And again, any semblance of a chance at balancing such an idea like this one is now entirely gone. Oh well...
Beat the Enderdragon and it spawns a portal to let you leave (As well as a Dragon Egg that's tricky to keep as an item). Spawns you at your bed, or spawn point. Can go back at any time through the original portal- But the dragon does not respawn. Can farm a lot of Ender Pearls this way.
Having an Ender Pearl combined with 1 or 2 redstone as a new type of single-use battery would be interesting.
Well there goes balance... >_>
Guess it's better off going with equivalent with coal's EU potential...
Also, I don't think mob farms work in 1.0.0 anymore... anyone able to confirm/deny? I don't build them really (did it once, didn't like how cheap it felt).
I'd like to add the idea of just using glass panes to make a regular glass door, but it's centered in the block space, like fences and other glass panes.
Going by a direct EU value, coal (and charcoal) have 4000 EU potential. This, smelting 16x that, has a potential of 64k EU. So this alone beats the Bat-Pack by 4k EU in potential storage. I do notice that taking the 2 coals and the lava cell into account, you have an inputted potential of 28k EU. If you assigned an arbitrary value of 12k of potential storage to the Ender Pearl, that means the Gold Cable is worthless in the equation. That's fine by me.
Now, working on the idea of this... thing having a potential of 40k EU instead (say the EP is worth 4k, and the GC is just there in the recipe to get used up again), that equates to 80 smelted equivalent. Still too high IMO. So, work on the idea of replacing the Lava Cell with another EP and work the power down to 36k EU, and this makes for an equivalent of 72 smelted items.
Now that makes the EPs worth the same as coal basically EU-wise. Lets get rid of the coals and leave 4 EPs and a Gold Cable instead. Now, make the EPs worth 8k EU each so the overall EU potential is 32k, or 64 smelted equivalence. Considering how rare Endermen seem to be (at least for me) in 1.0.0 release in the Overworld... it kinda makes sense to make their Pearl to be 2x a coal, although it's a waste if you're trying to go to The End. Thinking about it some more... I don't recall any survivable way of leaving The End (haven't really been there yet... so maybe someone knows if you can leave The End, and thus this makes the balance screwy again).
Sorry, but I'm not gonna touch that furnace idea. If anything though, I'd rather having the EPs almost directly usable in something... maybe MFEs to unload their energy like a single-use battery?
This is a decent form of energy storage in real life, and the cables are also good. But consider how it is compared to this game. We already have the ability to store ludicrous amounts of energy in MFS units. We already have near perfect conductors that are very costly (glass fiber cable). And if you want to talk realism, consider how flywheels are a VERY high tech form of storage, and their energy density is so poor that only experimental ones in research labs can store a significant amount of energy. The commercial ones store no more than batteries.
Changed the storage down by a factor of 10. I'm not looking for the highest end stuff with this idea. In fact, I'm looking at some more advanced stuff that doesn't require too high end of materials to gather (like diamonds). As such, the balance I'm looking at is around Tier 2, but now it's more like Tier 1.5 that I've got it going with, especially with the cables.
I'm still working on the balance ideas, but I'm specifically trying to figure something to do with charcoal while not being unbalanced (renewable and all...).
