Posts by KrisBigK

    Is this about "highest bet energy output", or "highest output in any second", or something else? For example, I like "highest efficiency" and "least consumed materials", which means no quad fuels.

    For this design, I consider efficiency first, then output.

    In my SSP world that I have played for ~600 in-game days, I have ~400 copper blocks and I won't care about a plate or two.

    Think about "least consumed materials". Do you mean using the least uranium/plutonium or using the least metal (copper)? Either way, it is more efficient to use quad rods since using quad rods can generate more EU even with copper plates produced by UUM.

    High efficiency fluid reactor

    1277.5 HU/t, 4 reflectors, efficiency 39.92, runs 5 sec on and 2 sec off, starting temp >=6,000


    This one can maintain below 8500 heat if started up correctly.

    Some notes: I made it to vent 640 heat in purpose. The highest efficiency MOX rod outputs 896 heat/s, and 896 has a factor of 128. 640 also has a factor of 128. This makes it easy to calculate the on/off cycle. The current 704 design can't sqeeze in the rod and the reflectors.

    Is it possible for a fluid reactor to have a higher output and a efficiency the same/better as this one? I'm not very good at MOX fluid reactors, and I'd like to hear if I messed up something.

    I would like to give some suggestions on contents.

    For fuels: add thorium-232 and uranium-233, uranium-236, plutonium-239/241, plutonium-240,242, americium-242, curium-245 like the things in real-life reactors and in this picture (from this page)

    For vents: I would be happy to see vents that can vent 4/8 heat, but adding a vent that can vent more than 20 heat/s will increase current records of high-outputting reactors.

    For custom coolant liquids: add more coolant that is used in real-life, such as molten salt and liquid helium.

    For coolant cells: add one that can vent a little heat by itself.

    Actually I realized there might be room for improvement - since the reactor runs 5-4, the total heat produced in 9 seconds is 1600*5=8000, but the vents can vent 900*9=8100. That means the current design can withstand a maximum heat of 1620 heat/s, whereas the current vents vent an average of 888.88 heat/s. However, I can't manage to increase 20 heat without removing vents.

    To design a fluid reactor with a higher output (on average), here are some restrictions that I can think of:

    1.Not a single vent can be removed to guarantee overall output unless there is a way to vent more heat per component

    2.The reactor must run 5 sec on and 4 sec off for the OC vents to cool properly.

    3.No fuel rods can be placed next to the vents, or the vents cannot be cooled down in time to produce more heat

    4.MOX can't be used. They are not friendly to the OC vents.

    Note: the "heat" mentioned above is the same as component damage, not HU.


    Now I want to raise a question: can a stable fluid reactor output more than

    If it is possible, how?

    Given you cannot vent more than x heat per tick, the next step is to minimize chance of explosion. I designed my reactor to produce double the heat needed to vent 912/tick and then adjusted the pulse to allow it to vent twice as long and the vents to vent 912.

    All OC vents should pull 36 heat from the reactor as long as there is excess heat, and adding a few component vents just makes a few vents cool down faster. As long as there is an OC vent that has no component vent next to it, you need to wait for that vent to cool down. I've already explained why I'm not using component vents above.

    I don't see a problem with the mox setup, you just pull most of the vents out until it gets to the desired temp, then put them in REALLY FAST. :). My design should work for any start temp from 5001 to 6001, for sure.

    Shift-clicking a stack of OC vents should do the trick.

    Your reactor can produce that heat, but it can't maintain that heat. The point is that once you heat up the reactor, the OC vents will keep pulling heat until either the reactor is cooled down or the vents are destroyed. Once you turn it off, the reactor will cool down, and unlike the stable ones, that is necessary for this reactor.

    Also, if you look at the average heat output in the planner, it shows only ~912 HU/t. (line 11 in your picture) I don't think the planner can't deal with the double heat. It should be correct.

    something could have wrong with the redstone pulse control you set up in-game (e.g. misconfiguration, unexpected hiccups). Could you please explain exactly what you did to get an 8 sec on, 1 sec off cycle in-game?

    A re-creation of my redstone control - I've got a 6-tick pulse extender and a monostable to trigger it, the array of repeaters contain 22 on 4 tick and 1 on 2 tick. That should add up to 90 ticks. The redstone port on the left represents the input for the fluid reactor. I put a lever on the side of the block that has the redstone torch on top to turn off the reactor.

    When I was testing it in-game, I sped it up by using the tickratechanger mod. I'm using a singleplayer world, and I was looking at the GUI of the reactor. When I realizes that it's going to explode, it is too late because my game runs at ~600 tps (ticks per second). I am sure that I didn't touch the redstone part when I was testing it. I used the same controls for the design with 2 core heat exchangers and that one runs perfectly.

    Maybe make a closed one so that only a few people can edit it to put new designs on it, and use this one as an auxiliary one where people post their designs, and the people who maintain the closed one put the designs on here onto the closed one?

