamonds, to build.

    How to automate them:
    These reactors will only maintain their heat level when they're continuosly running. I.e. they require automation that removes and replaces a used fuel rod before the reactor even notices it's gone. The time window for that is exactly 1 second.
    You can of course use slower automation, too. The reactor will lose a few heat points every cycle though, so you need to heat it back up once in a while.

    Moreover the reactors with different kinds of fuel rods in one reactor require automation that can access specific slots, since you want the fuel rod to be replaced by the same type of fuel rod every time (or you need to build something that detects which fuel rod has been taken out).

    You can do this in many ways, for example with vanilla hoppers (just one type of fuel rods) or routers.

    If you made your own reactor design, and you think it is worth adding to the list, please
    - test it ingame, not just with the reactor planner (because the planner isn't fully up to date)
    - tell me which is the exact max running eu/t before it starts melting blocks.

    The Designs
    Important: Do not flip, turn or mirror the designs, or change anything that seems irrelevant! it changes the max eu/t, which may lead to blocks melting and craters!

    0- Chambers

    • Reactor
    • 500 eu/t (stable up to 439 eu/t)
    • Efficiency 16,67 (stable up to 14,63)
    • only 1 type of rod
    • initial cost: 18 Plutonium, 36 Uranium-238, 144 Copper, 47.33 Tin, 156 Iron, 12 Lead, 32 Gold, 14 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 25 Rubber.
    • Running cost: 36 Uranium-238 per cycle

    2- Chambers

    • Reactor
    • 800 eu/t (stable up to 700 eu/t)
    • Efficiency 20 (stable up to 17,5)
    • only 1 type of rod
    • initial cost: 24 Plutonium, 48 Uranium-238, 254.6 Copper, 76.33 Tin, 250.5 Iron, 20 Lead, 60 Gold, 20 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 43 Rubber.
    • Running cost: 48 Uranium-238 per cycle

    4- Chambers

    • Reactor
    • Gregtech only, because it's probably not efficient when using regular neutron reflectors. Which makes stating the vanilla ic2 building costs completely pointless.
    • requires 4 Iridium Neutron reflectors. it's probably never going to pay back it's initial investment unless you plan on using the reflectors in a fusion reactor!
    • 700 eu/t (stable up to 604eu/t)
    • Efficiency 35 (stable up to 30,2)
    • only 1 type of rod
    • initial cost: 4 Iridium neutron reflectors + 12 Plutonium, 24 Uranium-238, 372.6 Copper, 94.3 Tin, 316.5 Iron, 28 Lead, 96 Gold, 28 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 67 Rubber
    • Running cost: 24 Uranium-238, 2 Copper, 1 Iron

    • Reactor
    • 1050eu/t (stable up to todo)
    • Efficiency 21 (stable up to todo)
    • more than 1 type of fuel rod
    • initial cost: 30 Plutonium, 60 Uranium-238, 385.9 Copper, 109.3 Tin, 340 Iron, 100 Gold, 32 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 79 Rubber
    • Running cost: 60 Uranium-238, 4 Copper, 2 Iron per cycle
    • I guess this one could use some refinement in terms of reducing the building cost.

    6- Chambers

    • Reactor
    • 1400eu/t (stable up to 1238eu/t)
    • Efficiency 23,35 (stable up to 20,65)
    • more than 1 type of fuel rod
    • initial cost: 36 Plutonium, 72 Uranium-238, 462.5 Copper, 146.3 Tin, 462.5 Iron, 36 Lead, 100 Gold, 28 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 67 Rubber
    • Running cost: 72 Uranium-238, 4 Copper, 2 Iron per cycle

    • Reactor
    • 1300eu/t (stable up to TODOeu/t)
    • Efficiency 21,65 (stable up to TODO)
    • only 1 type of fuel rod
    • initial cost: 36 Plutonium, 72 Uranium-238, 417.5 Copper, 130.8 Tin, 410.5 Iron, 7.5 Bronze, 31 Lead, 104 Gold, 30 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 73 Rubber
    • Running cost: 72 Uranium-238 per cycle

    • Reactor
    • 1900eu/t (stable up to 1670eu/t)
    • Efficiency 14.6 (stable up to 12,83)
    • more than 1 type of fuel rod
    • initial cost: 78 Plutonium, 156 Uranium-238, 451.5 Copper, 150.8 Tin, 472.3 Iron, 1.5 Bronze, 37 Lead, 84 Gold, 20 Redstone, 2 Glowstone, 2 Lapis, 43 Rubber
    • Running cost: 156 Uranium-238, 12 Copper, 6 Iron per cycle


    • determine max eu/t in new reactor designs

    Glad you like it!
    If you heat up the design and then put all the parts in, some of the hull heat will be transferred to the components through the reactor heat exchangers. They all need to be around 85% heat for the reactor to reach it's intended state. Maybe that's it?

