BlessedWrath

There is also a way to alter the config file to permanently disable NEI's cheat mode, in case you're tempted by the in-game ability to turn it back on. There's an entry called "lock mode". I don't remember exactly how it's done, but a quick search on Google should turn up some useful information.

I normally have at least some additional energy storage as well, but you can't really send it effectively (10k max RF/t per source). With high-energy machines like the Laser Drill, it really seems like they needed to update the energy conduits. You could use the Energy Transfer Node with upgrades, I suppose. My emergency power system normally consists of a Redstone or Resonant energy cell connected to each of my most important machines. If the reactor ever fails, I have a supply of energy that lets me continue operating until I can get the reactor back up and running again. This is especially important if you're running an ME system; you wouldn't want to lose access to all your materials, would you? On the subject of efficiency, I managed to score about 400k on a small Active reactor with a single turbine. The major difference seems to be that, for sheer output, you go with passive, and for fuel efficiency, you go active. I'm really not sure which I like better.

I suspect that this site is running code from the newer version of Big Reactors. My in-game tests suggest that Destabilized Redstone really is the best, thermally, for the current Tekkit build. When/if it updates to the current version of Big Reactors, that will change. For how difficult it is to produce and use, I simply do not use Gelid Cryotheum. For me, it's just not worth the effort yet. Now...when that update gets here...

What a cool site! I didn't know about it, so all my tests were in-game. Toying around with the simulator, I couldn't build a max-dimension reactor because the program wouldn't allow horizontals above 30. Max-dim is 32 for Tekkit, which is what I use. This reactor is 25x25x42 instead, so its max output will be understandably lower. Replacing the graphite with more Redstone does increase its power output, but also increases temp and fuel consumption. This is the most efficient setup I've come up with. I did try Resonant Ender in one of my in-game tests, but that resulted in a much higher temperature and fuel cost. Thermally, Redstone is still the best for this design.

I've actually begun messing with Atomic Science after my brush with hard limits in Big Reactors. The Fusion Reactor has a much smaller footprint, but outputs enough power to run two Laser Drills fully (and a third partially). The production-to-volume ratio is much higher with AS than with BR, from what I've seen, but that's not all. It's also entirely self-fueling. I managed to hook up a Chemical Extractor which could manufacture Deuterium continuously. Wired up to a Tesseract, it feeds the Fusion Reactor non-stop. I can layer these reactors on top of one another, as many as I need to, with the only obvious limits being build height and materials needed. BR has some inarguable potential, but I also think it has some limitations which should really be looked at with a critical eye. I'm not really sure how the costs compare with AS, since I built those reactors in creative, but the long-run favors those smaller, self-fueling reactors. Unless they've been nerfed in recent updates, I'm going with them.

Thanks, Curunir. Like I said, I do like the active/passive system. I was just disappointed that the upper limit was so easy to reach. Despite that opinion, I of course still applaud the author. Big Reactors has been such a staple to Tekkit for so many people. It's hard for me to imagine how I would get anything done without it.