    Ok, this one should work and be slightly better than the previous. Previous fluid reactor cools (54-9)*20 = 900(*2) = 1800 heat max, per tick; this one cools 912*2 = 1824. There is room for improvement, but MOX is tricky :)

    This is a MOX reactor; you need to get it above 5000 to make this work. I simulated 6K Start. Also, this is my first successful simulated MOX fluid reactor, I think! Yay!

    I'm afraid to point out that your design has almost no difference if you start it with 0 heat. Although the max output is 1824 HU/t, the average is just ~912 HU/t. It is a successful simulated MOX fluid reactor, but it isn't a successful working-as-intended reactor.

    Also, I don't think that MOX will even work with this concept. Turning the reactor off won't stop the overclockers pulling the reactor core heat (the same thing that I forgot), and letting the OC vents cool down is essential for it to run stably.

    I was thinking about the design the whole day and become more confused - Why do the overclocked vents that are surrounded by 3 component vents break in the first place? During the 8 seconds of heating, the vents take damage at 4/s (36-20-3*4), with a total damage of 4*8=32 at the end of heating, and during the 1 second of cooldown, it vents 20+3*4=32 heat, right? It should be balanced, but why it isn't? Did I done the math wrong or is it a IC2 bug?

    However, based on your statement in the second paragraph, you seem to be misunderstanding something - the heat exchanger is not venting the heat by itself - the adjacent component heat vents are each removing up to 4/s from it (and not "accepting" heat themselves, which is significant for the quad rods which are simply pushing their heat to the reactor, since there's nowhere else for the heat to go).

    Isn't it like 1+2 and 2+1? I think both are the same.

    1.You claimed that "removing the top-left core heat exchanger causes the reactor to explode within a cycle but doing so on the right one doesn't". Was this something you found in-game or with the simulator?

    1. First in the simulator and then in-game. When designing it, I mainly use Simple Cycle to see how much heat is generated and how long a reactor can sustain without redstone control. I use pulsed automation to see its long-term stability.

    Using the "Simple Cycle" simulation, it looks like removing the top-left core heat exchanger will only cause it to explode 22 seconds sooner than having both in place

    That is because the 5000 heat that could be stored in the core heat exchanger can't after its removal.

    and a "Pulsed Cycle" simulation with 8 seconds on, 1 second off and the top left core heat exchanger removed shows a reactor max temperature of 3000. If it explodes in-game even with an 8-1 pulsed cycle, then that's a severe inaccuracy in my simulator that I will have to investigate.

    There is no severe inaccuarcy in your planner. The "severe inaccuarcy" that you see is just because you forgot to set the suspending temperature to 10001.

    So far, your planner seem to be right. Removing the top-left heat exchanger do cause the reactor to explode in-game with a pulsed redstone control. I just tested that. The reactor exploded after burning the top two vents and some bottom vents. The explosion was not very powerful, though.

    2. Same question regarding your findings when switching the dual fuel rod with the reflector - it looks to me like it still works, just less heat output - your first design shows 1451.79 Hu/s average, and a reactor maximum temperature of 723. Swapping the reflector with the dual rod produces 944.35 Hu/s average (because several of the overclocked heat vents broke, the first at just 249 seconds), and the reactor got up to a temperature of 2568.

    2. I haven't tested that yet because my setup got blown up. Based on my answers of 1, I think it will explode too because after burning some vents, the heat will stack up in the reactor.

    I don't think that other mods are needed for your purpose. An automatic lapotron crystal charger & discharger, some double chests and some lapotron crystals can just do the thing you want to do.

    This thread is about fluid reactors that have high outputs. If you are looking for beginner reactors or EU reactors, please refer to the Official New Reactors design thread. The designs here have a high build cost but their output is above 1200 HU/t. They are meant to be used for late game power generation. Thus, material costs will not be judged here.

    Since that the original thread contains only a few fluid reactors that was submerged by other peoples' posts (because fluid reactors weren't added yet when that thread is created) and posting designs there will just be submerged by pages after pages of replies, I would like to share some here.


    The currently highest output stable fluid reactor

    -Author: ???

    This might be an improved version of Omicron's design, since his can output 1408 HU/t. The author of the current one is unknown, but it was recently posted by vlad[54rus]. If you know the author of this design, please reply so that I can put it here.

    -Pros: highest output that can currently be obtained from a fluid reactor without any external automation

    -Cons: need an extra heat exchanger for just 7.74 HU/t

    1407.74 HU/t, no reflector, efficiency 12.57



    The second highest output one

    -Author: KrisBigK (improved albijoe's 1376 design)

    -Pros: high output without the need of an extra heat exchanger

    -Cons: hybrid fuel rods makes it difficult to automate

    1383.78 HU/t, no reflector, efficiency 14.42



    The reflector reactor

    -Author: Korlus

    -Pros: a reasonable efficiency and good output

    -Cons: need re-designing if you want to use MOX

    1343.83 HU/t, 4 reflectors, efficiency 21



    The third highest output one

    -Author: KrisBigK (improved albijoe's 1376 design)

    -Pros: Only use 2 types of fuel rods, easier to automate than the second highest output one

    -Cons: Comparatively low efficiency and a 8 HU/t lower output

    1375.83 HU/t, no reflectors, efficiency 12.28



    The following reactors need precise redstone timings in order to run safely, but offers a higher output than the stable ones.

