I have to turn off NEI to read the tool tips, but when you mouse over those buttons, you should get a tool tip telling you which key combos to hit to change it in different increments.
Big Reactors Data for 1.7.10 (WIP)
- Thread starter Bagman817
- Start date
I have to turn off NEI to read the tool tips, but when you mouse over those buttons, you should get a tool tip telling you which key combos to hit to change it in different increments.
I'm assuming you're using the DW20 1.0.2 pack, as the config has been edited to increase fuel burn by 10x (D:fuelUsageMultiplier=10.0), and my data is based on the stock configs. The relative efficiency of all designs is still accurate, just multiply fuel usage by 10.
Note: DW made this change because the ore gen is apparently allowing more Yellorite to spawn than expected.
As a cool side effect: You now have to build an efficient reactor to get a positive return with laser drills. You cant just make those 2k temperature ones or those with barely anny coolants inside of it.
People playing mod packs should take any figures with a pinch of salt, BR is so configurable that most mod packs do just that and any figures based off default settings will be different. So if your testing and figures differ from those posted here you need to ask yourself if the configs have been changed from default before replying that the numbers are wrong.
Since everyone seems to be going on about active cooled BigReactors, I am still fairly early game, and am using a passive cooled, and couldnt find any numbers for the bloody thing.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3A2Jp1R_WYsP_WFqHDtGpg0EcUqteg3hscM7pmpJU0/pubhtml
So I made some.
Intra-rod moderation is a really big deal for best radiation seeding. No one talks about graphite, but its cheap, and its better than cryotheum for moderation.
Short, wide, moderated. I am hoping this numbers carry over when I step up to an active cooled reactor.
Edit: I've been looking at the specs for the active cooled reactors, and want to retest if having coolant in the corners affects a passive cooled reactor. Also, as noted by b0bst3r, these metrics are a) valid for the Direwolf20 1.0.1 configs. b) change as the reactor runs due to waste buildup and processing. c) should still provide relative information about what materials perform better in what general area of the reactor.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3A2Jp1R_WYsP_WFqHDtGpg0EcUqteg3hscM7pmpJU0/pubhtml
So I made some.
Intra-rod moderation is a really big deal for best radiation seeding. No one talks about graphite, but its cheap, and its better than cryotheum for moderation.
Short, wide, moderated. I am hoping this numbers carry over when I step up to an active cooled reactor.
Edit: I've been looking at the specs for the active cooled reactors, and want to retest if having coolant in the corners affects a passive cooled reactor. Also, as noted by b0bst3r, these metrics are a) valid for the Direwolf20 1.0.1 configs. b) change as the reactor runs due to waste buildup and processing. c) should still provide relative information about what materials perform better in what general area of the reactor.
Last edited:
4th post in this threat talks about it. Its second after cryotheum in terms of moderation (6 for cryo, 2 for graph). As can be seen in the source code and in this more readable table.
Additionally, all information mentioned in the 4th post applies to both active and passive reactors.
Last edited:
I got better seeding with graphite than cryotheum, even after ensuring all moderation blocks were source and not flowing.
Edit, looking at the source again, probably because cryotheum is a much better moderator, but also a great absorber. Its slowing down the emitted radiation, and then stopping more of it than graphite does.
Right. To reiterate my first post. Graphite, better moderator. No one is using it. Everyone should be. Basically, stop using cryotheum anywhere in the internals unless you are having heating problems.Correct! That information is also shown in the 4th post
Graphite should be between fuel rods. Two blocks is the best bang for the buck. Its cheaper, and easier to make than cryotheum. Cryotheum is still the preferred in the jacket though.
Graphite, iirc, has no absorbtion compared to cryotheum so, at least in passive reactors, its a lot better to use cryotheum. I never really mastered the math of active reactors, but as I recall all the RF a passive reactor would have generated is treated as coolant heat generated in an active reactor - so Cryotheum should outperform graphite there too.
I have thought that BigReactors needs a config switch that can toggle it between "realistic" or "balanced". In balanced, it would function as it does now, and favor balance coolants based on their difficulty. In realistic it would favor water and graphite.
I gave up on trying to understand what makes for a better reactor configuration & just decided to put more fuel rods between my fuel rods. This means a solid 3x3 core in a 7x7 reactor.
Ive tested out a million different sizes and shapes of reactor/turbine and what I have learned is that if you stick to some very basic principles you can build in any shape you desire. eight enderium coils and 16 blades always produce a bit more than 5000 rf per tick and uses roughly 500 mb of steam. And a maxed sized turbine with 80 blades and 39 coils does slightly more than four times that so its really very simple math. There are variables in efficiency but they are always negligible unless you go out of your way to build an inefficient reactor. This mod is idiot proof and I dont think anyone on earth has ever run out of fuel once they have set one up.
