Posts by AkhkharuXul

Quote from HeadHunter67

Hello all,

I'm basically a novice nuclear engineer - so far I've had no mishaps because I tend toward safe designs, so when I screw up I'm able to avoid catastrophe. I've been reading the threads here and experimenting on my own, but I still have some questions:

1) Aside from the expense of crafting them, is there ever a reason not to have more chambers? Even if the slots are not used, it would seem that a reactor with more chambers will have a higher heat capacity and integrity. If I am using a plan for a smaller reactor, the main change would simply be a shorter cooldown time. Is that true?

2) Is there a way to remove chambers? I tried wrenching one and all it does it open up the interface.

3) If individual chambers cannot be removed, how does one go about moving a reactor? I would presume you need to wrench the generator itself, but if you have chambers on every side and they cannot be wrenched, how is that possible?

Thanks in advance for your advice and helpful suggestions.

Display More

2+3) Use a pick-axe or mining drill. (Don't worry, they drop chambers not machine blocks when mined) The rest will fall when you wrench the reactor itself.

1) You are mostly correct here... though the cost to create is a big deciding factor (since you're not that far from making another reactor if you already have 2 chambers). About the only other reasons you wouldn't "want" additional chambers is if you're running a breeder (since their heat is usually more finely tuned). Or the CA-SUC reactors since you can't connect to the chambers, and have to connect directly to the reactor core.

- Usually (standard) reactors that have fewer chambers are Mark 1 to begin with, so don't require any cooldown and don't produce any heat [aka perfectly safe]. Meaning that adding more hull integrity / heat capacity wouldn't actually DO anything. Though sometimes you'll see some Mark 2 designs that become Mark 1 with just the addition of an empty chamber.

Alright guys (and gals), I gotta try to reign this thread back in. It's not supposed to be for bashing which mod is better between redpower and buildcraft.

Has anyone who has used this fix experienced any unusual behavior with nuclear power generation or any adverse/non-standard reactor issues?

Quote from RichardG

Rick: that means if I wire another output, my power will be unaffected and still be at 32 EU/t?

He's saying your output has the potential to be 128 EU/t (in 32 EU packets), so adding another output would make it a max of 64 EU/t (until the second half of the system stops calling for power).
Unless you're hooking batboxes directly to the side of the LVT, your output has the potential to be > 32 EU/t (and <= 128 EU/t [since it's being fed from a MFE]).

Quote from thorbo

I have a tin cable 40 units long with solar panels on all 3 sides. The eu reader is only measuring 1/3 of what it should be showing which is 120 eu/t.

1. Why is this happening?
2. How do I correct it?

Display More

If you're measuring where the red arrow is, it should only be 120 EU/t. But if you're measuring after the output of all 4 MFE's (so below the action bar pictured), then it should be 480 EU/t (assuming it's hooked up to something that can accept the power).

Then again I thought that tin cables experienced their first EU loss right at 40 length, so, it'd be 3 less per row (and 6 less for the row with the extra glass fiber at the end (with the red arrow)). But I could be wrong, I haven't actually tested it myself, just taken the given numbers at face value.

Quote from Rick

Depends glassfiber is more expensive through if you got a advanced world it wont be any problem.

Those are MFSUs pictured, and that was just a small sampling of what was there there were rows and rows of the things.... I think he can afford a few diamonds (in comparison) for the glassfiber

Quote from ILoveZerg

I am measuring 7-20 EU right at where the wire connects to the Reactor, also I can see the smoke on the top of the reactor.
Here is my world:
http://www.mediafire.com/?j3cvikucc7n9l4z

You will need Redpower2 pre3b, IC2, and Wireless Redstone.

Ya, I didn't install wireless redstone... so I couldn't prevent the reactors from exploding. [A word of advice, turn off exploding reactors before uploading worlds :)]
2) Looking at the remains, I'm thinking it has something to do with this:

(where = HV cable) 4-way intersections are not good and you have... a LOT of them there...


would work just fine, or you could use the painter to color the wires so they don't all connect to eachother:



:Cable:
:Uranium Ingot: and :Copper Ingot: = differently painted HV cables.

