Posts by ashenwolf

    hiya, just want to propose some interesting items/effects:


    1) Visual display of jetpack fuel (some small bar) indicating how much fuel you have left without opening inventory.
    Why: I freaking love jetpacks, but hate falling out of the sky on longer high use trips (AEther mod I am looking at you)


    2) Isotope Accelerator Core
    Wtf is that? : made from something like a depleted-cell+uran-cell+isotope-cell and maybe some electronics. generates 1.0x the heat of a uran cell. and .5 the power. when placed next to uranium-esk cells it causes a double pulse rather than a single pulse. 75% chance of leaving a depleted accelerator core behind on death (? maybe). Doesn't pulse by itself


    3) Isotope Inhibitor Core
    same as the Accelerator core but causes adjacent to lose a pulse. Generates 1.5x uran heat, but doesn't pulse by itself.


    4) Uranium mini-gernade
    made from a single near depleted uran-core and a sticky tnt = bigger explosion tnt;


    5) Heat detector
    Use on a reactor to get its hull heat. It would be good for any reactor that's not a Mark I-EX and has a cycle time.

    i'll sum up you heat and cooling for you


    cooling
    -1 for reactor
    -12 for 6 chambers
    -20 (water cooling) 27-reactor-6chambers
    -31 cooling cells
    total cooling: -64/t


    heating:
    1 rod * 5 ticks * 10heat to hull= +50/t
    4 rods * 2 ticks each * 3 sides each * 2 heat to each side = +48/t
    total heat : 98


    total net gain/loss: +35/t


    your generator should make it to approximately tick 12850 before collapsing;


    I had a 2.33 running but it came out to be a mark two, the 4 cooling cells next to your u-cells and IHD will burn out if you try to perma run this I am remembering correctly.

    that's strange. my setup hasn't burned out at all and i have done a 4 sets of 3 run with only a small time between. it might have something to do with orientation or placement (gridwise) that effects Alblaka's computations. Don't know what to say.
    [EDIT]: after some though even if it is the case of burn out those 4 could be swapped out for distributes, and you would still retain a -17/t efficiency

    I'm pretty sure this time you've got it down, but still a bit of bad math. I count 6 reactor chambers, not 5 (you have a 6*9 grid, and 6*3 is standard no chamber reactor). So, 48 heat/tick, but with 36 coolants, 6 chambers, and the reactor itself, that alone looks to be making -1 heat/tick, unless I've got my own math wrong. Add water and you've got -21 heat/tick total (20 from the water where that 3*3*3-1-6 = 20).

    yep, yep, yep, your right in full. Thanks for pointing out the -1/t error i'm certain i would never have spotted it otherwise :D. well now that i have some verification I'm moving on to a Mark II-EB 50/50 reactor which with a redstone clock it might as well be a Mark I-EB.

    With each core producing 3 pulses, 4 cores, and 2 elements surrounding each, I got 96 heat/tick as well. Your water cooling then reduces heat by 20 per tick, the reactor chambers 12, reactor itself 1, the 35 coolants for another 35... that adds up to 68. This leaves 28 heat/tick left. Unfortunately your algorithm might need to work a bit more before it comes up with the correct heat/tick value.

    argleblargle! this is a problem with counting from 0 always.... assuming the 0 pules matters >.< sad face.

    I've calculated 21 extra heat (with water cooling). And testing approves it - elements are slowly depleting... It is Mk. II i think.

    yessir i was totally wrong and for got to teach my algorithm to carry a 1! however there aren't (or damned well shouldn't be since i manually checked this) any errors in the design now. Any errors that crop up shouldn't be from my math, but some known bugs with the heat distributors.


    lol a miscalculation from a computer science professional... Did you ever work on a mars orbiter?


    (sorry but you just built yourself up so high in the first paragraph that the second edit made me laugh)

    You would not believe the number of times a 1 off error nukes (HA) and entire programming operations. I laughed myself as i face palmed really really hard. The actual error wasn't so much as math but it was using the 4 reactor hub grid rather than the all 5 grid. *facepalm!

    i discovered IC^2 only a couple days ago and instantly got hooked on nuke engineering. I have a leg up in this area since i am an Computer-science professional who focuses on algorithms (pattern recognitio and computation). Something caught my attention in Albaka's post. the comment about being able to design a 2.17 Mark I-EC reactor. Simply put i wanted to do better than that :D



    Aaaand POOF! there you go!


    A 2.33(repeating) Mark I-EC reactor (squeak! JUST BARELY GOT HIM!)


    Components:
    3 Uranium Core
    36 Cooling Core
    15 Heat Distrib


    Cooling synopsis:
    -36/t from Cooling core
    -1 from reactor
    -12 from reactor chambers
    -20 from water (27 aka 3x3x3 - reactor - 6chambers)
    total: -67/t


    Heat Generation
    2 cores X 2 pulses each x 3 faces each x 2 heat per face = +24/t
    1 core X 3 Pulses x 2 faces x 4 heat per face = +24/t
    total +48


    -21 heat diff PER TICK! (HOLY!)
    output: 7 ticks ~35eu/t



    great care can be taken in the adding and removal of cooling units in exchange for more individual uran rods. This however decreases the efficiency in exchange for immediate power output. (Which wasn't my original objective) if my math sticks and isverified i will begin exploration of it idea of a 50/50 on off clock based Mark II-EB/EA


    Now then back to Project Alblaka!


    [EDIT]: VICTORY IS MINE! Really! This time i mean it! Verify my math and prove me wrong if i am!