    Edit: Haha now I know why I didn't find the URL thingy, NoScript was blocking it^^

    Modifying buckets (and cells) to not being able to carry up lava (that would cause the bucket to melt and a lava block be placed right on you) would be somethin good to balance.
    You would need metals that melt over 1000K, like aluminium.

    If I'm not mistaken, Aluminium has a melting point of about 660°C, while the melting point of iron is about 1500°C. So that wouldn't make sense. I think iron is actually the common minecraft metal with the highest melting point.
    So if iron doesn't suffice, you should have to use tungsten or something carbon based.

    On another note, would someone be so kind as to explain to me why my last post about not determining a new unification target on every startup was ignored?

    Hi there,
    first I'd like to say: I am a big fan of the mod!

    I am still playing on 1.6, so I'm sorry if this has been resolved in newer versions.

    I noticed that the unification target is determined at start up, so it can change randomly (at least it has been doing that for me).
    I think this is kinda weird, unexpected behaviour, and it also results in incompatibilities with AE, because the mod doesn't understand it successfully crafted something if it gets a different oredict version of the result.

    What do you think about setting the unification targets only once, e.g. when the configs etc. are created?

    I know, I can set the individual unification targets in the config. But I think eliminating that randomness as a standard would makes sense anyway.

    Yes I tested that. As I said, to move heat from a vent onto an exchanger, the vent needs to have higher heat. Otherwise, the exchanger wouldn't draw any heat from it.
    Since there is constantly heat being moved, each object needs to have a slightly higher heat than the last. at equilibrium, the further away a vent is from the reactor heat exchanger, the higher its heat is.
    Also this is more unstable and dangerous when heating the reactor up for the first time.

    Before reactors melted blocks at 85% heat again, the outmost vent melting was the reason I always added a recommended max heat to my designs.

    But since the way on your design is very long, I suspect that max heat % before the outmost vent melts would be below 85% again, so you lose efficiency.
    You should test it.

    I like it!
    Especially since you can automate all of them with hoppers because they only use quad cells (except if you want to use normal reflectors on the first one)

    I actually posted one very similar to the first one on here already.

    The 3rd one looks awesome!

    But you should definitely test the 2nd and 4th one ingame.

    The 2nd looks like it wont work at all - where does the heat of the OC-vents in the middle go, they should overheat, shouldn't they?

    The 4th has the problem of very long ways from the OC vents in the bottom right to the reactor heat exchangers.
    That's bad because every thing on the way from the reactor heat exchanger to the outmost OC vent has a slightly higher heat than the one before, because the heat exchangers need a gradient to actually transfer heat.
    That means it's very hard to heat up without accidentally destroying vents, or the heat at the outmost OC vent could be so high that you can't even run the reactor at 85%.
    I hope this was somewhat understandable :P
    I recommend putting the reactor heat exchangers somewhat in the middle of all vents that transport heat to it because transporting the heat over many things is bad.

    Maybe these ones will push Omicron over the edge to include them :)

    this is the one I made:
    as you can see I tried to avoid long ways from OC vents to reactor heat exchangers.


    I think you should have to work to get a basic machine. How about another rank below that?
    1. poor man's recycler
    2. basic recycler
    3. advanced recycler
    4. highly advanced recycler
    4. awesome recycler
    4. futuristic recycler
    4. optimized recycler

    I think 3 being the advanced one fit's adding a lot of new funtionality on that rank as well.
    and please (in case you haven't thought of that yourself) have the original name of the rank 5 machine in the submessage in case it's not already in the title (because of NEI).

    some ideas on 5:
    harvestor of souls
    fire of doom
    soul of the nether
    essence of the nether (all 3 e-furnace)
    tornado/hurricane centrifuge, maybe hypercane?
    accidental fusion compressor
    the unblocker (rock breaker)
    bond annihilator (electrolyzer)
    tsunami ore washer
    soul crusher
    black hole extractor

    I have no idea why there is so much destruction in my 5. list.

    Even though I used instant wire, the delay from the comparator seems to be enough to not make it work without heat loss 100% of the time. I may come up with something later, but for now, I'm not doing testing on automating reactors with more than 1 cell type anymore. :(

    I tested all of my designs except the latest 6-chamber ingame, I will do that later.
    But my designs aren't actually vulnerable to increased hull transfer. As Blackpalt described, they draw more heat out of the reactor hull than they can vent anyway, and put the rest back into the hull.

    On hopper automation:
    I recommend,
    but there are tons of other videos about it on youtube, if you don't understand it in this one.
    You can't actually put items into specific slots with hoppers.
    My plan to automate designs with different cells is to get a signal via comparator from the hopper that is pulling one type of fuel out, and sending it to the hopper that is replacing that fuel cell.
    But I have to test that because I'm not sure whether I need a pulse lengthener, and if I do, that might make the automation a little bulky.
    This would obviously only work on designs that do not require a specific placing of the rods.