Before I start, I would like to point out that I know the current version of Tekkit has an outdated version of Big Reactors. I'm not sure what the new changes will be, so I don't know how much of this post will still be relevant when the new version comes to Tekkit. I just put this here as a commentary on my experiences with the mod. So I began toying around with the Actively-Cooled reactors over the past few days. It's neat, but...I have some questions about the assumption that they're more effective than passive reactors. This may be true of smaller reactors, but the maximum flow rate of steam to a turbine is 2,000 mB/t, meaning that the maximum relevant size of a turbine is much smaller than the maximum possible size. Mine ended up being 13x12 (9 rotor shafts and a rotor bearing on the inside), with four sets of five block long blades. I'm using four complete Enderium coils, with 5/8 blocks on the fifth coil. More about "optimal efficiency" in a moment. For now, I want to focus on the limitations of the active reactor. I built a maximum-dimension reactor with Graphite moderators on all available spaces. The maximum heat on this thing is huge, meaning it can create massive amounts of steam. However, I tested the maximum steam production by placing a Void Fluid Pipe on a Reactor Coolant Port set to output mode. I discovered that, although I have four rows of eight Liquid Transfer Nodes (with maximum upgrades each, that should come to 8,000 mB/t each), I cannot produce more steam than the internal buffer can hold. The rising temperature of the reactor tells me that, were the buffer larger, it would be producing much more steam. It ended up leveling off at about 870C with control rods set in the high 90s. I later confirmed this by building a set of 30 optimal-sized turbines, each directly connected to the reactor via Turbine Fluid Ports so as to avoid limitations on transfer rates. 25 of the turbines spun at full speed (25x2,000 mB/t each max flow rate is 50,000 mB/t; the same size as the internal buffer) while 5 of the turbines did nothing. To confirm that I'd set up those five turbines correctly, I deactivated five of the turbines which were working correctly. The five stopped turbines began spinning as expected. What this really means is that there is a maximum number of turbines you can use with an actively-cooled reactor. That upper limit ended up being (for me) 600,000 RF/t. That's a respectable number, but it doesn't match my highest output in a passively cooled reactor. Actives were supposed to be so much better, but they fell short of my expectations by quite a bit. 90% of the power of my reactor is wasted because I can't generate any more than 50 B/t of steam. Add to that the expense of manufacturing turbine parts and it's basically enough to get me to stop using actives altogether. My passive reactor outperforms on materials, output and convenience. All of its power can be routed through a single tesseract, whereas every individual turbine must be handled separately. I also had a comment on the idea of "optimal" rotor speed. Using the wiki entry, my turbine design should have run with better output by using four complete Enderium coils, and a fifth coil composed of four Enderium and one Iron. It passed just over 1800rpm, and produced at least 600 RF/t less than replacing that iron block with Enderium. Using Enderium in place of iron took my RPM down to 1790-something and gave me that extra 600 RF/t. I know there's a give-and-take between drag on the rotor shaft and generation of RF, but it just feels like the optimal speed concept should have been tighter than that. Now don't get me wrong: I like the idea of turbines. It was a lot of fun to put together and test out. I just have some reservations about the upper limits. Making the maximum turbine size 16x16x16 while the maximum steam input is only 2,000 mB/t pretty much guarantees that an optimal build will never use maximum dimensions. I also think the output should be able to exceed the buffer size; since you're not really storing the steam if it's being used right away, the buffer size should not matter. I also realize that a number of changes have been made size 0.3. I'm hoping that the launch of the V2 platform will bring the newer versions of Big Reactors along with it. I just wonder if it's too much to hope for that we will get some better output. Thoughts?

I'm sorry; I just realized this post was off-topic.

Also, I am curious as to how this relates to the original topic.

I do agree that design should play a role. I find that most people just latch on to a specific style and never try anything else, simply because they were told it was "most efficient". I actually studied a great deal before designing mine, and got a much higher output than I expected as a result. It's not enough to just bandwagon on a pre-determined layout; you should learn the mechanics of the mod and use that information to your advantage. The Big Reactors mod is one that does reward a bit of thinking; I just hope that doesn't change.

That's my current solution. It's a bit tedious, but it works. Depending on the seed, oil can be very prevalent, and can take hours to clear.

Thanks, Curunir. I suspected that was the case, but never tinkered with it. It's just annoying to have to deal with it, especially when you can't see while trying to fill it in. I have never used oil, and don't have that strong an interest in traveling to the moon, so it would be no great loss to me. Naturally, a more appropriate solution would be to modify either the oil or the Quarry so that it no longer stops mining operations.

Definitely agreed. I used to rely solely on quarries, which require chunkloading and devastate the landscape. When I discovered the laser drill, I was first skeptical, then ecstatic. I had found a solution to the strip mining problem and my lag. I don't want to find something else. It's a very effective solution. If I have to go back to quarries to refuel my reactor, or wander through caves looking for Yellorite just to bring my drills back online...well, it'll kind of defeat the purpose. There's also the fact that players will do whatever it takes to get what they want. If that means higher latency devices, like you mention, you can believe they'll do it. I really would like to see the rarity of ores determined by their spawn chance during world generation. Yellorite is not uncommon; it's everywhere in the worlds I've played. Right now, it seems like Yellorite is rarer than Diamond and Emerald when generated by the drill. That kind of screws with my sense of order in the world.

I'm with Curunir: Fill in the water sources with sand or gravel. You get plenty of either when running a Quarry anyway. I normally route the terrain blocks (dirt, cobble, sand, gravel, etc) to Deep Storage for that very purpose. Used to use Void Pipes to destroy them, but I got wise after a while and started saving them. I also second the point about waiting until the quarry is done. You can always restart it after you've gotten rid of the undesirables. The thing I hate most about quarries is oil. I'd remove it from the game if I could.