But seriously, I would drop the voltage down with an HVT then run glass fiber cable :Glass Fibre: (since it only has a loss of 1 EU over 40 distance, vs 1 every 2 blocks (or well 1.25 blocks.. )
I don't know how long those HV cables are, but that might be where a lot of your loss comes from.

Quote from ILoveZerg

I have four reactors with this design:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1n10101001501521s1r01r10

It says it is supposed to be generating 640 EU/t but I am measuring 7-20 with the EU-reader. Is there something I am missing? It is a CASUC Reactor as well so no cooldown period.
The energy runs through 4xINS HV Cable into a bunch of MFSU's, although I have measured when it leaves the reactor and right before it enters the MFSU.

Edit: More information

If you're only getting 7-20 EU/t out of a 640 EU/t reactor, something is wrong.

You aren't by any chance wiring the HV cable into the output (1 dot side) of the MFSUs, are you?
[Also, a packet of 640 is big enough to make a MFSU explode, I suggest using a HVT as a buffer, just for added safety]

Is the redstone wire for your timers accidentally powering your reactor? (preventing it from turning on? ... I know I had that happen when I wired up my last test reactor)

Quote from DaStormbringer

This wouldn't happen to also make it to where the pipes will input stuff into the core via the reactor chambers? I'm using the red power pipes right now and they have to connect directly to the core for a input and a output, so I lose 2 reactor chambers to have it automated this way.

Unfortunately, not yet. That's a much more difficult problem (I'm still trying to work out a way to solve it). [I know it involves giving the chambers inventories as well ... and making sure they don't drop contents when destroyed, since the reactor itself does that.]
Ed: It'd also make this fix unneeded since you could have a 6-chamber reactor that way, and honestly, why wouldn't you? .... Also it'd give you so many more places to connect tubes/pipes/devices, yeah I'll have to work on that

Quote from Rick

Oh sweet maybe they can ad that in next update? I mean its more of a bug than a missing feature.

Yeah, they might, if they want to. Anyway, figured I should throw it out there in case anyone wanted to try it.
http://forum.industrial-craft.…ad&postID=19341#post19341
I'm pretty confident that it's not going to make your nuclear reactors explode (given that your nuclear reactor wasn't going to explode in the first place... ).

Warning: Experimental files contained within.

The premise of this add-on/fix is to increase the functionality between Industrial Craft Nuclear Reactors and other mods that interact with inventories (Buildcraft/Redpower for example), by allowing them to fill up the entire inventory before spitting out items [only being able to use the top row was a nuisance]. These files have not been fully tested, use at your own risk.
Client Version
Installation instructions: Drop the contents of the .zip file into your industrialcraftv1.23.jar [ic2/common folder located in the 1.23 jar] (located in .minecraft/mods folder).

Server version
Installation instructions: Drop the contents of .zip file into the ic2/common folder located in the industrialcraft_server 1.23 jar (located in your minecraft_server/mods folder [wherever that is])
* Server version is completely untested.

<Insert legal disclaimer and other comments>
- What it does: Causes Nuclear Reactors inventory to be generated and filled by columns instead of rows (hence filling the inventory -via other mods- before it runs out of useable columns).
- Upon installing this it may cause your previous reactors to re-arrange their items (which could produce undesired effects). I suggest shutting off reactors before installing this, then checking them before turning them back on [This effect will only occur once].

This mod is discontinued, as it has been replaced by functionality added in IC2 v 1.337.

Quote from Rick

I got a idea for a nice timer system so you know when your uranium cells are used up. If you calculate how many buckets you would need to cool 1 cycle then you can use a counter to show how far your reactor is on its cycle. Advantages vs a conventional timer will be:
-turning the reactor off wont screw the timing that much (that external cooling is so low it wont really matter only during really long pauses)
-Could be used for automated refueling (through then we should be able to fill the whole reactor too instead of only top rows)

It should be pretty accurate if you did your maths well.

