Posts by ShneekeyTheLost

Also, at 20 EU/t, and only requiring some refined iron, tin cells, and glass... I'd say the Geothermal generator are the best bang for your buck. Set them up in blocks like an automated bucket brigade watermill setup, and it produces twenty times the EU/t.

Nine geothermal generators take up the same space as a nuclear plant, is far cheaper, and produces at least 180 EU/t. However, building a wall of 25 geothermals will net you 500 EU/t, which beats any nuclear generator, and almost matches an HV Solar. In fact, considering it runs 24/7, it BEATS an HV Solar since it doesn't have downtime. Keep it filled from nether easily enough, either through tesseracts or through liquid transposers and enderchests.

On DW20's server play, he pulled out millions of buckets of lava before they had to move it, the spot they moved it to was within line of sight of where the old one was. And it took a month of the server being online all the time to do it.

Really, it's the cheapest per eu output solution. It can be put anywhere, even deep underground, doesn't have a large footprint (unless you want to have multiple XYcraft tanks in tandem as a reservoir like DW20 did), and can be done from your first level of tech, just needing generators, tin cells, and glass.

Also, nether lava is a pathetically easy resource to acquire. One lava lake can provide billions of EU. And Liquid Tesseracts trivialize the hassle involved. If you can't manage to put up a basic structure in the Nether... go back and play vanilla until you learn how to play the game.

Furthermore... Mystcraft. Now you don't need to destroy your own lands, you can go destroy some random age.

Quote from Nobody_Important

Witty (and admittedly funny) IT insults and general insults aside, it would be really nice of you to point out any actual problem you had with my post.
Apart of course from the almighty "balancing", a concept every single IC2 user seems really fond of and yet has little to no idea about.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but you are virtually not able to get to tech tier 3 without completely ruining parts of the landscape.
This is all i am going on and on about, since being renewable and "green" in minecraft is basically only about not having to rape the landscape for that bit of oil/coal/uranium.

Tunnel Bores. Dig holes underground, not poke holes into the ground. Saves on wasted materials as well, although that can be turned into scrap to feed your massfab, which obviates all of your arguments about expense.

Failing that... it's called 'placing dirt blocks over the hole'.

Quote from Nobody_Important

-snip-

You know, I had this long and drawn-out post pointing out just how massively ignorant this post is. It was witty, sarcastic, and scathing. It pointed out all the various flaws in the 'logic', and why it is silly. But, while moderately amusing to write, it wouldn't address the problem at hand. That being... you have no clue what you are talking about. Go do some research, browse the IC2 wiki, and come back when you at least have a basic understanding of the mod.

So really... just... stop. This much stupid makes my brain hurt. It's why I quit my job in the Tech Support field, and why I refuse to do any programming professionally anymore. You are a GOTO in the code of reality.

Quote from Kenken244

I would agree with that. heat exchangers need to be buffed, and the capacity of coolant cells has to be substantially increased.

Either that or the heat to EU ratio needs to be re-adjusted.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the capacity of coolant cells increasing would help much, all it would do really is delay the problem. Case in point: when using GregTeck's NaK/He 360k Cooling Cells, it doesn't really change any of the important numbers, it just means fewer micro-cycles per cycle.

I'd suggest putting up a sticky to the tune of 'if you post a reactor design using Condensators, you will be ridiculed', but it's not like they'd read it anyways...

Quote from skavier470

link broken

Thank you, link should be fix'd now.

Quote from Shakie666

You're forgetting DDOS, which certainly are useful - 720 eu/t with efficiency 6 and low startup costs? You get far more power out of your uranium/plutonium that way.

CRCS reactors (such as the DDoS systems) are not what I would call 'normal circumstances', however there is at least some use for them.

I have never encountered that problem with retrievers pulling out damaged cells, nor can I duplicate it.

Well, if you have Plutonium to burn, you can always try using quad-plutonium rather than uranium, such as with this setup.

