Posts by mementh

Quote from Blackpalt

Strange, it was running nice and stable just 1½ week ago and this was before i implemented my safety. Changed to a mark 5 reactor after 1 cycle thought so i might have to test it again in creative. Have they changed anything major with the reactors lately?

Also it's not my reactor, that one was made by zombie quite some time ago. Have you tested if it works in eu mode?

Edit:

Made a short test with stirling and steves factory manager and it works like a charm, no problem so far. It does take something like 5 minutes before the heat output stabilizes as it needs to heat upp some components before it reaches full capacity.

http://prntscr.com/4udpi4
http://prntscr.com/4udmtk
http://prntscr.com/4udn76

The setup is extremly simple with steve's. Just one fluid port and steves puts the hot coolant into the liquid heat exchangers and then it puts it back in through the same fluid port. Code takes like 1 minute to write, doesn't get easier than this.
http://prntscr.com/4udp08

I let it run for about 20 minutes with no problem. It fluctuated less and less in heat over about 10-15 minutes untill it stabilized at 1280. Are you sure you set it up right? im using version 2.2.646 of ic2 exp

Display More

burns out on both if it would burn out on one.. you don't have enough vents and sinks to get rid of all the heat..

EU mode 1 min 5 seconds approx.. then boom ( on latest version)

i know vent got better but that design is just not workable as is its a mark 5 from the start

Quote from MauveCloud

I'm sorry, but that still doesn't make it clear what you mean by "group of fluid ports", and I'm having trouble visualizing your setup based on your description. Like Blackpalt said, some pictures would be nice. I don't understand how they would only have space for one fluid port each. However, with the 5x5x5, I think arranging several of them tightly together is a bad idea, as is putting walls between them. You want some room around them for multiple fluid ports and heat-to-energy conversion setups connected to each fluid port.

Edit: I looked again at the edited first post of this thread, which says a single reactor fluid port and LHE can handle up to 200 Hu/s. I checked in my planner, and a simple design with one quad cell (0C0D0C0000000000000D030D0000000000000C0D0C000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) will generate 192 Hu/s average (and maximum), which is close to that limit, so if you insist on only using one fluid port per reactor, you'll also have to limit yourself to one quad cell per reactor.

how can a Liquid heat exchange handle 200 hu/t ? it has space for only 10 of the heat things ( can't remember name ) ...

So i hooked up a 100 block run of cable for each type of cable..

Right now explosions/meltdowns are not in...

I xfered a from a MFSU to MFSU 1 energy crystal

3 tests

1 normal wire
2 with Xformer transforming to 2048 in place of cable 50
3 with a MFSU in place of cable 50

Glass fiber
1000000 998624
99.8624%

HV cable
1000000 956827
95.6827%

Gold
1000000 980455
98.0455%

copper
1000000 991098
99.1098%

Tin
1000000 990148
99.0148%

With a xformer in middle @ 50
Glass fiber
1000000 995926
99.5926%

HV cable
1000000 891957
89.1957%

Gold
1000000 956076
95.6076%

copper
1000000 979581
97.9581%

Tin
1000000 975246
97.5246%

With MFSU at middle 50
Glass fiber
1000000 998441
99.8441%

HV cable
1000000 956675
95.6675%

Gold
1000000 980389
98.0389%

copper
1000000 991002
99.1002%

Tin
1000000 990029
99.0029%

from what i can tell its worthless to run transformers or batteries to do anything to minimize the loss

Some cables loose ALOT via a transformer strangely.. not sure why.

IMHO a transformer or a new battery should reset the length and start over fresh...

or am i missing something?

Quote from Mine_Sasha

Hi everyone , I recently have seen that the new experimental E-Net with loss for 1.7.10 have been released and can be turned on in the configs , but I have a suggestion about the loss, when the loss of EU in cables will be completely implemented, can you add a config option for the loss per cable, so if I want to make the GlassFibre lossless, I can set the loss to 0 or if I want to make the HV cable very lossy, I can set it to 5, but don't forget to put the values by in a sidenote please. Make E-Net configurable Please

this plus a option to turn off explosions of items or just cause them to not work (Ie bad power it just wont charge the internal ammount)

Quote from Bratzi

i would nerf the new totally overpowered wind turbines and buff the liquid nuclear. especially the Steam part, since the stirlings are very easy to use, but the steam setup is a lot harder to do and requires more knowledge and experiments.

right now, fluid reactors are , sorry for that but, bullshit. with wind you can easily generate much more power. and if you really wanna use reactors, than go mox. its way cheaper and produces more energy than the fluid reactors. and with nuclear control its also nearly 100% safe.