    In the meantime, you could take a look at the 2- chamber I posted a few pages ago: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…9enaetb3z9oxfu72cv1r7n5t3
    It definitely works with the described methods, in fact it's powering my base right now :D

    On other Mods that can place in specific slots:
    Off the top of my head, gregtech and Steve's factory manager.
    But I'm not sure on either one of them.

    Edit: slightly wrong link, you had to click on the annotation with his newer design to get to the one I was using.

    Sure I can explain how they work. You're right, the OC vents actually transfer too much heat from the core, but the heat is given back to the core via the reactor heat exchangers.
    -> the components stay at about the same % heat as the core.
    I have to admit that I didn't test the 6-chamber ingame yet (hence the missing up to xx multiplier note), although I'm confident that it works, because I already ran various very similar reactors ingame.
    But I'm a little confused as to why the reactor planner tells you it's unstable. I get 640 for the vents as well as the core. Are you sure you didn't change something?

    Edit: The vents in your design are getting damaged because your system is not asymptotically stable, in case that means something to you. I.e. you have 2 seperate sytems of vents connected with exchangers, but because you limited the core heat transfer, they can't exchange heat with each other.
    That means if one of the two gets just one heat point more than the other, this error will accumulate.
    But I can't find the component that isn't running at full speed, so I don't know where that error comes from.

    That design principle would be the way to go though if they enable 5x multiplier mox reactors again, because they components don't get damaged, so you could actually run it at 5x.

    Since Omicron hasn't accepted that type of design i havent really put any effort into constructing them. The ones i posted above was just a quick work, proof of concept perhaps :)

    Well I gathered as much :)
    He linked that post on his list though, and I don't think they're that good of an example because, as you said, they're not that thoroughly optimized ;)

    As far as efficiency go they are a lot cheaper material wise than using vents and advanced vents and generally need larger reactors to efficiently use the overclocked heat vents which is the reason why they are interesting.

    Actually you can fit significantly more cooling into the reactor with core heat exchange. Just take a look at my 2 chamber design, it has more cooling than any other 2-chamber in this thread, and it's small. In fact it has the same fuel rod configuration as one of your 4-chambers.
    That means you can actually make them smaller, not larger.
    The only downside is the automation. But if it's fast enough, they're 100% heat stable as well, because the reactor just doesn't tick fast enough to notice the time it takes to exchange the rods.


    I did the tests, it's possible to automate core heat exchange reactors without heat loss with vanilla hoppers.
    So you don't need any other mods. Does that mean they go on the list?^^

    It's pretty easy to do for reactors using just 1 type of cells. I am still working on a method for multiple types, but I already have an idea that should work.

    Ah, I didn't get that before. Sorry for misquoting you.

    Although I'd wish you would make a category for them, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one browsing this thread who is playing with more than just IC2 (gregtech would definitely suffice).
    Blackpalts first attempts into that field don't really use the full potential of core heat transfer reactors.

    Are you using that vanilla sorting method with hoppers? It's been a long time :)
    If not (I'd guess so since that would require a lot of depleted fuel cells just sitting there unused)
    you need other mods for the automation of any reactor though.

    Still, I'm definitely going to test whether I can build something with just IC2 to properly automate core heat transfer reactors when I get home.

    Might as well go http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…z6sq1cbmc7f991navmakoldmn
    Omicron doesn't like those designs though, because they're hard to automate.
    You have to use something that can access specific slots. Although, now that I think about it, if there are equal amounts of the different types of cells in the design, like the one above, does your favourite way of automation work? What do you guys actually use to automate your reactors?

    I like the idea of making specific things unmeltable, but I can't think of a way to do that while maintaining compatibility with other mods, so we had to use e.g. gregtech's automation.
    I don't like it when mods do that.

    Let's face it - raiding gazillions of dungeon chests to get your first iridium ore is a bad system.
    It's just too random; It might take a few hours, or it might take a few weeks.

    But I think we should trust in the IC2 developpers to figure something new out instead of just going back to the old system.
    It's an experimental version after all.

    In the meantime, if you don't want to cheat, you could play gregtech with easy configs.

    yeah, I use gregtech, too, and I start with Mox because of the insane timespan it takes to centrifuge Uranium-235, too.
    I still don't see why Plutonium efficiency provides any insight into reactor design that the standard efficiency doesn't.
    And as I said I don't think it's even useful to look for high efficiency reactors, especially early in the game, because you should be turning all your plutonium into fuel to get more plutonium anyways.

    I don't understand why you would want to look at plutonium efficiency seperately, it's always just standard efficiency/3, isn't it?

    Also, even though it's counterintuitive, you should always run the reactor that uses as much fuel as possible while supplying enough power for your base.
    Why? burning fuel gets you more plutonium, and plutonium is probably your limiting factor.