A word about automated refilling. [Yeah I was annoyed with the way reactors interact with Buildcraft/Redpower2 as well, only filling the top slot, so I fixed it. :P]
Seems to be working... I thought something might have gotten screwed up in the recompiling process (or I might have missed some interaction and the reactor isn't working as intended). I might release it as an add-on, if anyone's interested / after I double-check the add-on policy to make sure I wouldn't be in violation since I made small modifications to 2 IC class files.

Edit: Lol, I went to stress-test the fix with an unusual pattern of buckets (just to make sure it worked) and um, it empties buckets [via heat] in a weird pattern (like blinking christmas lights)... So I'll have to figure out what's up with that [but I mean, other then that it appears to be working... but the power generation could be completely fuxxored and I wouldn't know]
--- If someone could give me some tips on how to decompile/recompile just the 2 class files involved, I'd appreciate it. [I'd rather avoid MCP if possible (it likes to garble some of the stuff), and javac throws errors when I try to use that to compile w/o MCP]
Edit2: Testing with rows of buckets, it works like "normal" so I'm going to guess any weird "randomness" of bucket "blinking" is the default behavior of the reactor

Quote from FnordMan

and you got that information from..?
Besides, even if scrap boxes get changed I could just as easily feed the scrap output to the mass fab i've got running near constantly.

http://forum.industrial-craft.…ad&postID=16717#post16717

The 3% I got from someone who ran tests (though I can't find the post) I made up the number 3% based off the fact that it was an equal chance for scrap box items (except dirt which is twice as much) and since there are 32 possible items (2x dirt = 33) and an equal chance 33x3.030303=99.999999% [so I guess it'd be a 3.030303% chance not 3 *shrugs* still may be wrong *shrugs*]

Quote from Krazygluon

You know that jaw dropping moment when you realize you've only scratched the surface of something...

I just had it. (for like the 9th time in this game)

So is the drop rate for diamonds from scrap boxes better than the effective drop-rate from a scrap-fed matter fab? or is it just the energy cost associated with the matter fab?

Something like that. It's also the fact that it takes a billion items (ok more like 2376) to make a diamond using scrapboxes (along with 83k EU).
I'm not sure how much scrap it takes / uu mater at 100% uptime on scrap, or how much energy.... but my guess is, it's cheaper on items, more expensive on energy.
Not sure which would take more time either (obviously would depend on the # of recyclers / mass fabricators).

Also note: I'm pretty sure Alblaka is going to nerf scrapboxes (which is something to keep in mind before building a giant recycling plant).
*Item/EU values based on a 3% drop rate of diamonds from scrapboxes [may not be the actual drop rate].

Quote from Tombermon

I was wondering if someone could either show me a tutorial or help me some how on making an automatic reactor for minecraft... I am trying to figure this out and have no idea why it never works and I end up blowing myself up... lol

Yeah the RP2 style reactors can be a bit fussy and tend to explode. Until someone shows a system that can be re-built and works 100% every time I'm not convinced that they're safe

I should try building a couple more just to make sure it's not my bad luck, I can guess at what caused my last reactor to explode.

Also about all the craziness with filling reactors. I'm working on the problem at the source lols.
Edit: I may have fixed the wonky way reactors deal with buildcraft/redpower2, need to do a little more testing first (and possibly figure out formatting issues).

Quote from glasstabels2

btw, does anyone know the specific heat at which reactors start creating lava and/or fire? it'd be really helpful to know whether it was useful for such hot breeders, as I already know that water will already evaporate before 9000 heat on a 4 chamber reactor, although it will probably still be useful for detecting whether a 6000 heat reactor has gone too far.

Edit: also, does anyone know if deployers can use screwdrivers to change the orientation of things, or for that matter wrenches as well? and finally if they can place tile entities? could lead to some interesting machinery... and maybe help with improving the reactor stuff, although for now I only have fairly abstract plans for it, not real uses.

Sadly, depoloyers don't seem to be able to use screwdrivers or wrenches
I was going to have a deployer use a screwdriver on another deployer equipped with a wrench to break down generators.
[I was preparing to be entertained, but sadly nothing happened.] Trying them separately with just a wrench / screwdriver on another device didn't work either.

Nice idea though would have been entertaining

Quote from MJEvans

x.x Keep practicing.

My own design for that used 8 IHDs, 3 uranium in a row middle of the second row, and the rest was cooling. The IHDs were stacked in a <> kind of pattern along the sides of the reactor (a column in the center and two on each side).

A -better- design for that is the one that uses 1 less IHD than mine, replacing it with hull-plating. It used a column of three in the middle almost at the top; plating above that, and then fit in as many IHD+3 cooling cells as possible.

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o1010100120101021e01r13
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…=1o1010100120101021e01r13

These are the reactors he's talking about Oddly Talon's planner considers the second a MK 2 (barely)

@glasstables

Yepp Math is right.
@4k heat = 4.5 + 2 + 7.5 + 6 = 20 cells / cycle [ 2 swaps mid-cycle]
@6k heat = 9 + 4 + 15 + 12 = 40 cells / cycle [ 7 swaps mid-cycle]
@9k heat = 18 + 8 + 30 + 24 = 80 cells / cycle [14 swaps mid-cycle]

80 cells from 10 would be pretty amazing [The # of swaps might be off they were just quick guesses in my head]

Quote from glasstabels2

So wait, just to be sure: the south side of the sequencer is always the same side for the reactor? I understand that it always stays in sync with some side, but I would be very pleasantly surprised to find that they always loaded on the same side. however, it would seem that it may not matter much based on that last post. Of course I will probably still want a breeder reactor so I have something to do with all the near-depleted cells I wind up with, but it would seem to me that there isn't much of a benefit to breeding in the CASUC designs we have. I may still make an automatic breeder of sorts though, as a reactor which is missing 2 chambers can still withstand 9000 heat with a lava bucket (missed) to spare. Add in some plating and it may work very well. Still, with things being as they are, I find little benefit in breeding any uranium I have on purpose (uranium which was never a near-depleted cell) due to the long amount of time it takes compared to both the EU it outputs and the time it takes to find more uranium.
-snip-

No, I said mine happened to be the south side [and I was able to grab it the first time] it was the left side when I placed it, though... Each sequencer might be different, or depends on orientation when placed. I actually hadn't really used them before this (I like timers better). But I just stated the findings for my tests because I figured it should work. But it's pretty easy to figure out which side syncs with the reactor, and you only have to do that step once, because it retains its time. I mean I could try to place some more sequencers to see, but I know all the sequencers I place will [or well are supposed to] share the same time.

Ed: Ok, retested, orientation of sequencer is based off direction facing when placed. Mine happens to be synced up with the reactor on the left side [so I was facing sunset when I placed the first sequencer].
I don't know if it will always work out that way. Once again just stating findings *places some more reactors* But it seems that reactors aren't timed to anything specific. Had 2 reactors that spit out items at different times. So no, a timer will not probably won't always "sync" up with a reactor, but one side will be "close" (within 0.125 seconds of, at worst)

Quote from anorend

wouldnt the MSFU quickly fill up sense it only outputs at 512 EU/t? so after a bit it would overfill and be wasted?

I did a theoretical design for a 39x39 solar array (1499 panels) that would be connected through 1 tin cable.
As far as MFSU filling up? Yes. That's why you use a HVT instead (3 dots towards solar array) since they can send multiple low packets at the same time.
But yes, you'd need more then 1 MFSU hooked up to the HVT if you wanted to store/send all the power. Else you could just use 1 MFSU and have the rest of the juice dump into a mass fabricator.

Ed: *looks at the picture harder* did you say that's only 1/4 of it? What version of IC is that running? Cos I thought they dropped the distance-loss on tin cables to 1 EU at 40 length, and it looks like there's cable longer then 40 in there...

Fixed gains at 3000, 6000, and 9000.
I'm not sure where you're getting 99% from .. but I know 1/3 likes to find its way into breeders so it'd be more like 99.99999999999%
But it's really 100% or should be. @ 6k all 4 of the cells should charge by the end of the cycle.