IthiQQ Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 So if I understand correctly, the reactor hull is unable to lose any heat at all? I used to cool my reactors with ice in the old version of Tekkit but that obviously doesn't work anymore. So now when I want to dispense heat from the hull I have to remove the reactor with the wrench and place it back where it was...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiPr0 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Uh if you're setting up your coolant cells and heat dispersal panels correctly and not overloading the reactor with uranium cells, you shouldn't run into a heat issue at all. This is a Mark II Reactor design I use, its spendy on cooling but its safe and I never overheat or burn out my coolant system. Mark II - 14 Stable Its understandable that if you're used to the EE2 infinite ICE cooling that you might be having some trouble in this area. This is as powerful as I can get with a Mark II Reactor without heating issues. I'm toying with Mark III Designs but this Mark II - 14 is completely stable. (Though the changes to the uranium cells may have some new effects, hopefully just in total capacity and not in heat risk). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprolo Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Isn't an MKII reactor a reactor which needs cooling periods? You seem to be describing that as an MKI design, which never overheats or needs cooling periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IthiQQ Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 Uh if you're setting up your coolant cells and heat dispersal panels correctly and not overloading the reactor with uranium cells, you shouldn't run into a heat issue at all. This is a Mark II Reactor design I use, its spendy on cooling but its safe and I never overheat or burn out my coolant system. Mark II - 14 Stable Its understandable that if you're used to the EE2 infinite ICE cooling that you might be having some trouble in this area. This is as powerful as I can get with a Mark II Reactor without heating issues. I'm toying with Mark III Designs but this Mark II - 14 is completely stable. (Though the changes to the uranium cells may have some new effects, hopefully just in total capacity and not in heat risk). Okay, thank you! That appears to be a nice, nifty tool by the way, how up to date is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiPr0 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 That Mark II won't overheat, I've run it, the 6 units of excess heat it produces is dispersed by the reactor being submerged in water. Its required no cooling periods, we've never even had to change the coolant cells after multiple uranium cells had been burned through...its balanced, its dispersing the heat production completely evenly, and its a Mark II, not a Mark I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiPr0 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Okay, thank you! That appears to be a nice, nifty tool by the way, how up to date is it? Fairly accurate, though the changes to coolant cells and uranium cells may have some variable effect, the new cells seem to be based around total available resource to a cell, as compared to the previous version where it was a cell was a cell was a cell. There may be anomalies in reactor heat array due to them though, so I suggest experimenting in creative mode in single player mode to get a full handle on how the new cells affect heat dispersal and generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portablejim Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Uh if you're setting up your coolant cells and heat dispersal panels correctly and not overloading the reactor with uranium cells, you shouldn't run into a heat issue at all. This is a Mark II Reactor design I use, its spendy on cooling but its safe and I never overheat or burn out my coolant system. Mark II - 14 Stable Its understandable that if you're used to the EE2 infinite ICE cooling that you might be having some trouble in this area. This is as powerful as I can get with a Mark II Reactor without heating issues. I'm toying with Mark III Designs but this Mark II - 14 is completely stable. (Though the changes to the uranium cells may have some new effects, hopefully just in total capacity and not in heat risk). That planner is for the old system. Here are designs for the new system http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=7681 EDIT: That Mark II won't overheat, I've run it, the 6 units of excess heat it produces is dispersed by the reactor being submerged in water.. Water sumbmersion does not effect the new reactors. Look at the new nuclear reactor mechanics: Explanation of a Mk1 reactor (by Direwolf20): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiPr0 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Ahh crap yeah that changes everything, I'm going to have to do some creative mode experimentation tonight when I get home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivaii Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'm gonna try an ice injected machine. Snow Golem interment camp is a go. EDIT: So ice can't be injected according to the little planner. Mk II reactor That's what I came up with instead. 160 eu/t, but only needs a 5ish minute cooldown and no replacement components outside refueling it with uranium cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprolo Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Thats the V3 planner. In IC2 past Minecraft 1.2.5, reactors can no longer be ice cooled, so your setup will unfortunately no longer work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivaii Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Lawls, there is no ice in that design I used for the mk II. Just two quad uranium. Mark - II - 2 EB This one produces more power and needs less cooldown time, can still cycle a fully twice, but if you do that you'll need a 9ish minute cooldown. 4 minute 37 second cooldown per full cycle to keep from burning anything out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youeatp00 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I modded Jivaii's a bit to make it mark 1 EB. There is still tons of excess cooling and I'll probably work with it to get more eu produced. Otherwise its also cheaper if I'm not mistaken. Will test it out tomorrow. Mk - 1 - EB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asstmgrmike Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hey all, i dont know much about reactors id assume since im fairly new. I did however end up using this setup Mk - 1 -EC. It will put out 310 EU/T without ever needing turned off. Lemme know what you all think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinma Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Lemme know what you all think. Uranium left off in singles without another cell next to it only return 5EU/t. Very little output for the cost. They need to be grouped together to really get the most efficiency. The only real power generation is from those double-cells together, with all the singles basically being wasted. Being that's a fully-loaded six-chamber reactor with all those heat sinks it's very expensive to build as well. (Not to mention consuming 30 uranium per cycle, plus the stack of copper for the double packs.) I've found unless you need high output of peak on-demand power running multiple smaller nukes is just far cheaper and easier to operate. Then they just serve as backup power at night while you push your factories towards HV solar. Our facility uses a bank of these: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/v3/reactorplanner.html?21p0axsp4l073uhxj0vluhyyum4k6qvj0sqr867wl4ylcn4qdoix3yd83b78y8enonfoolys5g23280 These aren't even the most efficient designs I've seen, but they're cheap to build and operate so they've become our "go-to reactor..." 100 EU/t on 6 fuel rods, no additional operating costs. They require no additional chambers so they're cheap to build. (Can put together three of them to match the output of your reactor with stacks of copper to spare, and it only runs 18 uranium per cycle.) They take very little space (since they require no timers or monitoring equipment) and can easily be rigged up to automatically exchange spent fuel with a simple system of a few pipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asstmgrmike Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Thats a nice little setup. Plus i can just take my extra chambers and turn them into more compact reactors. Thanks Alot 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