    Warning: If you really really won't risk having a potential nuke in your backyard (although all reactors are potential nukes, blowing up one of these will also destroy your heat-related machines), then the following designs are not for you.

    If you made up your mind that you are willing to use these designs, be notified that if these reactors are left unattended and turned on, they will create a huge crater.


    First design

    -Author: KrisBigK

    -Pros: has a higher output than previous ones

    -Cons: somewhat risky

    Operating pulse: 8 sec on and 1 sec off

    Explosion time (left unattended): 289 secs

    1451.79 HU/t, 1 reflector, efficiency 12.96



    The highest output fluid reactor by now

    This design is focused on having high outputs, not stability.

    -Author: KrisBigK

    -Pros: seriously high output

    -Cons: low efficiency, really explosive

    Operating pulse: 5 sec on and 4 sec off

    Explosion time: 69 secs

    1777.69 HU/t, 3 reflectors, efficiency 11.11


    The heat capacity reactor plating can be changed into any other passive component. It is just a place holder for easier automation.


    The highest efficiency reactor by now (maybe)

    This design focuses on high efficiency, and then high output.

    -Author: KrisBigK & Blackpalt

    -Pros: really high efficiency

    -Cons: relatively low output, the most dangerous design

    Operating pulse: 5 sec on and 2 sec off

    Explosion time: 13 sec (starting temperature 6000)

    Starting temperature: >=5055, <=7219

    1277.3 HU/t, 4 reflectors, efficiency 39.92


    The reason why I mentioned Blackpalt as the author of this is because on July 2020 (more than a whole year after I came up with this design independently) I came across a post by Blackpalt about a design with the same fuel rod arrangement (thus the same efficiency) but he couldn't get it to work.

    Some notes: I made it to vent 640 heat on purpose. The MOX rod outputs 896 heat/s, which has a factor of 128. 640 also has a factor of 128. This makes it easy to manipulate the on/off cycle. Unfortunately I can't sqeeze in the rod and the reflectors to the current 704heat/s design. Also, the 704 one uses unbalanced OC vents, which is impractical for MOX reactors.


    yet more to come


    If you have any questions about these designs or managed to made a better one, feel free to share it!

    Okay, let me try to clarify: the exchanger is not "pulling" 80 heat from the rod, the rod is "pushing" 80 heat into the exchanger before the exchanger does its thing. This means the exchanger in question can theoretically be gaining as much as 152 heat per reactor tick when a rod is adjacent to it.

    First, I think pulling heat from the rod and pushing heat to the core heat exchanger makes no difference. To my understanding, the core heat exchanger is like a “heat capacitor” that vents/pulls heat from the reactor. If it gains 152 heat, it cools the reactor down and basically doesn’t do anything because a few ticks later (or less) the reactor will be cooled enough for it to vent back the 72 heat pulled from the reactor in the beginning. If it is touching the rod, it takes damage at a rate of 80/s and heals at a rate of 8/s. Once its damage percentage is greater than heat percentage of the reactor, it will start to vent 72 heat into the reactor, thus not destroying itself.

    Let's put that to a side, but the core heat exchanger can vent heat at 8/s wherever it was put, right? Then why does one place work while the other one doesn't?

    I think I can answer a couple of your questions:

    It isn't obvious from the IC2 Wiki, but unless this has changed in newer versions of IC2, the reactor heat exchanger accepts heat from adjacent sources (such as that dual fuel rod near the upper left corner). Thus, if you remove the exchanger or swap the rod's position with the reflector, the dual rod will be pumping all its heat directly into the reactor instead of the exchanger.

    I know that components can accept heat from adjacent sources, but all the components that I used can pull heat from the reactor, so the total venting should be the same regardless of how the fuel rods are placed. Then what's the difference between pulling 80 heat from the rod then give 72 to the reactor and pull 72 heat from the reactor and vent 8 heat? I can't see any difference in that.

    I just designed a high output but unstable fluid reactor. I haven't tested it in-game because I'm running out of time today but I'm quite sure it will work.

    1451.79 HU/t, 1 reflector, efficiency 12.96, runs 8 sec on and 1 sec off


    When running without redstone control and cooled off completely before doing so, the first vents will overheat at 242 seconds, and the reactor WILL explode at 289 seconds, so use it at your own risk.

    I also have some questions about it.

    1.Why does replacing the top-right core heat exchanger with a reactor heat vent causes the average heat output to drop to 1450.01 HU/t while the reactor is still stable?

    2.Why does removing the top-left core heat exchanger causes the reactor to explode within a cycle but doing so on the right one doesn't?

    3.Why does 0223130C0D0C0D0C1303030C0D0C0D0C0D0C030C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C0D0C not work despite it generating the same heat and having the same rods/reflector, the same heat vents?

    4.Is a fluid reactor with a higher average output than this one possible? I'll be glad to hear about it.

    Note: I tested whether a reactor is "stable" by using Pulsed Automation with no component automation selected and suspending & resuming temperatures in Pulse Configuration is set to 10001.