Sort of. See this article for the real-world version. It's inefficient and its output is low, but it generates power passively and it can last decades in the real world, which translates into "forever" in the context of modded Minecraft.RTG is that radioisotope thermoeletric generator? seems RTG's has no moving parts, is that passive nuclear reactor?
I was reading that wiki lol i'm not sure how it translated into minecraft though, learning real life things in minecraft is funSort of. See this article for the real-world version. It's inefficient and its output is low, but it generates power passively and it can last decades in the real world, which translates into "forever" in the context of modded Minecraft.
Don't battery buffers accept any voltage though? Just pump 16 LVs into single HV storage or something and pump HV power out, and voila! No more massive loss from changing up voltage due to transformers everywhere. That's the first thought that comes to my mind anyway for how to deal with such an issue, although it's not viable for changing down voltages you generally don't have anywhere near as much issues doing for lacking power output at least.Originally he figured that because machines and cables are lossy, it would be more inefficient to spam them. In a sense, he's half-right: 4 LV generators may be more efficient than 1 MV generator, but its probably difficult or impossible to make 16 LV generators as efficient as a single HV generator, due to all the transformer boxes you have to go through etc.
Its not an insinuation, its an outright statement.And not enough for some other people. So what? I'm beginning to resent these insinuations. We're all posting from our respective viewpoints here, and I am going from the assumption that my viewpoint doesn't count more or less than anyone else's.
Yeah I didn't even consider that. Like I said, I think its a bit of silliness. Look forward to seeing what GT6 does.Don't battery buffers accept any voltage though? Just pump 16 LVs into single HV storage or something and pump HV power out, and voila! No more massive loss from changing up voltage due to transformers everywhere. That's the first thought that comes to my mind anyway for how to deal with such an issue, although it's not viable for changing down voltages you generally don't have anywhere near as much issues doing for lacking power output at least.
i dont think so I think you just have to find uses for it (sucky i know)Is there any way to get back my precious soldering alloy from assembler input slot?
Only coolant cells heated up in a fluid reactor can be cooled down in a fluid reactor. These heated up in a EU Reactor do not work there.@Blood Asp
I have a few questions about the nuclear reactor setup you posted (the one in the imgur album):
Why do you need a fluid reactor when heating up the coolant cells?
Whats the use of those Heat Capacity Platings?
"But still only uses half of the heat the Primary Reactor can produce." Whats the bottleneck?
How would efficency suffer if i used stirling generators instead?
The power requirements for all GT machines vary by recipe. Check the recipes on a macerator you've built (click on the arrow). Also, power use depends on the machine's level. An advanced macerator operates twice as fast and uses twice the total power for an operation, so that's four times the power per tick of the original recipe.How much energy does the macerator use? I cant find inforamtion about it in NEI...
I just tested in creative. I was actually curious myself for when you get into the byproduct recipes (HV+)NEI doest show any poweruse for macerator recepies, propably because it replaces the IC2 macerator.
Got to test this tonight. Can confirm.(3) IC2 reactors: I have not been successful in keeping my MOX-fueled reactor at a constant heat level (except for the lowest). At all. I take some of the cooling elements out until the heat starts to rise, then wait until the reactor heat level is around 50-60% and things begin to look a little ominous (that would be around 900 degrees), but when I put the cooling elements back in the heat immediately starts to drop again, and drop very fast. If I put only some of the cooling elements back in the heat drops more slowly, but at some point other cooling elements melt. I have the impression the overclocked heat vents are to blame, since they take in heat faster than they disperse it, so there's less "usable" to keep the temperature high available at all times, and more heat bound up in the vents. Or have I overlooked something?
Meanwhile, the design you posted first is rock-stable. I was afraid it would take me a lot of fiddling around with the cooling elements to get this to high heat and stable, but it's really simple. Didn't take me more than a minute or two. Did you find a way to automate exchanging of the rods? As you mentioned, it's tricky given that there are two different kinds and their placement is important. I don't have the need yet, but I'm thinking of conduits controlled by Bluepower timers or counters, so that one type is exchanged first and its successfull exchange will trigger the exchange of the other type.Got to test this tonight. Can confirm.
@Blood Asp, your reactor is incredibly efficient, but I don't see a way to stabilize the temperature. I'm not doing an active-cooled 5x5.
The overclocked heat vents also vent off reactor heat when the reactor isn't running.
The Gregtech regulators can insert items into specific slotsMeanwhile, the design you posted first is rock-stable. I was afraid it would take me a lot of fiddling around with the cooling elements to get this to high heat and stable, but it's really simple. Didn't take me more than a minute or two. Did you find a way to automate exchanging of the rods? As you mentioned, it's tricky given that there are two different kinds and their placement is important. I don't have the need yet, but I'm thinking of conduits controlled by Bluepower timers or counters, so that one type is exchanged first and its successfull exchange will trigger the exchange of the other type.