Posts by albijoe

I'd like to suggest fixing condensators to work in fluid reactors, and find a way for MOX fluid reactors to output more heat. I have suggestions after my reasoning on why they need to be fixed, which is mainly "complexity should bring reward".

Fluid reactors are limited by the amount of heat they can transfer, due to the space and component limitations inherent in the fluid reactor itself. Practically, this is about 1370 HU/t. That translates to 1027 EU/t.

Fluid reactors are completely dependent on heat output to generate power. EU reactors are not.

My assumption for UC2 is "complexity brings reward".

MOX EU reactors work differently than fluid MOX reactors; the result being they are not dependant on heat and don't dramatically increase heat output the way fluid MOX does. This allows for EU MOX reactors that can put out more power than a fluid reactor, and still be simpler. This is the first issue I'd like to suggest fixing.

Condensators remove massive amounts of heat from an EU reactor, allowing for incredibly efficient models at the cost of component loss or repair. Unfortunately, they do nothing in a fluid reactor. This means a condensator EU reactor can be 3x the power of a fluid reactor at much less complexity. This is the second issue I'd like to suggest fixing.

1. Fix condensators. I suggest changing the condensator code to the following:

1. Pull heat and add to condensator, remember value

2. Vent heat

3. Add heat value a second time

This does the same thing as the current code, which I expect is "pull heat but don't vent", while also making the component work in a fluid reactor. Just adding 2x heat will break the condensator 1 tick prematurely but could be an alternative.

2. Fix MOX fluid reactors. This is much harder.

My suggestions are any of these:

1. Add code to all vents to allow additional venting when heat is above 50%, to keep up with the additional MOX heat

2. Add an "extra cooling" block that works when the reactor is over 50% heat

3. Have MOX add 100% to vented heat, not to produced heat.

Each of these would allow the MOX effect to increase the heat produced by the fluid reactor, and I think that is the point.

Suggestions to give the same level of flexibility to Fluid reactors:

1. Allow heat taken by condensators to be transferred to coolant. Possible limitation of 10,000 mB/t coolant transfer due to internal storage limitation, but that is still less than the 8520 HU/t that the condensator reactor above should have. The idea is these parts would still not "repair" heat.

MOX reactors... Can net cooling AND heat generation be modified? For example, can overclocked vents pull 40 heat and dump 32 when MOX power happens? Otherwise, MOX reactors have the same limit as regular reactors, about 1370 cooling Max from space limitation. EU reactors effectively proportion their cooling to the MOX scale, Fluid reactors don't.

Alternately, could the "MOX LIMIT" trigger just a net 2x heat to be transferred? So a MOX fluid reactor would internally create as much heat, but it would transfer 2x the amount to coolant. Again, this allows MOX to bypass the 1370 limit that exists on all fluid reactors.

Alternately, a "MOX Block" could allow additional space in the reactor for more heat transfer, or allow additional direct EU, or additional direct HU.

The highest output reactor I've seen for Fluid is about 1370 heat -> 1027 EU per tick through steam generation.

You can make a 1040 or better MOX EU reactor that will run without replacing parts, or you can make a 4260 EU reactor and replace parts, as you've shown.

I've tried to run your reactor in a fluid setup, and no heat was transferred. So yeah, that doesn't work.

I have come to the conclusion Fluid Reactors have not the same level of detail as EU, and therefore lose the flexibility to make some astounding reactors. It's a pity, because you would expect all of the extra machinery would allow Fluid to be king.

First, I would support a link to a relevant forum or post, I'm all for positive alternatives.

Nearly all free Dev / mod items have this kind of rule. It's akin to celebrities not wanting constant pictures or your parents not wanting to hear "are we there yet?" Every 5 minutes. Like your parents, the devs can make such actions illegal and enforcible. Too bad for celebrities, I guess.

Wait, how random is this chat supposed to be?

I know AE2 goes all the way to 1.11 or higher, since I grabbed it... But you seem to have worked it out.

Buildcraft can probably do it.

I've tried AE2. It has ejectors and extractors that can be filtered pretty easily. And has more flexibility than buildcraft in my opinion.

There's a random component, you have to find 4 separate patterns in meteors to progress beyond the basics for AE2.

It's also a separate set of pipes than buildcraft if you are already using that.