Micro-cycle time is only 80 seconds, but it produces 1440 EU/t. So, let's crunch some numbers:

632 cooling cycle time / 80 microcycle time = 7.9 cooling chambers per reactor. You only need four such, however, to match the output of your previous setup. That means you'll need 32 cooling towers, but only four reactors.

You could also mix n match. So, for example, four of the previous design, needing 14 cooling towers total, plus two of these, needing 16 cooling towers, for a total of 30 cooling towers, getting rid of your Plutonium surplus, and using primarily Uranium which is fairly easy to obtain.

Quote from Shakie666

The filter only has damaged cells in it. Granted, I think they're only
1% damaged, since I made them solely for the filter, but the exact
damage value shouldn't matter.

The 5440 eu/t reactor I was on about is this.
Not the most efficient, but 5.67 isn't bad, and HAYO-ish. Even though
it uses 360k cooling cells, the the number of micro-cycles per cooling
cycle is the same - 8. It takes 24 cells, so I should need 8*(24/6) = 32
towers. 3 more than I thought, but I should be able to squeeze them
into the range of my chunk loader.

The other thing I was thinking is, neutron reflectors aren't exactly cheap, I think i'd only bother with them once I get iridium ones.

Display More

If the Filter has only damaged cells in it, then it should only be pulling damaged cells out of the reactor. It shouldn't be pulling full ones. This is hard-coded into RP2.

That reactor is a kludgy and inefficient mess. I said so when I first made it. It was an example of what was theoretically possible, with the caveat that it was not by any means feasible.

If you want a HAYOish setup, use multiple smaller reactors in tandem, so it looks like you have a massive multiblock structure as your reactor, with your few dozen cooling towers set up so that all of them are being fed equally. In fact, you could probably set that up with a single Retriever set to pull enough cells for all of your reactors, and having a single Restriction Tube in the pipeline. Basically, as long as all the empty cells are pulled, they will always try to go to the nearest empty slot, which will always be on the 'reactor' side of the restriction tube, so they'll always manage to find a good spot to go to.

Take, for example, the pocket reactor I just linked. 'Only' 720 EU/t, sure, but it only needs 4 cooling towers by itself. However, when you do the math, it actually ends up around 3.5. So two of them is roughly 7 cooling towers, saving you a tower, and netting 1440 EU/t. At that point, you just scale it up. Four times that means 28 cooling towers for 5760 EU/t! Might have to slide in an extra one or two, just to give yourself a margin of error, but you're producing more EU/t for fewer cooling towers.

Plus, a bank of eight nuclear reactors connected to an expanse of 28 cooling towers is VERY HAYO!ish.

Quote from Shakie666

Well, I just tried building a DDOS reactor, but I noticed a problem. I have a filter pulling hot coolant cells out of the reactor, with hot collant cells in the filter's inventory. However, I noticed it now pulls out ALL coolant cells, regardless of whether or not they have a damage value. This definitely wasn't happening before, where only cells with damage values were pulled out. Does anyone know what i'm doing wrong?

EDIT: By the way, can I just ask: how do you calculate the number of cooling chambers necessary for each reactor? Do you just divide the excess heat by the cooling per chamber? Or do you have to take into account the micro-cycle time as well? I asked because I want to use the 5440eu/t design on the 1st page, but I am unsure how many coolers I need. It produces 16416 excess heat, which should mean 16416/568 = 29 coolers required. Or is there more to it then that? (In case you're wondering about my fascination with that particular design, I decided I wanted this ridiculous energy setup to be as HAYO-ish as possible).

Well, here's the thing. I don't know what you are talking about with a 5440 EU/t design, because I certainly don't have any reactors capable of that. The most I can manage is 3840 EU/t and that's with GregTech components. However, you're looking at the wrong numbers, and some obsolete designs.