BUT remember guys you can nerf/buff the energy output of nuclear, wind, solar, water and so on in the config

Display More

but it needs to be set as a good setting from the start! and i am bad about choosing balance propperly

Quote from psusi

The resource count for lead there is obviously way off; it does not take anywhere near that much lead or you'd be mining for a VERY long time ( lead is about as rare as uranium ). Looking at the spreadsheet, it looks like you compute the number of containment vessels needed, then divide that by 4 in cell C10, since each batch you make gives 4 vessels, but then when you compute the amount of lead and stone required, you multiplied by the original count of vessels in B9 rather than the number of batches in C10.

hehe fixed thanks yeah still alot of steel and copper

Quote from Blackpalt

I can comfirm that the high power high output reactors produce 1344 Hu/s so you need at least 14 liquid heat exchangers and a number of fluid ports that can handle thaat. I would guess you need 14 liquid ports if you are going pure ic2 exp. From the sound of it you don't have enough stirling generators to cool the reactor.

If you are using the old reactor planner you can't look at the eu/output but rather you multiply the amount of heat generated times 2 to know the amount of Hu/s it will produce. in this case it's 672*2=1344

is your 1344 a stable mark 1? or unstable other mark? (IE can you set it and forget it or do you have to have something watching it)

Quote

I never actually realised how bloody expensive the new reactors are, holy shit thats a lot of resources.

Think nuclear could use some buffing or windpower some nerfing
You
could make something like 10 wind turbines at 160 height and it would
produce 800-1000 eu/tick for about a stack of copper and tin, 400 ish
iron, 90 steel and 2880 coal powder. that does not feel right
considering the cost of that reactor

Display More

the new wind power yes.. the old was junk ...
right now from what i can tell in my current setup

a 1120 hu/t reactor gives 810 eu/t
thats 1.383 HU to make 1 EU

a 400 gives about 300 eu/t.
thats 1.33 HU to make 1 EU

wind's
only issue as far as i know is its variable.. but being honest.. does
that matter if you have excess generation to your usage over time IE you
use a MFSU to buffer the EU

so i would say nuclear compared to that is alot of work.. fun work but .... player might be better to find a way to buff it..
to
make it smarter have a internal shut down part that prevents blowing
up? ( would be a expensive part but worth it for mark 5/s or mox's)

reduce the mats to make the vents and blocks ( IE more pressure vessle blocks per... craft or making 2x the vents ?)

make the turbines last longer ( alot longer then 2 cycles ) ( right now its bugged to not ever fail?)

buffing
steam output.. IE superheated steam gives 200 eu/t and regular 100
eu/t this would also make the stierling genrator a non viable option ( I
use one on my design as a variable and one using full heat.. if both of
those gave 100 eu/t or the boiler couls stay at 100C with the 20 hu/t
but output steam randomly it would be more viable to make 2 more turbine
systems)

its as you say not viable for the cost.. as it stands i
could make a wind turbine farm cheaper then a nuke to put out much much
more energy... even with parts wearing down its more viable to go wind.
or is there something we are missing ?

will let others stew over this.. is a nuclear reactor something viable for a end game item that is not overpowered but usefull ?

Quote from Blackpalt

I would love to comment on it but i'd rather use the old reactor planner as im more used to that one.

Just from the output i know that all old mark 1 reactors still work and especially http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…adh05nlzbpykw84kwczan05q8 performs very well at precisly 1280 Hu/s.

Thats the reactor of choice i would go for with regular 5x5 reactors as it is relatively cheap, has very high efficiency and has a high output while being completly stable.

your reactor in the new simulator
0303000C0D110D0C0003030C0D0C0D0C0D0C000C0D0C0D140D110D000D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D140D140D140D140D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C

you design in the new reactor shows unstable and burns up in 62 seconds ( i tested in game to make sure, and well.. after a minute... there was no reactor) its not a mark 1 reactor its a 2 or some other number, unstable.. but manageable with addons probabbly.. it has a short cooldown period though.

the vents just can't pull 1280 heat out... the reactor planner for old shows it stable ( so you are right there ) but the new one seems to be better designed to meet the 5x5 setup.. not sure why it blew up but will let you play with it and see.. i am sure you can do better then me on making a mark 1 that gets more the 1120

Quote from Pyure

cool! Look forward to seeing the results.