I did. I was trying in a nice manner to say your metrics regarding cryotheum as a superior moderator are not valid in practice. However, if you are going to repeatedly suggest that I didnt bother reading your post, allow me to ask if you read mine? I tested each moderator type in turn to determine in game which had better seeding rates. Graphite won. Not only is it easier to obtain, it produces superior results.
There are two different functional parts to a BR setup, and each part uses different metrics from the ore list. The core uses Moderation and absorption. The Jacket uses absorption and heat transfer. Moderators soften the reactivity between fuel rods, causing them to produce more heat per fuel. Absorbers stop radiation propagation. Coolants assist in the conversion of heat to RF.
Cryotheum is a wonderful coolant.
Cryotheum is a FANTASTIC moderator.
Cyrotheum is a great absorber.
This means that it is useless between fuel rods, as you don't want to stop the radiation between the fuel rods, just slow it down enough that the next rod can use it. This is the only part of the existing reactor designs that I am attempting to change. Graphite makes for more efficient fuel burns. As far as the jacket setup, cyrotheum and enderium seem to really be the best there, and that's what the majority of the existing reactor designs recommend.
As seen in the post, in cool (and low rod density) reactors it does indeed win. In high temperature reactors the conductivity and moderation stats start to outscale absorbtion realy hard. To the point that cryotheum practicly always wins (even though it is close is medium temperatures reactors).
This is correct, however, the best thing between a fuel rod is.... another fuel rod. Coolants are only realy used to actually cool down and moderate. Additionally, absorbing radiation isnt all bad. As absorbed radiation gets turned into heat aswell. A good example is the 7x7 cube with an x pattern of fuel rods. Make it a 7x7x3 and graphite wins. Make it a 7x7x7 and cryotheum wins.
That said, if you use controll rod insertion its very well possible to turn the reactor down to low temperatures and make graphite better (in low rod density reactors), wich is why I marked it as "defenitly worth experimenting with!" (atleast in my up to date threat). Considering the fast mayority doesnt bother using rod insertion the best advice to give is actually cryotheum. As most reactors I see tend to be over a 1000 degrees, even over 2000 is pretty common. People realy shoudnt build up so quick. For example: A simple 9x9x3 beats forgecrafts "This is the best reactor possible 7x7x7 with diamond blocks, going bigger is not going to be better" in terms of efficiency. Ow I facepalmed so hard at that one. Another reason I use cryotheum is because I generally build 1 reactor and stick with it. First use it as a passive reactor, then turned it into active at stage of 2B/t (1 turbine). And thats what I generally advice aswell, a reactor that can scale with early game to late game demand! Untill you start doing realy crazy things ofcourse.
But if we are going to talk about going for the absolute max efficiency the advice will always be: As big as you can afford, dotted pattern, cryotheum between cores and 1 layer of resonant ender between casing and rods. That is, untill someone actually finds a better pattern/setup or the next mayor update comes out and adds the planned features from the roadmap.
If we are going for max efficiency for a specific output, that advice realy doesnt change much. The biggest challange is to not add to manny fuel rods and overshoot the desired output (no single rod insertion setting matches it). But even then a storage medium and a reactor on/off controll system would do wonders. Wich makes doing something silly like this, actually realy efficient (Peak efficiency a little over 210M RF/ingot at 69% rod insertion for passively cooled, 1127M RF/ingot at 89% insertion for active. You can fill that intire thing up and go to 244M RF/ingot for passive. Unfortunatly, you will go way over the 50B of steam/t for actively cooled, even at 99% rod insertion. Making it impossible to stabilize it for constant use (ever increasing temperature ==> less slow radiation ==> increased fuel burnup). But makes for a great reactor for on/off toggling and utilizing the reactors cooling down period (~40% on ~60% off, of the top of my head). And its this area that could realy use more exploration. A simple buildcraft gate and some redstone should do the trick. Ofcourse, a good CC/OC script that includes PID controllers for turbines would be the best thing ever. Ive started looking at it but it might take me a while to actually get that going
I think you get a pretty good idea why I dont spend a significant amount of time on graphite and why I promote cryotheum instead. That said, my 2B/t budget reactor uses graphite
Last edited:
Generally its people not knowing how to make a better reactor. But also because they dont realise that said hot reactor actually gets alot more efficient if rod insertion is used. Part of the problem is that there is no clear fuel efficiency indicator. Another is that with the default configs you realy dont need to actually make an efficient reactor. Direwolfs x10 fuel usage is actually pretty good as fuel efficiency actually starts to matter then.
Last edited: