Posts by OCAdam

Wow... never really thought of using a bit of plating in place of where an HD would have normally gone. But that does improve the resource drain just a tad over the other design people like circulating!

I'll agree that we have different philosophies in our nuclear reactor designs.

But to explain a bit on the babysitting part... All I do is just exchange the U. Cells when needed and when I see the components are getting high in heat, I just don't exchange them for a while and hit one lever to switch from nuke power to MFE stored power. I feel it's a lot less effort than making complex redstone circuits and such (and I only run the IC2 and necessary mods, no Redstone Power or whatever it's called, so yeah...). Hopefully that clears things up.

Yeah... my Mark III's are pretty damn crap. I generally made those just to have a few, although a large number of the components in my design would fail quite rapidly. I'm much more tuned towards making the Mark II's and I's. Bit of an interesting setup you have there I say.

Yeah, but I generally want 10 cycles so I can have the first storing the power into MFEs and then the 9 extras so that I can have a cooling cycle where I'm running on just the MFE power supply (TBH, I only need 6/10ths a cycle to cool down my latest reactor design from 10 cycles running).

Update 10/10/2011:

Added another Mark II reactor. This one's the 11.6C.

The way I am anyways is to just make a larger power station of sorts where I have the power contained to about 30+ MFEs and run all the reactors for a cycle to fill the entire network, but then run a relay switch to then start directly powering all my things instead of the MFE network. So I prefer having safer reactors so I'm not watching the reactors ever besides when I'm off to put in new cores and such. Also, I'm never worried about using more uranium, so I'm not going to try for extreme efficiency at the cost of uptime.

However, my biggest problem ever has been having enough Tin for everything... oddly enough.

Well it's not like this is a priority or something, so you could just keep it sort-of on the back-burner for something to code when you're not feeling like working on other things... but if not, that's fine too.

It does go completely against my preference in reactors, so not like I care much for that design really. If it can last more than 10 cycles (more-or-less), then I like it. Else... just no.

Quote from dezuman

Lolnope, that design had 4 coolants not connected to a HD

Edit @ tripleX: They are kay, but not good
AFAIK the record for a square setup is 28 heat

Not anymore if that was:

http://test.vendaria.net/index…CCHCCCCCCCHCHHCCCCCCCHCHC

Has 27 heat/tick, but the thing is that even without any testing, I can assure you 3 of the cooling cells will be broken before the end of a cycle (estimate of 2000 ticks)... so it's pretty crap of a design IMO.

Yes, but they provide more cooling than a water block, so it's not a bad thing really.

I want to bring this thread back up (so I'm not making a new thread over a previously discussed idea).

I really don't want to just continue using the Stone Slab because it just... is completely out of place in terms of the coloring. And re-texturing isn't going to help because then it gets the regular stone buildings to look weird.

In order to actually explain what you can look at next time for future reactors...

Look at placing uranium cells next to each other in linear (non-diagonal) patterns. This does increase the heat/tick of the cells, but you will gain uranium efficiency. This also means you'll make more power out of fewer uranium cells. I suggest keeping to a max efficiency of 2.33 (3 in a row, or 3 in a corner design) and working on keeping the heat/tick at or under 0. Also, keep in mind that Cooling Cells and Reactor Plating are useless unless next to an HD (and/or a U. Cell) if meant to actually cool the reactor (Reactor Plating has a different use, but I won't go into that right now).

Look at the distribution of your HDs and Cooling Cells. You'll find some patterns are more efficient at using less HDs and have more C. Cells in the same amount of space. Only in a few cases is it good to service a single C. Cell with two HDs, but generally the same situation you could place an HD where the C. Cell is and redesign your HD network around this.

Yeah, it's a Mark I-O C reactor. Not a bad design for an early reactor design you made. I would suggest to look at reactor cooling patterns to improve the HD to cooling efficiency though.

Edit: For anyone who might have trouble with his link...
http://test.vendaria.net/index.php?reactor=4XXCHCXXXCCCXXCHUHCCHCUCHXCHUHCCHCCCXXCCHCXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Quote from Xandaros

snip

I shorten things down quite often. However, since I have no experience with Java, Javascript, or basically anything but C++... thanks for the tidbit of info.

I take it you are meaning a 0-chamber reactor? If so, the -1 floor and +1 floor would be the same. It looks like your diagrams have the right idea.

Quote from Rekalty

Removed my designs, while reading the forum I noticed ALOT better and more compact ones, I'm still a Nuclear Noob myself!

Well, over time you'll get better and better with it all. After a while I think it can get hard to not accidentally do the same design as someone else at this point... but hey, I won't mind if you try using my designs as a base to make something better, or to learn off of.

I think I consider that to be a radical enough change to pretty much be a design of itself and not just a simple modification of my reactor design. In either case, that works very nicely and would come out to be a Mark II-EC (E being 17 in this case, I think).

In all of the designs I've created, you can tell how man cycles it can go by the number in the classification. So, with the Mark II-9.7C, you can go for 9.7 cycles without the reactor exploding. To be safe, just run 9 cycles and then wait for the reactor to cool off. There is no wait time between these 9 cycles, just exchange the uranium. As for wait time with the last cycle, it's a tad bit of math to figure. Just do 10000*(1+# of internal components)/(total cooling). So for that 9.7C reactor...

10000*(1+50)/(35+33)=7500 ticks

Well I just find it a bit odd that a week ago, the JS engine wasn't so slow, but now it just... is.

I know two of my designs have already been pushed along into this thread (and I thank you for liking my designs enough!), but I think this newer one I made recently might fit the bill a bit better with the efficiency and not exploding very soon (but would eventually if given no cooling time):

Mark II-9.7C

http://test.vendaria.net/index…CCCUCCCCHCHCHCCCCCCHCHCHC

Just add a simple redstone circuit to make this run about 50/50 and it'll be all good. Of course, if you don't, it'll take around 7500 ticks to cool off (from max heat that doesn't melt components).