So i got the video done.. building and explaining WHY and such and
letting it get stable ( 5 mins worth of time abouts) is about a hour.. i don't think i could reduce it
down anymore then i did..

http://youtu.be/_Zn7UGDkQn0

I found a small error in my calculations ( I missed 1 fluid port and 3 Fluid Regulators but my spreadsheet is updated for them)
https://docs.google.com/spread…1rFfeiAg/edit?usp=sharing

total materials is

73Glass plates

30Glass blocks/sand/macerated stone
829Tin Bars

32Lapis

1113Lead bars

1956Iron Bars

100Gold Bars

2Glowstone

83Redstone

1612Copper

979Rubber

216Stone/Cobblestone

6Wood planks

9Uranium

So i got the video done.. building and explaining WHY and such and
letting it get stable ( 5 mins worth of time abouts) is about a hour.. i don't think i could reduce it
down anymore then i did..

http://youtu.be/_Zn7UGDkQn0

I found a small error in my calculations ( I missed 1 fluid port and 3 Fluid Regulators but my spreadsheet is updated for them)
https://docs.google.com/spread…1rFfeiAg/edit?usp=sharing

total materials is

73Glass plates

30Glass blocks/sand/macerated stone
829Tin Bars

32Lapis

1113Lead bars

1956Iron Bars

100Gold Bars

2Glowstone

83Redstone

1612Copper

979Rubber

216Stone/Cobblestone

6Wood planks

9Uranium

Quote from Blackpalt

I would love to comment on it but i'd rather use the old reactor planner as im more used to that one.

Just from the output i know that all old mark 1 reactors still work and especially http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…adh05nlzbpykw84kwczan05q8 performs very well at precisly 1280 Hu/s.

Thats the reactor of choice i would go for with regular 5x5 reactors as it is relatively cheap, has very high efficiency and has a high output while being completly stable.

i will give that a try.. the problem with the old planner is it does not take the 5x5 into account and does miss some things i understood about coolin..
I will give your design a try tonight after i do my new video on the 1120

Quote from Pyure

Thx sir.

Bit of a shame really. I got into MOX because I couldn't figure out how to get fuel for a regular reactor at the time. I was hoping the 5x5 would be an upgrade, but having seriously fumbled through menenth's video walkthrough, I can't justify the extra effort.

That said, always keeping an eye on this thread for new discoveries.

Quote from MauveCloud

I hesitate to build the 5x5x5 in my survival game until there's better documentation of how to set it up, including how to tell if the external components are oriented properly (and which face to sneak-click with a wrench if they're not, which isn't always intuitive, in might in some cases even require doing that to the side facing the reactor, which would be a problem) and how to determine how many external components are needed for an arbitrary reactor design. Also, I think there was a mention earlier in this thread of getting 11mb of water for a steam generator - does that need to be exactly 11mb in a ufc, and if so, how does one get that exact amount?

Quote from Blockmaster139

I think I could get to translating mementh's video into text form for the wiki. How in depth is it? Since I haven't had the chance to watch the whole thing yet...

i plan to do a re-cover tonight to do a new showing of the 1120 design that i have bene working with

just got all the parts lists done and ready for showing ( plan to swap to survival sorta to build)

so should have a new video in the morning for you all thats ALOT shorter

Quote from Blackpalt

Sadly it does not work at all without other mods

The problem lies in that the heat production increases with reactor temperature. So its either a zero temperature mark 1 reactor (which is not really a mox design) or it is a mark 5+ reactor. From my knowledge you can't run mark 5 reactors with only ic2 exp.

The only way iv'e gotten it to work is using on/off regulation on the reactor with nuclear control and then it still only works with a very specific type of design.

The design that works is the indirect cooling design where the fuel rods does not connect to the cooling directly in any way. You instead pull heat from the reactor and make sure that all the heat that is pulled can be cooled off. you then cycle the reactor on and off while to make sure the reactor does not overheat while you let the cooling do its work.

