The_Glaive Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Guys,  I'm building a reactor that is 32x32x16 high, with fuel rods in a checkerboard configuration (no rods touching the outer casing), using Gelid Cryotheum as the coolant with 20 turbines (5 on each vertical face) directly attached to the reactor.  Do you guys think the reactor is going to be able to produce enough steam to power all these turbines? Am I using too many fuel rods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AetherPirate Posted December 29, 2014 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2014 When you're done building the reactor, stick a coolant port in it and see. If you're not making 40k steam, build it higher. As a guess, this size seems in the ballpark, though it's been awhile since I've made a large actively cooled one in this version. Tekkit can't go above 0.3.42A2, the newer builds offer neat tweaks and fixes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) I think that checkerboard patterns are not very good. At least group them into 5-rod "plus" columns, like so: CRC RRR CRC Â I also think that this frame size is probably too big already if you use an efficient rod configuration. I managed to get over 20 buckets per tick of steam (iirc) out of >The Core, which was considerably smaller with only one plus column in a 5x5x48 frame. Edited December 29, 2014 by Curunir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AetherPirate Posted December 29, 2014 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2014 I've been searching for the best fuel-efficient design for active cooling for very large reactors (50k steam). Have you played with the .4x versions of Big Reactors? Does the "plus" design scale well to larger builds? I'd like to embark on a massive building project on a 1.7.10 modpack, but want to do it smartly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Plus is the way to go because of the added fertility. Even solid 3x3 rod blocks work reasonably well, but you will run into coolant constraints when scaling them up. I have been using BR 0.4 on a private pack, but only built a small passive reactor so far. Will post when I get around to recreate The Core with the new Turbines. Ludicrite for teh win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) Ack! I've already started to put coolant into the reactor. Â I'll swap out the floodgate for a pump and store all the coolant I have and then redo the configuration: Which way is better? CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCR CCCRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRC CRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCRCRCRCCCRCRCRC or CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC or CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CCCCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC CCCRRRCRRRCRRRCRRR CCCCRCCCRCCCRCCCRC Edited December 29, 2014 by The_Glaive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 There is no definitve best setup. Somebody recently wrote that adding Carbon blocks as heat moderators will improve the heat transfer and allow Cryotheum to work better than it would on its own - that is what I understood, anyway. Â I would go for that variant where you have plenty of Cryotheum surrounding the rods. Even with that, keep in mind that you will most likely need to extend Control Rods a lot in such a "hot" setup. It is recommended to start at 90% (99% if you are able to fine-tune the Control Rods with Redstone or Computer control) and see how much steam it will output. Better to work up from there than down from the other end, because you won't see if excess steam is created. The output will cap steam production even if it's way overboard, so the only thing you would notice in that scenario is low efficiency and high temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AetherPirate Posted December 29, 2014 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2014 Diamond blocks do quite well too, if you have tons to spare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Not sure how solid coolants fare in general, but it might be interesting to tinker with them. Keep in mind that they do not replace Cryo, but complement it. Â Something else about configuration: Checkerboards are not all bad, but you would need to make each "square" of the board a 2x2 rod unit. I still think that Plus-shapes allow for better heat dissipation while offering similar or better fertility, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) So something like.... (M is for the moderator)  CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCMCCCCCCMCCCCCCCMCCCCCCMCCCC CCMRMCCCCMRMCCCCCMRMCCCCMRMCCC CMRRRMCCMRRRMCCCMRRRMCCMRRRMCC CCMRMCCCCMRMCCCCCMRMCCCCMRMCCC CCCMCCCCCCMCCCCCCCMCCCCCCMCCCC  I'm not sure what you mean by moderator blocks. Do they extend the length of the interior, or are they placed every other block for maximum coolant coverage?  like if you are looking at the rod vertically: CCRCC CMRMC CCRCC CMRMC CCRCC CMRMC CCRCC CMRMC CCRCC CMRMC CCRCC CMRMC CCRCC CCRCC Edited December 29, 2014 by The_Glaive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) Yes, something like that probably. I haven't tried this myself, but somebody wrote here recently that he had some success with it. Â The idea is that the rod only has two or three surface sides touching the Cryotheum to transfer heat. If you put a moderator block in between, this will increase the cooling surface. In the real world, this is done regularly, e.g. with a metal heat sink sitting on a CPU. The heat agent is the air blown by the fan, but the CPU surface is too small for this to be effective, so the metal heat sink is added to spread the energy over a larger surface and expose it better to the actual heat agent. That is also why it's called a "heat sink". Â The big question is now if there are any solid blocks that BR 0.34 will consider efficient for this, or if plain Cryo works best after all. Â P.S.: Found it. BlessedWrath wrote about the Graphite blocks being moderators >here and >here. Edited December 29, 2014 by Curunir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 Well, I will start a creative world, test several configurations, and post my results sometime this week. In the mean time I will continue manufacturing coolant and storing up cyanite/enderium on the survival server for the rest of my turbine build requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakalth Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Well, I have been reading up on spreadsheets scattered amongst various areas. There is a LOT of data available for designing reactors, but not always data that is actually useful... Although, I did find some very useful data dealing with large builds and they all suggest going for large diameter flat reactors. Easier to balance out coolant and rod setups for flat reactors. It also shows that radiation travels out up to 5 blocks from the fuel rods, but only in a strait line and only from the 4 sides of the rods. This means that only rods that are lined up with the side of another rod, they do not have to be touching actually, will share radiation and boost each others radiation level(efficiency). The data also shows that the corner blocks don't even have to have coolant. They will not effect efficiency, but might effect temperature control.  The + design works well because it is compact, but it is not the best overall design for large reactors it ends up. What is the best design is to have your rods in the center with several layers of coolant between the rods and the outer wall of your reactor. And to allow room for some coolant to be fit in between some of the fuel rods to help balance out heat flow.  