I don't yet automate, but I think any pull filter and push filter should work with 2 doors on the reactor. Like, pull depeleted uranium and MOX from 1 access hatch, push new from the other, and fill empty spaces with reactor plates if needed to keep things in the right place.

As for the plutonium, use MOX as half-duration uranium. That's all it is if you ignore the heat bit.

Ok, I think I'm basically done with Nuclear 201. I would love critiques on the wiki page.

I've added some how-to to the Nuclear Power tutorial, Nuclear Power 201. I've made room for examples and plan to put in some pictures, but I haven't gotten to either yet.

Ok, Assuming they last 20,000 SECONDS and they put out 5 EU per TICK, I need to multiply my results by 20.

But still, if someone has all of this in their head or notes, I could move faster

Ok, so I'm going to try to update the Nuclear Reactor Page of the wiki.

https://wiki.industrial-craft.…php?title=Nuclear_Reactor

I worry that no Wiki pages have the correct data for base Fuel Cell output, lifetime, etc.

Does anyone know or have that information available for placement here, or should I just empirical the whole thing?

EXAMPLE: This page https://wiki.industrial-craft.…le=Tutorial:Nuclear_Power Says a single cell can provide 2M to 14M power. I know I can make a 320 EU/tick reactor out of 4 quad cells. 320EU/tick*20,000 ticks, / 4 Quad Cells = 1.6M total EU provided per QUAD cell, much less from a single cell.

I also don't know how MOX ramps up per EU reactor heat over 5000.

I just realized. I should update the wiki, not make a post. I'm out of time now, but that will be my goal.

And can we unpin the old reactor planner? No disrespect, but the double-pins are a touch confusing.

And would it be worth it to have a second post on Fluid, or do people prefer one giant post?

If I built a comprehensive "how To" for nuclear reactors, both Fluid and EU versions, would it be worth something? Or is what is available good enough for IC2 & others?

The most heat I've been able to get from a reactor is 1376 HU/t. I cannot get more if it's MOX, that's not how the rules are built.

The most I've been able to get running "continuously" is 1340HU/t. The 1376 needs a bit of cool down time.

MOX doubles heat above 50% reactor core heat. Since I can't seem to get more than 1376 heat out of a reactor without blowing it up, the "double heat" is only helpful a) if you can KEEP it above 50% core heat, and b) to improve efficiency, since you can't get much more than 1370 heat anyways. If either different parts or a different mechanic for fluid MOX is implemented, this would be different.

If you shut off a reactor, it will dump its remaining heat into the coolant, so you can't just "shut it off" and hope it'll be ready to turn it on in an instant. Only the EU reactors do that.

Oh, also, are you allowing iridium reflectors in your designs?

There are... I forget what they are called, heating cells or something. You can use those. I could not get a high-heat MOX reactor that was better, or even as good, as a basic uranium reactor. It was more efficient, but not more powerful. It is SUCH a pain to get those perfectly balanced, I think it SO much easier to use MOX fuel like uranium fuel at 0 heat. Don't forget, the fluid reactor flexes it's output up and down, too...

The 1280 reactor (4x quad uranium or MOX) or the iridium 1340 reactor would be better in all ways but final efficiency.

2 qns: are you using some kind of automation?

Have you read the post on the 1370 reactor?

Summary: MOX reactors are even more of a pain in Fluid mode. I can't get it closer than +/- 1% (core heating or cooling). I recommend using MOX fuel like uranium fuel.

EU MOX reactors slowly ramp up in EU mode, creating progressively more EU. To my knowledge, their heat stays constant.

Fluid MOX reactors suddenly output 2x heat in Fluid mode but otherwise do nothing. This means it's tricky to even GET them to the right heat without them running away and blowing up, you have like 30 seconds.

EXAMPLE: Imagine the reactor put out 600 heat per tick, and you removed 500. It would heat up at 1% per tick (100 of its 10,000 capacity). At 50.001% heat, it would start emitting 1200 heat per tick. You are removing 500, so it heats up at 700 per tick, 7% of 10000. It has 50% capacity, so it will take no more than 8 ticks (57%, 64%, 71%, 78%, 85%, 92%, 99%, 106%) to explode, or melt down, or whatever it decides to do. Lava will likely happen sooner, it looks like 8500 heat / 5 ticks.

If you have the heat vent capacity to get rid of the 2x heat, you will be cooling 600 heat with 1200, and unless you dump 5701 heat into the reactor, you will not get it to ever heat up.