I have mine set up to automatically process Yellorite, Uranium and Nether Uranium, with equal foci for each. I'm also set up to automatically reprocess Cyanite into Blutonium, and have an Itemduct/Deep Storage system which can be switched from one to the other. I save as much Blutonium as I can, then, when my Yellorium stores get low, I switch to Blutonium. I haven't tested its efficiency at lower power outputs, so I'm not sure whether it's more efficient to run with control rods or less efficient. Because I'm set up to take maximum advantage of moderating fast radiation, I assume my best efficiency will come at higher temperatures. I may be wrong about that; I'd have to test it. In any event, it's more power than any ten people need. I just wanted to see what was possible. If MFR is specifically seeking to nerf Yellorium production for the sole purpose of making a self-sustaining laser drill impossible, I may have to look at tweaking the settings for my own use. I think that intelligent and efficient design should be rewarded; if you build tight enough to break the equilibrium barrier, you deserve to get something out of it. Besides, the laser drill is non-subtractive, low-latency and is much more expensive than a Quarry. I would think that should be enough of a counterbalance for the ores it generates. Add in the slow production rate and I think there are enough negatives to balance the positives. We don't need self-sustaining reactor prevention. It just has to be pricey enough that it takes some effort to acquire. EDIT: The rate is 0.25% now. What was it before? Because I hit 25k Yellorium in a couple of days, with four drills and all three fuel foci installed.

Rats. Even with all foci geared for Yellorite, we won't be able to keep up? That's terrible.

So I finally built out to max dimensions, but I sort of overbuilt on the horizontal. I had to alter the configuration file to allow reactors over the default size (32, I think). Mine ended up being 43 X and Z, and (I think) 42 Y. I did not want to take down that much Reactor Glass. Folks...the power this thing puts out is so immense that it actually had to switch to a higher measurement. I passed 1,000 KiRF/t and it changed to MeRF/t. Maximum output is almost 600 MeRF/t, and it's using about the same fuel as the design I posted which topped out at 369 KiRF/t. To clarify, that's 1,198,486 RF/t. And I'm still getting 630% Fuel Reactivity because of my moderating material. I knew I would beat that output, but I never dreamed it would be this high. 14.xx mB/t fuel cost is extreme, but if you're running enough laser drills to warrant that much power, you're making the Yellorium to cover it (if you have the correct Laser Foci installed). I had to dial it down to 96% control rod insertion just to get the output to closely match what my four drills require. That setting takes it down to about 110 KiRF/t, and the fuel efficiency is pretty good. Now for the incredible bit. The max output, divided by max fuel usage, comes out to 83,228. Anyway, here's a video including the configuration file and maximum stable output.

Now that is useful. One of the most annoying things was the inability to precisely control the rods. I ended up linking in a Redstone Port to set all control rods to the same level, upon configuration and activation of a connected lever. It sounds like that will no longer be necessary. 1% increments will go a long way toward eliminating the need for regulation, so long as power demands don't fluctuate. On the subject of changing power demands, I ended up setting two arrays of 20 Redstone Ports each. The left array activates at 5% energy buffer intervals, and uses the Insert On Pulse setting to increase Control Rod insertion by 10% as the buffer fills. As it drains, the right array does the opposite. I normally hover around the 50% mark as a result. It does take a moment to adjust to changing power needs, but I can increase or decrease demands on the system on-the-fly and not have to recalibrate the system. Unless I exceed the maximum output of the reactor, I never have to touch its controls. As a side note: Don't use RedNet cables with a regulation system if you're using Redstone Ports to trigger signals. They work until you log out, then they cease working altogether. I replaced the RedNet Cable with regular Redstone dust and haven't had that problem since. I wonder if that'll be fixed in 0.4.

I look forward to the changes. If enough information is available, I should be able to modify the designs accordingly. Hopefully the Tekkit Team is able to get it working sooner, rather than later.

Yes, actually, I could post a pic. It'll have to be a screenshot of the top of the reactor, though; my casing is opaque. And I'm not using "plus". It's an arrangement of 3x3, with each rod spaced 3 blocks apart. Also, I modified the design (Pic Below). I now have four Redstone Ports. They're connected in pairs by RedNet Cable. Both pairs are configured to listen for energy levels above and below 25%. When above 25%, the left pair is configured to change the Control Rod insertion to 71% (tops out at 70-something, which is just barely less power than I need for all my equipment). When below 25%, the right pair is configured to change Control Rod insertion to 70%, which puts me back up at 81k. I can avoid having to use the Toggle Reactor On/Off settings this way, and the lower temperature puts my efficiency index score at about 147, which is much higher than I anticipated. Settings for the four ports are as follows: Left Top: Output - Active Above 25% Left Bottom: Input - Change Control Rod Insertion (Mode: Set On Pulse) @ 71% Right Top: Output - Active Below 25% Right Bottom: Input - Change Control Rod Insertion (Mode: Set On Pulse) @ 70% Picture: All of this using Redstone as my coolant. I imagine the gains on Resonant Ender would be significantly higher. The problems I see with the preferred "shape" layouts (plus, X, etc) are that the density of fuel rods does not allow for cross-rod fertility. You get some, but nowher near what you get with three moderating blocks between rods. X is actually the worst for fertility, since radiation does not travel on the diagonal. With this layout and these settings, my fuel usage drops to ~0.5 mB/t. That's powering four MFR Laser Drills continuously, as well as the equipment to process ores.

First, I would like to apologize for the necro. I did read about that being somewhat of a touchy subject in the rules, but as it is still permitted, I would like to add my two cents to this thread. I did look through the recent posts and was not able to find this subject recently discussed within at least four iterations of the "load more topics" button. It's been a while since I played Tekkit and I wanted to jump into the efficiency debate. There were a couple of points that I think were missed in most of the popular setups I've seen. The first thing I noticed was that a lot of people are focusing on "best layout" as if it's something finite or predetermined. 7x7 is mentioned a lot. During my studies, I found that the efficiencies are not based on any specific size, but on the internal layout. I looked up as much information as I could about the behavior of the simulated radiation, and how to control it. My current setup is designed not only to use the maximum number of coolant source blocks (4 in cardinal directions), but also to use moderating blocks (I chose Graphite) to convert fast radiation to usable energy. I read somewhe (in several websites, actually) that the energy penalty for going over 1000C is actually an increase in fast radiation, not just an arbitrary reduction in energy produced, so I took that into account when I designed my reactor. If I have understood it correctly, I have the maximum number of moderating blocks (3) between my fuel rods, making sure that most of the radiation that hits an adjacent fuel rod is absorbed by it. I tested this by running the reactor at approximately "optimal" temperature (989C) and measuring the results, then letting it run at 0% control and recording the changes. The temperature and energy output both rose by ~14%. Without the moderating material, temperature gains and energy output gains should not be proportionate. This would seem to suggest that the penalty is indeed an increase in fast radiation, and not a global reduction in output. If that's the case, moderating blocks are a clear advantage over lowering the temperature via control rods. The layout itself is a 19x19x42 reactor. There are four spaces of Destabilized Redstone coolant between the casing and the core, and there are three spaces of Graphite Blocks between each fuel rod. The core is composed of nine fuel rods. I built to maximum height (42), which means 40 fuel rod blocks per fuel rod. The readings I took were as follows: -Control Rods @ 30% Max Heat: 989C Max Output: 190 KiRF/t Max Fuel Usage: 1.373 mB/t Fuel Reactivity: 592% -Control Rods @ 0% Max Heat: 1136C Max Output: 218 KiRF/t Max Fuel Usage: 1.7 mB/t Fuel Reactivity: 594% To compare, I once had a reactor at maximum height and width/length (38x38x42) which had its fuel rods spaced four blocks apart (from the casing and from each other). I did not use any moderating materials for this design. It reached a maximum output of 396 KiRF/t with Destabilized Redstone coolant. Now...I'm using a reactor with 9 fuel rods instead of (what would it have been...36?) the original design and I'm still reaching over half of its output, even at temperatures which should be penalizing me. At maximum width/length, this design would use 49 fuel rods! I plan on building that reactor out to its max horizontal dimensions at some point, and I can only speculate on the gains on output. It is also worth noting that higher temperatures do seem to negatively affect Fuel Reactivity. The above readings were taken at full operation, once the readout stabilized. However, I tend to regulate my reactors with the Redstone Ports. I have them set to toggle the reactor on when its energy buffer falls below 50%. On pulse, the Fuel Reactivity reaches 620%, which makes it more fuel efficient than just leaving it running. The peak power output on pulse seems to be around 100 KiRF/t, which is enough to take the energy buffer from 50% to ~75%, even after it's shut off. TL;DR. Basically, Fuel Reactivity and Moderation are the two most important factors in my opinion. If you're moderating most of your fast radiation into usable energy, then temperature does not matter (outside of meltdown, of course, but that hasn't been implemented yet). The ability to reduce the diminishing returns penalty via moderation opens up worlds of potential for this device. And...for the record, yes, I am using it to power Laser Drills. When it was only putting out 80 KiRF/t, I had four of them in service. With the new build, I could power eleven of them. I used Yellow, Cyan and Lime Laser Foci to amp up the Uranium and Yellorite production, so it is officially showing a net profit. I'm at about 7500 Yellorium in stock and about 300 Blutonium, which shows I've been profiting for some time. Please let me know if I've overlooked something. I will try to get some screenshots up. Unfortunately my reactor did not use glass, so you won't be able to see inside it. EDIT: Pictures My previous "best" design was clearly inefficient. It did not benefit from the Fuel Reactivity boosts you see in my current designs. 14.xx mB/t fuel consumption is outrageous. The current design, operating at maximum output. Current design, on pulse. Also, I just remembered about the efficiency equation. Mine scores 129.127358490566 once stabilized. Not bad.