Charcoal -> Extractor = Carbon Dust
CarbonDust - CarbonDust
CarbonDust - CarbonDust
(might work on changing to all 9 slots)
Carbon Chunk -> Compressor = Carbon Ball
Carbon Ball -> Electro Furnace (none others) = Carbon Nanotubes (CNt)
(work with a more controlled environment of temperature with a higher end furnace, but not the induction furnace so it also requires some more time on purpose)
Carbon Nanofiber (CNf)-
CNt - CNt - CNt
Carbon Nanotube Cable (CNt Cable)-
CNf - Rubber
(this currently works at 12 charcoals to one rubber for a single cable, but with 9 carbon dusts for a chunk, this goes up to 27 to 1)
N/A - CNf - N/A
CNf - CNf - CNf
N/A - CNf - N/A
(N/A is nothing)
(Nano Saber is nothing)
(Again, Nano Saber is nothing)
Air Line (x2)-
(you get the pattern by now)
Refined Iron - Electronic Circuit - Refined Iron
Air Line - Vacuum Pump - Air Line
Refined Iron - Machine Block - Refined Iron
Vacuum Containment Unit (VCU)-
Adv Alloy - Adv Alloy - Adv Alloy
Adv Alloy - N/A - Adv Alloy
Adv Alloy - Adv Alloy - Adv Alloy
Magnetic Vacuum Flywheel Electric Storage Unit (MVFE)-
Machine Block - Magnetizer - Machine Block
Vacuum Machine - VCU - CNt Cable
Machine Block - Iron - Machine Block
Carbon Nanotube Cable loses 1 EU per 2.86 blocks (loss of 0.35/block) at a maximum EU of 64 EU/packet. Trying for something balanced between copper and gold, so hopefully this works just right. Will change if the balance works better for something else.
MVFE can store 45000EU with Steel Flywheel (takes 55000EU to power to this) and stores 90000EU with Nanotube Flywheel (takes 100k EU to power to this). Yes, this means you lose 10k EU either way. It also can take a maximum of 64 EU/packet and outputs at that as well.
It's probably just the HDs carrying just a few points of heat in them still, but don't find that it's enough to transfer to other components, so they just sit with the last bit of heat. Shouldn't make a difference in use with other reactors, just not for making new recipes though.
I am new to nuclear engineering, so I have a question: Mark II's have absolutely no chance of exploding after one full cycle, correct? Also, do any of the cooling components melt in your Mark I and II designs? Thanks!
By definition, a Mark II must be able to complete a full cycle without overheating. All my Mark II designs have in the classification the number of cycles they can complete (eg, Mark II-11.7C can do 11 full cycles, but an extra 7/10ths a cycle as well before exploding).
I also go by the definition that if any component melts at all (before reaching the stated cycle of failure), it's an instant Mark IV. So, to answer, none of the cooling components should ever melt down. If they do, please tell me since that means I've gotta recalculate some stuff!
There we are. Yeah, I never remember the voltage stuff... Glass Fiber is basically all you'll need anyways when you are dealing with reactors unless using one of those insane CASUC reactors.
just got into industrialcraft a few days ago and all I can say is WOW this adds so much more back to minecraft, which was beginning to get boring.
I've got a nice little place going with a geothermal and an mfe in the basement with a solar flower coming down into it off the roof, got my 1st miner going (we need those battery packs mentioned in the wiki
Built my 1st reactor but haven't fired it up yet. I work in the real nuclear field so I'm trying to put myself through some IC-nuke school and become a qualified operator before I turn that thing on.
A few (possibly) retarded questions.
Better to ask questions than get it wrong with a reactor, I say.
1. Does the nuke put out Lv/Hv/Mv/Ev? I've never found that clarified anywhere. I don't feel like plugging copper into the thing is the best way to start this.
The reactor can put out all the types of energy. It entirely depends on the setup of your reactor. Low Voltage is 32EU/t or less, Medium Voltage is under 512EU/t (IIRC), High Voltage is 2048EU/t or less (IIRC), and Extreme Voltage is above that. Your best bet is to use Glass Fiber for wiring since it allows up to 512EU/t and also has the least resistance (20 blocks to resist 1 EU/t).
Most reactor designs you'll find here are Medium Voltage (and the few that are High Voltage usually require massive Buildcraft factories to support the reactor).
2. does building it atop a transformer/energy storer of some kind affect the cooling too negatively or is it a lesser-of-all-evils thing
The reactor's external cooling properties are dependent upon a 3x3x3 cube, where the center of this is the reactor itself. You'll probably prefer having the transformer/energy storage unit placed next to a reactor chamber (chambers provide better cooling than water even for the external cooling). However, to answer directly, the unit is just going to be like removing one of the blocks of cooling from the reactor (so 1 less cooling if it replaces where water goes).
3. has anyone gotten a good way of flooding their containment vessels? maybe a better hydrodynamics mod out there that will allow for real flooding/filling?
I usually have a nearby infinite water pond that I just dump the water from. I build up the reactor's water level manually this way, and as long as I'm not using a reactor that builds up heat (Mark I or Mark II-10+), I won't need to worry about losing the water blocks from evaporating.
Added another Mark II reactor. This one's a 9.8C.
Added a very very simple Mark I-O-C reactor. It's more a showcase of not even using internal cooling and still having a Mark I reactor.
This contest.... unfortunately is pretty much already done. I haven't seen any better than a 2.33 Mark I reactor (and there are SEVERAL variants that can do it). A 2.5 would be a real challenge, if it's actually possible (maybe someone's done it, but I haven't seen it).
If you don't really wanna search too much, just check the threads that are people's reactor design threads (like mine, which should be on the bottom of the thread list of page 1, or close to the top on page 2). You should be able to find something you like.
That design isn't great but for example I made a design, on the site it said +10-20 heat or so and 50eu, in the game it was 0-5 heat (for cells) and 80eu/t what I'm trying to say is that the site isn't always correct
Thing is you have to adjust for the fact that it just shows the calculation for the entire heat from all the cooling and heating at the same time (but the actual simulation runs on calculation done by the tick, not just a guess based on the overall heat calculation). Everything before my little edit was actually just manual calculation on my part. While no simulation is perfect, the site's simulation is a good enough one that it can be used quite effectively for out of game testing.
Of you say a design Isn't working then PLEASE TEST IT OUT ON MINECRAFT FIRST not on some random site!! Only ingame if it doesn't work ingame then you can say something about it
Lemme explain why this won't work even without a need for testing in either the simulation nor in Minecraft itself.
Reactor design mark-?
EU/t = 150
heat: c.a +200
heat dispensers are ice
(ice can be made by compressing snow)
(snow can be made by compressing water cells )
Note: this design will be tested today I had no time to do so yet
The central Cooling Cells can only reduce their heat level by 1 per each tick. Each Cooling Cell here is gaining approximately 30 heat per each tick (4 heat/tick from each U. Cell*pulses of each U. Cell*# of U. Cells next to one C. Cell = 4*3*3 = 36). Every C. Cell besides those two will be gaining 12 heat/tick (4*1*3=12). As that stands, the reactor will melt many of the outer elements by around 800 ticks. Once the C. Cells have all gone by the wayside, the reactor will meltdown in just 36.9 ticks (270+ heat excess).
This reactor would require an excessive amount of ice in order to even hope of running without massively failing (you'd need approx. 12400 Ice blocks to keep it from exploding after the C. Cells have all popped (probably more though... try around 13500). It'd be a huge undertaking to make a system that could produce the ice necessary to keep the reactor from heating up.
Edit: Tested in the sim and the reactor makes to around 530 ticks before it loses most of the C. Cells and builds up reactor heat alarmingly fast (239 excess heat). By the time the rest of the C. Cells have popped, the reactor has over 100k in heat.
Unless the fire appears on the wood blocks that are under the reinforced glass, the water will just put the fires out on the blocks right under the reactor. Even so, that's not going to help with letting water fall down and kill the redstone torch.
Considering how new you are to the reactor design 'field...' I'd say it's decent for what you want. You'll improve over time, trust me. My first reactors were... really bad.
This reactor goes along the idea of just saving some resources while doing the same as yours (start no heat, end with finished cells). I'm not a good breeder reactor designer at all, so probably should get dezu in here instead.
It's a Mark IV barely. You had the cooling cell that was pretty much surrounded by the sets of 3 U Cells get destroyed, but that was it. Besides that, it was a Mark II-1C.
Personally I don't like reactors unless they get near a Mark II-10X, so I can't rate it too high on my personal ideology. You could have possibly replaced a lot of the reactor plates with Cooling Cells instead though to help with the cooling measures. But that's just nitpicking. For a first reactor design, it's not terrible.