Search results

Yep, I can dig that. Though I think many would appreciate better communication about when he's choosing to play those cards close to the vest. A simple "I'm keeping that behind the curtain" would suffice. For example when I had a reactor design I was pleased with and considering sharing in a...

Reika I remember a post from somewhere where someone was saying they were communicating with you about their experiments to successfully use ammonium with PBRs, do you know if that ever worked out? I imagine he was trying to get clever with the heat exchanger, in one way or another. Also, does...

That helps, thanks

Groovy. It may be good to list the rads at which each machine reaches that number of operations per tick.

The requirements are listed. The maximum beneficial speeds are not. Might be good.

Another suggestion: (I may have said this a few months ago, sorry if so) It would be great if the section of the manual that talks about each machine's power requirements also mentioned the maximum speed from which each can benefit.

That's a very good point, personally I send mine to nullifiers. Additionally I suppose it's likely the case that you find yourself getting twice as much power per turbine, using the same amount of steel for turbines, and the same amount of lubricant, though I don't know enough about using...

That is the very problem. If you only register a small percentage of what someone is saying you can expect to frequently get the wrong idea.

That's a pretty cool idea! A little black box for fission Edit: perhaps that feature could somehow be woven into the cpu control?

What irony are you referring to?

Once you've decided a track record can never indicate that something was safe, and your original projections on what can be safe are inherently unfalsifiable there's no point in trying to dissuade you...it's a bit like debating with religious people, I suppose. I suspected what you said about...

Lol Jesus, man. I offered a suggestion in this suggestion forum, and then questioned the premise that a reactor's track record should never be taken as evidence that it's safe. Meanwhile I offered to help, running some experiments and gathering numbers. This has devolved into bickering, but...

If my reactor were unsafe with water, then running weaker reactors on ammonium would make more sense, certainly

Set 8 identical reactors that ran for a combined total of 32 days without incident. But I feel like this is beating a dead horse here. Bottom line is I have a safe reactor that runs well enough on water and badly enough on ammonium that it makes ammonium seem pretty pointless. My situation...

Personally I use BDEW's pressure pipes. No hiccups in the water supply so far. Is there a reasonable amount of time a reactor could run that would result in you considering it safe?

Nope, they desynchronized. For now it seems the only option for the synchronized chunk loading would be a very wasteful amount of torque oh well, it's ridiculous how much I'm trying to mine at once anyway. Its it's own ridiculous enterprise Edit: even that doesn't work. I think it's because the...

Apologies, the intermittent signal was due to me being an electriccraft noob. Running some experiments about using it for synchronized boring machines. worst-case scenario I'll just have to provide so much torque that none of them can stop ever lol

Agreed, that's the most important piece of information

From what I've seen comparators when attached to a jammed boring machine emiy an intermittent Redstone signal . Is this how it always works, and is it intended? I ask because I'm trying to set up a matrix of boring machines that march in lock step to reduce chunk loading. That would be pretty...

1. That's not quite what he said, and the difference is significant here. 2. I have not made an error, and I am not objecting to the actual physical traits of ammonium being honored, I know that's a big part of what Reika likes to do around here. I'm just from a gameplay perspective sharing the...