Posts by ShneekeyTheLost

    Having problems with phantom heat with the coolmaster towers. it just seems to keep shuffling around.
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…utgf5op852o4um8 is the one that I'm using.

    Over a one and a half year necro-post. Good job!

    This information contained herein is from a previous edition and is no longer functional with the EX branch of IC2. If you notice, I even mention RP2, which should have been an indication as to just how old and out of date this post was.

    JaxFirehart got the basic principle down.

    Basically, you use Fuzzy buses and use a Greater Than 75% and Less Than 25% conditionals on the reactors. Pull out when you hit less than 25% and store in AE Network to be deposited once another cooling cell has been pulled out of the reactor.

    As an alternative to Factorization Routers (which I hate with a passion that burns with a fury greater than the GT/TiCo drama bomb), you can use Steve's Factory Manager.

    From VSWE, the author of Steve's Carts 2, this mod can slot items into and out of specific slots of multiblock structures. It does it in a manner which I find to be more intuitive, and is, in my opinion, far more powerful than Routers.

    With SFM, I could quite easily set up a CRCS Tower of Power. If only I had some way of actually transmitting that level of power, that is...

    Omicron: Nuclear control allows you to 100% automate reactor heating and cell swapping esp. when combined with GT, so microcycle MOX can be doable as long as you math component levels to a point where they do not melt.

    If that is now the case, then it should also be able to handle CRCS swapping for far higher outputs.

    It would make more sense to have it in the sea, since the sea in one area transfers more kinetic energy then a river (Well, minecrafts rivers, since they ara tiny)
    Besides, no one makes there base over sea anymore :(

    Hoover Dam and Niagara Falls Dam would respectfully disagree with you. Hence why I mentioned checking for a steep drop.

    Quite bluntly, there's a reason there's an '-EX' tacked onto the end of IC2... it is still an experimental branch. The energy network is still a Work In Progress. Until that settles down, the nuclear mechanics are likely to change without notice. So there's really no point to writing a guide at this point, because it could change completely in the next revision.

    First off, you can't get that much EU out of a reactor anymore, almost half of your EU output is completely wasted. The highest output is 2048, anything more than that and it won't work. Make it a 1 chamber reactor (chop it in half) and you are going to have a much better time with it.

    Second off, Condensators suck and are made of fail. They require tons of lapis, you're going to be consuming more than one lapis per second. You'll quickly find that you simply can't keep up with that, not unless you've got an entire Mystcraft dimension full of 128 Alveries all of whom have Lapis Bees with the highest production output trait. Trying to make Lapis with UUM will make you end up spending more EU/t on the lapis than you are producing, making it a net negative energy value.

    Yes, you'd figure that Condensators would work well with MOX, but once you run the numbers, you'll find it's not actually a good deal after all.

    How so, Shneekey? Just use more transformers. LezChap is already doing it. All you need to do is ensure that you actually consume the power on the other end - and if you are not, then why are you running a high output reactor in the first place :P The current situation is no different that classic IC2. Back then you had HV transformers letting through 2048 EU/t, nowadays you have EV transformers letting through 2048 EU/t. The name of the device is different, the function remains identical (and in fact you got a bigger safety margin due to the higher power tolerance of the EV transformer). If you could do it back then, you can do it now. The only thing that really changed is that reactors got significantly more powerful through MOX fuel, and I sure hope you're not complaining about a much-needed buff...?

    Worries about MFSUs filling up can be dealt with using for example range triggers from Nuclear Control (which you really should have installed anyway if you're playing with MOX). Might take a fairly large sized AND gate if you have many receiving MFSUs, but I don't see any way it could fail you. Something like Immibis RedLogic can shrink it down a lot too.

    LezChap: good point with the safety margin.

    I think there is a communication disconnect...

    Say I've got a reactor outputting something like 8k EU/t. I've got enough stuff running where I actually need that kind of output. However, I'm only going to be able to get 2048 EU/t through my transformer, and it's going to fry anything else. So basically, I've just throttled my potential 8k output down to a quarter of that. 6k EU/t just got completely wasted just so the energy can interact with my machines.

    I was talking about Tower of Power MOX reactor builds with theoretical outputs around 20k. Completely impossible now, due to the revamp. Nothing can handle that much power output in the line, regardless of how many sources provide it, and stepping it down just truncates the power output.

    MOX reactors were initially buggy and got fixed in build #288-#297. Previously you got a lot more additional multipliers out of the reactor's absolute heat value and out of how close the fuel rods were to the upper left corner of the reactor GUI, neither of which was ever intended. Now you only get the one intended multiplier, which is percentage of maximum heat, and it scales up to x5 at 99.9% hull temperature. If you dare go so high, that is.

    For the same reason, you can ditch all your heat plating and just stuff your fuel rods into a 0-chamber reactor - it makes no difference anymore in your case.

    And no, transformers do not output per side. They will always output a quarter of their rated power in step-down mode, and if you connect to multiple sides, it will simply be split between them. You do not get more than 2048 EU/t out of an EV transformer in step-down mode, no matter what you do.

    In other words, high EU output builds are completely worthless because transformers truncate any additional EU's. Gotcha.

    So, no builds which can produce more than 8k EU/t are worth bothering with. Good to know. Kinda kicks my plans in the teeth, though. Imagine a Tower of Power with MOX reactors... such a sight shall now never be.

    I've got the right version of AE, I tested it in creative (only exploded two reactors, once from forgetting to change the damage value split on the removing bus and once from forgetting to power the ME Network)

    Only two? Wow, you're a quick study!


    Second, for getting energy out of nuclear reactors - are there any machines in IC2 (no GT) that can directly take >2048 EU/t, or do I have to step it down with multiple HV transformers?

    Nope, you're going to have to use multiple HV Transformers... at least until you chance to the experimental branch.


    Third, what's the difference between a CRCS and DDoS reactor, if there is any?

    Okay, the DDoS reactors are the first generation of the CRCS concept. They are a specific design series which I created and modified. HAYO Corp also has a line of CRCS reactors as well.

    So, DDoS reactors are a subset of CRCS reactors.


    Lastly, in your opinion, what defines a CRCS reactor? I would say a reactor that cycles cooling items and produces no hull heat to be able to run continuously without turning off and cooling down, but others may disagree.

    CRCS is defined as "Continuously Reapplied Coolant System", in other words: a reactor which uses components to store heat and swap them out for fresh components and cooled elsewhere. Any reactor which uses this mechanic can be classified as a CRCS reactor, although there are also 'CRCS Hybrid' variants which have both in-reactor cooling and swapping out of components.

    I use overclocked heat vents that are transferred to a cooling tower once they hit half-life. Each heat vent cools the reactor by 36, and cools itself by 20, which leaves 16 remaining. Because 16 is less than 20, they cool themselves in the tower quicker than they heat up in the reactor. I have a filter to withdraw them from the reactor only at half-life as well as one (16 unit) step in either direction and also at the last 6 steps before it melts. another filter removes it from the cooling tower at full health and stores it in a chest. Finally a filter moves them from the chest into the reactor. Using a combination of overclocked vents and regular reactor vents, I can usually get it pretty close to 0 heat gain/loss.

    I also use nuclear control to keep it in its heat range, but that is kind of cheating. I'm sure with a bit of effort a redstone timer could be built to keep it within its bounds.

    I've never seen a similar method used before, so I'm curious what you guys make of it.

    This sounds like an HVC system, which has a very serious problem with micro-cycle timing needing to be -exact- or you get a reactor explosion. Also, your calculations sound very off. Nuclear components can generate over a hundred heat per tic which is absorbed by adjacent components.

    If you are talking about pulling from the hull itself, that carries another very serious danger when you are operating at an already high heat with almost zero safety margins. One slip-up, and you have a crater guaranteed to give any creeper explosion-envy.

    Well, if both absolute -and- relative heat levels are a factor in MOX output, then you're going to see a bunch of six-chamber reactor designs filled with heat plates in spare slots.

    The interesting thing here will be the cost effectiveness of that design. Will it be worth the price of extra chambers and the copper in the heat plating to increase the size of a reactor just to have a higher cap and current heat value? Where will the diminishing returns be?

    MOX reactors will need to be approached differently than standard reactors. Things which depend on drawing heat from the reactor itself (such as having a quad of cells in the top corner then a bunch of alternating OC vents and item heat vents) won't work. You're going to be fluctuating too much and might end up with unpleasant effects accidentally. You're going to want something which depends primarily on side-to-side heat exchange, which puts some rather sharp limits on how efficient the reactor can get, since you are sharply limited by how much heat you can draw out of a single square in the reactor.

    Of course, CRCS designs just totally blow that out of the water. There's absolutely zero reason to not MOX up a CRCS reactor (other than lack of materials to make the MOX fuel). But then... CRCS has its own problems and issues which will need to be solved.

    I'm almost wondering if there is a way to make a hybrid CRCS system which uses cooling cells to pull heat out of the fuel by contact, partially cooled in conventional means, and swapped out maybe once per cycle. That would be a far less dangerous way of running a MOX reactor that might produce some very interesting results.

    Take, for example this reactor design. It has a micro-cycle time high enough that you can get away with a single set of cooling towers if you use towers with a cooling of 120/cell/tic or greater.

    Normally not a very efficient CRCS design, since the split-tower does a better job, it does have a longer micro-cycle time which makes automation much easier.

    Before we begin, a few caveats:

    That was originally written back in 1.4.7. Not all of the information is 100% accurate anymore. Reactor design has advanced still further from that thread.

    My primary goal here is to introduce you to concepts, not to give you a blueprint to copy and paste.

    Right. So, Applied Energistics. Which version are you using? If you have fuzzy buses which can be set to pull at greater or less than a percentage, then you can use AE. Simply pull at under 25% and insert when greater than 75% and you're golden. Then you can have that same AE network send the 'spent' cooling cells to cooling towers and retrieve from the same. Please don't forget to use Nuclear Control to set up a shut-down switch if it gets too hot.

    There were a series of advances in cooling towers, one of them has a cooling of over 100 per tick, but I don't have the link handy.

    Well if your DDoS reactor can make more then 128 eu/t and makes less then 360,000 heat in 1500 seconds you will have a bit of an energy income (Example using NaK, because it is the most efficient coolant) but obviously cooling towers are the way to go.

    This is a typical DDoS type 'split chamber' reactor. It produces 3840 heat per second. This means a total of 5,760,000 heat over 1500 seconds. So... yea, not so much. In fact, not so much by a factor of 16. And 16*128= 2048 which is greater than the 1600 which this reactor produces.

    So no, vaccum freezers are really not viable.

    That is indeed the best 0 chamber reactor that has been discovered on these forums to this date. There are some single-chamber reactors which would have some pretty impressive numbers (180 EU/t with an eff of 3.0 such as found here), but no other zero-chamber reactor can beat the one you linked

    Another often underused component which has ZERO core heat exchange is the Component Heat Exchanger. All it does is pass heat back and forth between components, meaning that you can pass heat off to other components without risking altering the temperature flow of the actual MOX design.

    Furthermore, each component heat exchanger can transfer 36 heat per tick. Now, here's some math for you:

    Max heat transfer for a Component Heat Exchanger: 36
    Max heat dissipation from an Advanced Heat Vent: 12
    Number of sides remaining on a Component Heat Exchanger next to nuclear material: 3
    3*12 = 36

    Meaning that one component heat exchanger can keep things running smoothly with three advanced heat vents adjacent. Basically giving you 36 heat dissipation without otherwise harming the delicate temperature equilibrium of your reactor.

    As a not-very-economical demonstration, I present the Heat Distribution Transfer Vector reactor. The HDTV takes advantage of this curious mechanic to handle a pair of quad MOX cells in a 3 chamber reactor. The 'excess' cooling is in the component heat vents, so it will not impact the overall core temperature.

    Another interesting design concept is to incorporate Cooling Cells which are then cooled off through various means as a way of transferring heat from nuclear material on out without upsetting the balance of the heat in the reactor itself, although not in a CRCS setup. here is an example of this mechanic in practice.

    Of course, I still maintain that the CRCS reactors are going to be the stars of this show. The Pocket Split DDoS reactor would only see an increase in efficiency and EU output from using MOX fuels at high temperatures, with zero additional drawbacks, and with NR's being more economically viable, the old Alpha Pocket DDoS reactor might get dusted off and re-commissioned into service. Or, for those of you who can handle the output and simply don't want to be satisfied with that, the original Alpha DDoS reactor in all its glory.

    ALL CRCS reactors would get a significant boost from MOX. In effect, it's giving them free efficiency without otherwise changing any of their previous engineering challenges. So if you have a stable CRCS reactor going, there really is no reason to not MOX it up once you get the materials at hand.

    Hmm, does heat ramp up, or does the heat output stay the same and just the EU output ramp up? Because that would only seem to be stable at 0 heat if the heat increased along with the EU output.

    If that is the case, then I submit this design for consideration.

    The micro-cycle time of the latest generation cooling towers is less than 500 seconds, so you'll be able to swap things out once the cells completely cool down and just need two full sets of cells.

    Technically, it can be crammed down into a one-chamber reactor if you -really- want, but the current design is a three-chamber which gives it enough copper plates to have a high heat tolerance, and still be compact enough to be 'spammable'.