You might want to head over to the CRCS For Newbies discussion, which will give you some pointers. The big numbers you are looking for are a) micro-cycle time (how long before components start melting), and b) cooling-cycle time (how long it takes to cool a cell). Current cooling towers can only hold six cells at a time, but provide 95 cooling per tick.

For example, the linked reactor has a micro-cycle time of 80 seconds and contains sixteen cells. Therefore, the cooling cycle per cell comes out to about 632 seconds, meaning you're going to need 8 micro-cycles per cooling cycle. Which means you need 8 * (16/6) = 22 cooling towers to be effecitve. However, do keep in mind that with an 80 second micro-cycle time, you're going to be loosing a fair amount of effective EU/t output with constant downtimes. Using GregTech cooling components will significantly increase both micro-cycle and cooldown times, but will overall reduce the number of transfers necessary by a factor of six.

If you are wanting a particularly HAYOish setup, you may wish to consider multiple reactors in tandem. For example, the Pocket Reactor only needs a single chamber, produces a respectable 720 EU/t, and can be set up in serial. The important thing about this pocket reactor is that it only has six cooling cells in it, meaning one cooling tower has enough capacity to handle all the cells it provides.

So, it's got a micro-cycle time of 179, the C00ld0wn tower again has 632, which means 4 towers ought to keep each one going. You can either build them as independent units, or you can make them share cooling towers, either way works out well as long as you have enough cooling towers to keep all of your reactors running optimally.

Also, did your filter have damaged or undamaged cells? If you had both, then it will pull both out. The filter pulling the cells out of the reactor needs to have damaged cells in it, and the retriever pulling clean cells into the reactor must have only undamaged cells.

Quote from skavier470

you can shneeky. the heat vents just have to absorb enough heat per tick.

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…xpky8zr0rijdf6if0vunvd728

theoritical maximum a HVC reactor can achieve in cooling is 1620

crcs are using the mechanic that the whole heat from uraniumcells will be distributed equaly to nearby components.
HVC need the reactor heat exchange capabilities of OC Vents.

Display More

Linked reactor still leaks 257 Heat/second which will need to be dealt with, which means mandatory cooldown periods or you will get a new HAYO!ish crater.

Technically, you could do an HVC with a standard DDoS setup, however the micro-cycle time would be one or two seconds, making it effectively unfeasible.

Quote from Kenken244

theoretically, you could make a HVC with eff. 7, because OC heat vents absorb heat.

Unfortunately, not really. Either it will run in Mk. I format, in which case swapping them out is entirely unnecessary, or there will be additional hull heat, in which case you'll need to use a Mk. III 'flicker' reactor which will significantly reduce effective EU/t output, or you'll have a hull explosion from leaking heat.

For example, this reactor leaks 952 heat/s, which means you're going to need to deal with that heat before it builds up. Which means shutting down the reactor to let it cool.

HVC, like any other CRCS system, relies on heat-absorbing components directly adjacent to fissionable material. Which means an EFF of less than 7. Otherwise, the hull will start to heat up, and you'll have to deal with that somehow.

Okay, the basic concept is here. It's a new hybrid CRCS design I'm trying to refine.

Here's the thing, if I can get the micro-cycle time to 106 or higher, the thing will need only a SINGLE C00ld0wn tower! Unfortunately, I can't push it any higher than 93.

I'm worried the weak point of the design is that there's only room for three component heat exchangers, which is the real throttle on the cooling capability, and I'm not sure how to bypass it without losing efficiency. Basically, I'm trying to make a smaller and more managable tower which produces a more reasonable amount of EU/t but doesn't need quite so many cooling towers. If I can get this thing down to a single tower, many of the problems with a CRCS system will be greatly simplified.

Now granted, I could just build one on either side and set up both transfers to the same redpower trigger, but I'm really trying to see if I can do this with a single cooling tower, since I have other reactors that work with two towers which have the same efficiency but much higher EU output.