In any of the direct cooling designs where heat is pulled from the fuel rods, as the reactor starts producing more heat, it will pull more than the components can handle untill either the reactor cools down or the components break.

From my knowledge im the only one so far that has posted working 5x5 mox designs as none of the old designs work to my knowledge. My reactor has run in survival for about 1½ cycles now which is about 15-20 hours in game time so its extremly stable. However the only gain from these types of reactor is that the efficiency is increased, the output is actually lower than regular reactors. my mox can output 750 eu/tick at the most at an efficiency of about 100. If i made a similar mox reactor of the same size it would produce something along the lines of 800-1200 eu/tick and this design would be easily automated with ic2 only and would not require a complicated steam setup. (non 5x5 designs)

As it is right now i would use the old style reactors as they produce a lot more power and it is A LOT cheaper, althought it is at a lot lower efficiency. However considering the only thing getting spent is uranium 238 im not really that concerned with efficiency in mox reactors.

Display More

or maybe use the mox in a standard nuke mark 1 to make more plutonium i guess .. nothing benifitial then

Quote from wiesshund

Yea, i took the whole thing out, reinstalled everything and now it works
go figure.

Now i need to find a reactor design that puts out a decent hot coolant flow

i posted on one My First Nuke

1120 stable reactor in there!

I apologize for "hijacking" this thread before and discussing alot of normal nuke designs.

I am curious does the 5x5 work for mox/high heat without mods at all?

or is it still the old style reactor design ?

All right i managed to figure out how to get the 1120 working stable.. ( have the fluid regulator filled and the heat exchangers full as well) and it seems to be stable long term.. got about 322m-330m EU on the 1120 VS 199m-140m eu on the 400 ( not sure what happened.. it was much less on second test)

So i worked out a spreadsheet for parts and mats and such ( there is some "waste" since some things require making for example 4 of a item when you only need 3)

I did not include wire cost to connect things since thats personal choice, nor energy for running the fluid distributors and condesors ( my advice i suggest you follow is to have those powered by seperate systems thats can't fail.. IE solar panels or spare RTG reactors ( 2 of those powered the setup here on creative.. it looked to need about 53-57 EU/t to be stable)
You don't want your fluids to build up and waste and cause eventual overheating/KABOOMS!!!

https://docs.google.com/spread…1rFfeiAg/edit?usp=sharing

I listed ALL the items i can think of the make the reactor in question

I believe i did not miss anything but i am human.. the spreadsheet breaks down by part how to make each part as best as i could figure out..

baring any major recipie changes this is the best/most stable mark 1 reactor i am aware of (unless someone has a better design and if they do i will update it)

I will be making a "how to build" video later on showing mats ( its late now)

Quote from Blockmaster139

AFAIK the EU Reader has a "power in" option, no?

Speaking of which, what does the voltage tab even mean?

Quote from Blockmaster139

AFAIK the EU Reader has a "power in" option, no?

Speaking of which, what does the voltage tab even mean?

Quote from Blockmaster139

AFAIK the EU Reader has a "power in" option, no?

Speaking of which, what does the voltage tab even mean?

will tripple check..
its also a issue of what blows up a part.. the eu/t over the wire? or voltage total?

IE i have 8 macerators in a row.. all on copper wire 32 eu/t each .. I can run 4 to equal 128 eu/t
If i hook up a CESU do they all just pop from the start ( presume so? ) or just pull whats needed ( IE like a modem computer power supply can auto switch between 120/240 volts without a switch and ?deal with diffrent hertz?) ( or is it that you have to have the power upgrade to auto switch)?

if i hook up a 128 to 32 transformer to the CESU and wire all 4 macerators in a row does the wire pop because i am pulling 128 on it for all 4?? ( IE i should use copper cable) but the machines stay ok?

This is some of the questions i have.. can't think of more.. my brain is worn out tonight and needs a recharge

Quote from Blockmaster139

Link goes to github, from there click on the releases tab

what he said

download the jar file it should run on its own if java is setup

Quote from inucune

you could always backup your save(c/p) just before upgrading ic2 everytime. that way, if you do hear explosions, you can revert, disable power, and bring it up one bank at a time.

yes.. but i don't think thats a good solution really.. not really there needs to be a way to see how much power could get to a machine with the EU reader just in case.. IE EU reader can do a draw or maybe a special machine that is made to test only and report back the levels of machines that will blow