A good example is this design someone else had posted, If stacked up to 7 blocks high, it should be able to produce the max of 40,000mb/tick of steam and still be quite efficient. The design is 15 x 15 x 7 high, outside dimensions(the dimensions of the outer casing). It also outpaces any design I've made so far.  C = casing R = resonant ender G = Gelid cryothium X = any block or fluid. H = fuel rods  CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CXXXXRRRRRXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CRGGGHHHHHGGGRC CRGGGHGHGHGGGRC CRGGGHHHHHGGGRC CRGGGHGHGHGGGRC CRGGGHHHHHGGGRC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXRRRRRXXXXC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Edited January 1, 2015 by jakalth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 40.000 mB/t? Isn't the steam hard limit 50.000 mB/t? Â Interesting coolant setup. It should be noted that this level of optimization is mostly its own reward. Even vastly simpler arrangements already achieve very high efficiency. Â As for those random spreadsheets floating around, a note to people who write them: Always make a note somewhere in the document for which mod version(s) your measurements and calculations apply, and ideally in which environment you did the testing. For instance, some settings have changed over time, making old numbers useless, and some modpacks are working with changed parameters. Even some servers use modified settings. So to make the data useful, please document your stuff properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Well, I have been reading up on spreadsheets scattered amongst various areas. There is a LOT of data available for designing reactors, but not always data that is actually useful... Although, I did find some very useful data dealing with large builds and they all suggest going for large diameter flat reactors. Easier to balance out coolant and rod setups for flat reactors. It also shows that radiation travels out up to 5 blocks from the fuel rods, but only in a strait line and only from the 4 sides of the rods. This means that only rods that are lined up with the side of another rod, they do not have to be touching actually, will share radiation and boost each others radiation level(efficiency). The data also shows that the corner blocks don't even have to have coolant. They will not effect efficiency, but might effect temperature control.  The + design works well because it is compact, but it is not the best overall design for large reactors it ends up. What is the best design is to have your rods in the center with several layers of coolant between the rods and the outer wall of your reactor. And to allow room for some coolant to be fit in between some of the fuel rods to help balance out heat flow.  A good example is this design someone else had posted, If stacked up to 7 blocks high, it should be able to produce the max of 40,000mb/tick of steam and still be quite efficient. The design is 15 x 15 x 7 high, outside dimensions(the dimensions of the outer casing). It also outpaces any design I've made so far.  C = casing R = resonant ender G = Gelid cryothium X = any block or fluid. H = fuel rods  CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CXXXXRRRRRXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CRGGGHHHHHGGGRC CRGGGHGHGHGGGRC CRGGGHHHHHGGGRC CRGGGHGHGHGGGRC CRGGGHHHHHGGGRC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXGGGGGXXXXC CXXXXRRRRRXXXXC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Any reason why you use resonant ender instead of cryothium? Edited January 1, 2015 by The_Glaive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AetherPirate Posted January 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 1, 2015 What are the numbers for this design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakalth Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) resonant ender helps with radiation levels, even if only slightly, so having them on the outside like this boosts the efficiency of the reactor while still allowing for the superior cooling performance of gelid cryothium. It's really just a few percent difference though. In the small 9x9x3 reactor i usually build, it's only about 2% improvement. The reactor layout above is boosted by about 5%. Gelid alone is the next best thing.  The reactor, one layer high(15x15x3) produces about 13.4K rf/tick when the control rods are set for optimum temp(900C). and about 55K rf/tick when 5 layers high(15x15x7) when the control rods are also inserted to max efficiency(about 900C) It's capable of outputting more if temp and efficiency are ignored. The single layer, in steam configuration, sits at about 6800mb/tick steam production, also with the control rods set. and the 5 layer, in steam configuration, sits around 40,000mb/tick with the control rods set.  The pros: 1: efficient 2: looks interesting.  The cons: 1: the mixed coolant is a pain to do for the multiple layer design. 2: That's a lot of coolant.  To get any more info I'd have to rebuild the reactor. I kinda broke the game playing around with Rim frames and reactors. Oops. Edited January 1, 2015 by jakalth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AetherPirate Posted January 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 1, 2015 Thanks for sharing all this. I'll build one too and check it out. I'll try the sold cooling blocks (diamond and graphite) and compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) So, for my 32x32x16 reactor I went with this. C = Cryotheum, R = Fuel Rod. I ended up with 144 fuel rods  CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCRCRCRCRCRCRRCRCRCRCRCRCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC  I only have 14 of my 25 turbines built and running at this point, but I will post numbers and screen shots when I have them all built and spun up. As it is now, I have over half of my fuel rods with their control rods at 100%. Last I checked I had fuel reactivity at around 510% to 520% Edited January 6, 2015 by The_Glaive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 In case you didn't see it yet, somebody made a simulator for BR setups. Much easier to get an idea about outputs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 In case you didn't see it yet, somebody made a simulator for BR setups. Much easier to get an idea about outputs now. It wont simulate mine... only allows input for 1-30 on the sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunir Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Well, standard limit is 32x32x48, and the simulator subtracts 2 on each dimension for the walls. So naturally, 30x30x46 is all you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompanoZombie Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Very nice base, I am impressed. You have a very nice energy output from your turbines especially with the reactors only using 1 milibucket per tick. Now how many reactors and how many turbines do you have? Im guessing they are the same design if you have multiple reactors and turbines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Glaive Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Just the one, one huge reactor and 25 turbines. After I completed this project, dismantled the other 2 passive reactors I had been running to make the cyanite for the turbines. 600k rf/t is plenty for me right now. Edited January 8, 2015 by The_Glaive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now