*Far* more than 8192 Nm? For a gas? Uh....that's....surprising. Also, nothing went into the compression chamber, not even a few buckets, but all right, I'll test this again.
ReactorCraft - clever reactor setups?
- Thread starter Pyure
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
The function is as follows:
Code:
public int getCapacity(Fluid f) {
int log2 = (int)(ReikaMathLibrary.logbase(torque, 2)/2);
long power = ReikaMathLibrary.longpow(10, log2);
int factor = f.isGaseous() ? 8 : 1;
long frac = factor*(power/40);
return (int)Math.min(frac, tank.getCapacity());
}
Where chi is a scaling factor evaluated to 8 for gases and 1 for liquids.
OK, so I added a second row of boilers round the outside of the square...if I wanted better cooling I should replace those with water source blocks instead? And would the same work for the fuel cores, Place water source blocks above them and it should provide better cooling than air without reducing neutron production?
As for water production, i'm using liquid transfer nodes, which have pretty prodigious throughput, plus i'm routing the water from my condensers back into the system. My concern with that would be more that I can't remember if it's possible to overfill a fluiduct to the point of breaking it rather than not having enough water at any point XD
Don't use water source blocks for anything. Boilers boilers boilers. ;]
If you are piping anything into the top of something, that side is insulated.
LTN are great. I did a water study showing 190 buckets per second with 3xmining upgrade stacks and 1 stack of speed upgrades. Just make sure you have redundancy.
@malicious_bloke, dunno if you know, but you can right-click a steam line with the angular transducer to see the amount of steam inside. This can be useful for determining how many turbines you can add.
If you have a single turbine, and you check the steam level on the pipe entering the grate, and that level is rising, you know you can probably stand to add another turbine.
Couple other notes: I'd keep my grates a bit closer to the turbine (they're pretty far below). This is for a couple reasons:
1) the less time steam blocks exist, the better fps/block update performance you'll get
2) less steam is likely to "miss" the turbine altogether.
Also, unless you plan on using ammonia at some point, you can consider killing output steam altogether by placing a block (of your choice) directly under the output space (underneath where one might put a CVT to monitor power output). This again helps mitigate the steam block performance issues.
Really there's not much reason to do an ammonia loop these days; its more sensible to try to generate enough steam to warrant an HP turbine.
If you have a single turbine, and you check the steam level on the pipe entering the grate, and that level is rising, you know you can probably stand to add another turbine.
Couple other notes: I'd keep my grates a bit closer to the turbine (they're pretty far below). This is for a couple reasons:
1) the less time steam blocks exist, the better fps/block update performance you'll get
2) less steam is likely to "miss" the turbine altogether.
Also, unless you plan on using ammonia at some point, you can consider killing output steam altogether by placing a block (of your choice) directly under the output space (underneath where one might put a CVT to monitor power output). This again helps mitigate the steam block performance issues.
Really there's not much reason to do an ammonia loop these days; its more sensible to try to generate enough steam to warrant an HP turbine.
I think this is excellent. You had mentioned once that adding ammonia to the HP might be a problem.
Doubling the HP output might possibly be excessive? I think even 130% output would convince people to create an ammonia loop. 150% would be a no brainer.
Code:
@Override
protected float getTorqueFactor() {
return fluid.efficiency > 1 ? 1+(fluid.efficiency-1)*0.25F : fluid.efficiency;
}
It is indeed 150%.What did I say was the problem last time? I may have simply forgotten, but I do not see an immediate problem with it.
Unfortunately my memory is terrible: I have no idea
Maybe something to do with differentiating fluid types.You were also interested in looking into a third (or more) fluid types, but I don't think anyone was able to convince you of any specific next-gen fluids.
Alternatively, something-better-than-water and less-than-ammonia would be neat. Just something to make cycling more mainstream.
Any idea what thread?Unfortunately my memory is terrible: I have no idea
That one is not possible because the steam blocks cannot support more than two types.
And I gather adding another steamblock (which would itself support two types) would be non-ideal or impossible?
??
Even the LP turbine (if we can call it that) didn't really seem to have loss, other than ammonia getting "stuck" in the steam lines.
The HP turbine burns through a large and varying about of steam. I have no idea of what percentage you are reclaiming.
Well, it worked:
I had my reservoirs set up exactly like this on my HP turbine (the one you were helping me troubleshoot in the Fission reactor design thread), but they were not collecting low pressure water.
I'll venture a guess that the HP turbine is buggy/not fully implemented in v23c, but I just thought I'd share that I was collecting in the appropriate manner and it wasn't working.
Also started having the ticking tile entity crashes on small (non-HP) turbines when they rapidly rearrange themselves. I am going to adjust my sync value when I get home to test for better client stability with respect to turbines.
As an alternative, are there any known issues with upgrading from 23c to latest in Monster?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
The rapid rearrangement is addressed in my FAQ.
Also, the reason this reservoir arrangement did not work for you is that I just added collect-from-under-last-stage behavior.