If you were wanting CASUC style cooling, all of the DDoS CRCS reactors have an Efficency of 6. Some of them can push over 2k EU/t, although they require a great many cooling towers to keep running in a Mk. I format.

Quote from Requia

My earlier designs were 8 plutonium quad cells actually, but the thought of building 5 full sized reactors (for the thorium) and however many dozens of cooling towers suggested i should clamp down on it and build it minimum size.

It would take 16 cooling towers to deal with that setup, since it has twice as many cooling cells, but the same micro-cycle time. Each thorium reactor would need a pair of them. So that would be a total of 26 cooling towers.

Actually... I almost wonder... hmmm, I'm going to crunch a few numbers and get back to you on that.

Quote

As for empty space, shouldn't be an issue. You have to have automation that can put stuff in specific slots (which gregtech provides) regardless of the amount of empty slots, or you'll be boned the first time there's an empty isotope and cooling slot at the same time.

Mmm... true.

Quote from GregoriusT

I fixed something for you. My Open Beta has that already fixed. Use Plutonium instead! It pulses twice per Reactortick!

Oh my, that is quite interesting. The problem arises, however, with the additional heat generation. The more vents I need to include, the lower the 'optimal breeding temperature' is going to be because the fewer Heat-Capacity Reactor Plating I can cram in, which reduces overall efficiency.

I mean... a single plutonium cell surrounded by depleted isotopes generates what... 135 heat/s? Compare that with 15 heat/tic which the Thorium generates. That makes it much more difficult to set up a heat-neutral breeder.

Quote from shazbot

I tried this setup as well (in smp) and no matter what I do I cannot seem to get the components to balance out equally between the four cooling towers. This leads to one of them getting full, which in turn causes the associated sorting machine to be unable to pull damaged vents out of the main reactor. Too few sorting machines able to pull out the damaged vents causes melting.

It also seems to be unable to get the vents switched out fast enough to properly keep the reactor going, so it shuts off very frequently due to the central reactor not being full.

I am wondering if it would not be better to remove the relays, as I think that is what is casing the problem... sorting machines are able to inject the items immediately but the relays aren't, maybe?

Anyway, if you have an advice I'll be happy to try it out

Also I would love to see a video. I think this is a really creative design, I just am having some problems implementing it.

Display More

That was one of the troubles with the old HVC systems. There've been more developments since that post, HVC's have proven to be very useful in Thorium reactors, due to the overall lower heat emission, allowing for longer micro-cycles.

Honestly, you hit upon the one point I have a problem with concerning the old version of the HVC system: getting all the components swapped without shutting down first, and if you do shut down for transfer, you have an enormous amount of comparative downtime due to the small micro-cycle. But these days, we use 'em with Thorium generators, so you've got something like an 80 second micro-cycle time, so a couple seconds downtime to facilitate the transfer isn't too bad.

Thorium is excellent for breeders, since it runs so long and doesn't have much in the way of anything else to bother with. For example, something like this works quite well. Does over five hundred depleted cells in one run.

Quote from ShneekeyTheLost

Slightly improved. Two more Quad-Plutonium and two more cooling cells. Same micro-cycle time (80s), more EU output, same efficiency, and only one NR per quad cell rather than two. Also filled up the other slots to make transfer easier.

Unfortunately, the cooling cycle for one of the most efficient 4 cell cooling towers is around 640s, that means you would need 8 cooling towers to keep it running.

Since we doubled the amount of Plutonium, we can also double the amount of Thorium here. Also, the problem with this setup is there are a LOT of blank spaces here. They will need to be filled up with plates, or you would have trouble transferring the cooling cells. However, if you need a 5:1 ratio, you're going to have to do it like that, because you can only fit four at a time up and down. If you were wanting a Thorium-positive system, you could set it up opposite something like this or a pair of the single-chamber versions.

Now, the cycle-time is greater than the cooldown time, so you'd need a 1:1 ratio. Which, for the single-chamber, is a pair of cooling towers, so four for the double-reactor.