AS: Reactor Craft

  • Please make sure you are posting in the correct place. Server ads go here and modpack bugs go here
  • 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

namiasdf

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,183
0
0
So I've been doing some testing...

Currently my setup is a 7x7x7, 5 control rod, diamond block + enderium reactor. I fiddled with the control rods and took RF/t and mB/t data at 10% intervals between 0% and 50% control.

It seems that the decrease in mB/t is linear, but the RF/t is non-linear. This means running this particular reactor at maximum temperature is the most efficient. Interesting?
 

Giddimani

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
148
0
0
Currently my setup is a 7x7x7, 5 control rod, diamond block + enderium reactor. I fiddled with the control rods and took RF/t and mB/t data at 10% intervals between 0% and 50% control.

I don't have the spreadsheet near me but that reactor sounds quite bad, how much does this make 4-5k RF?

With the resources spent you could also make a 9x9x4 reactor that produces 12k or for a little more a 9x9x5 for ~17k.
 

McJty

Over-Achiever
Mod Developer
May 13, 2014
2,015
2,519
228
twitter.com
I also just made a 7x7 reactor with 5 control rods and filled with ender fluid and I got 11k RF per tick. I got that amount by putting the control rods at 10% (seemed to give the best result). Not sure if I can still improve on that though.
 

GreenZombie

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,402
-1
0
I also just made a 7x7 reactor with 5 control rods and filled with ender fluid and I got 11k RF per tick. I got that amount by putting the control rods at 10% (seemed to give the best result). Not sure if I can still improve on that though.
How big, exactly, is a 7x7 Big Reactor?


I mean, there are 3 axes to the external dimensions, and the # of fuel rods (blocks) is important too - allthough it can be inferred from the number of control rods. My current Big Reactor is 7x5x7/4 (7 wide, 7 deep, 5 high, 4 control rods for 12 fuel rod blocks in total). Allthough I am contemplating switching to a 8x5x8/4 with a packed core as I can't find a moderator that outperforms (the additional extra) coolant.
 

McJty

Over-Achiever
Mod Developer
May 13, 2014
2,015
2,519
228
twitter.com
How big, exactly, is a 7x7 Big Reactor?


I mean, there are 3 axes to the external dimensions, and the # of fuel rods (blocks) is important too - allthough it can be inferred from the number of control rods. My current Big Reactor is 7x5x7/4 (7 wide, 7 deep, 5 high, 4 control rods for 12 fuel rod blocks in total). Allthough I am contemplating switching to a 8x5x8/4 with a packed core as I can't find a moderator that outperforms (the additional extra) coolant.

Sorry, I mean 7x7x7 (perfect cube). I have 5 fuel rods in it.
 

GreenZombie

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,402
-1
0
5 fuel rods in a + or an x? As an x, the center rod is not fertilizing any other rods at all (or being fertilized), you'd basically have an efficient 4 rod reactor merged with an inefficient 1 rod reactor. A 9x6x7/6 (with 24 - one less then your 25) might outperform that design, at the cost of not being a perfect cube.

(As a + you would only have 4 effective blocks of coolant and no moderation. that would(should) be a very bad reactor indeed))
 

GreenZombie

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,402
-1
0
No no no. An X is much much better than a +. But reactor fuel rods must be lined up in cardinal directions to partake in fertilization. So chessboard style reactors with alternate fuel rods "out of line" are essentially two reactors occupying the same space. They have good spacial density, but the coolant blocks that can be "Seen" by both sets of rods are doing double duty, so they run a bit hot.

Taking the center out the X to create just a grid of cores, that all see each other, maximizes cooling and radiation moderation, at the expense of using more space... The X/chessboard designs are a good compromise, but if fuel efficiency is your goal...

then you should consider ensuring that no fuel rod is closer than 4 blocks to the reactor wall. Radiation travels 4 blocks, on each block travelled, the remaining radiation has a chance to be absorbed - and converted to power. So 4 blocks of absorber/cooland (in each cardinal direaction) is necessary to "harvest" the complete power output from each rod.

Diminishing returns of course, apply.
 
Last edited:

namiasdf

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,183
0
0
X is better than +.

You have more surface area exposure, and thus more heat going into the fluid. In a real reactor, touch fuel rods would probably result in an explosion. In this case, you are just reducing the total surface area connection between your heat transition fluid and your fuel rods.

I don't know how a reactor produces energy without a turbine, since all modern day reactors produce heat, makes steam, move a magnet in a coil of wire, and the produce electricity. The analogy between passive reactor and real life, not applicable.
 

GreenZombie

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,402
-1
0
I don't know how a reactor produces energy without a turbine, since all modern day reactors produce heat, makes steam, move a magnet in a coil of wire, and the produce electricity. The analogy between passive reactor and real life, not applicable.

Yep, Passively cooled Big Reactor Reactors are a mystery.

If we were to embrace our suspension of disbelief: Passively cooled Big Reactors produce RF via "absorbtion". Refer to RadiationHelper.java - basically each fuel rod emits 4 packets of radiation, each one travelling 4 blocks in a different cardinal direction. Each block the radiation visits first absorbs some of the soft radiation - via the materials absorbtion property, and moderates some of the hard radiation in the packet to soft - via the materials moderation property. The amount absorbed is multiplied by the heat efficiency property to determine the RF generated.

BigReactors.java handles the registration of the matierials - where Cyrotheum is registered with 66% absorption, 95% heat efficiency, and 600% moderation - which makes a few blocks of it in a row insanely good at converting all the available hard radiation to soft, and converting most of the soft radiation to RF. (

Resonant ender is registered with 90% absorption, 75% heat efficiency, 200% moderation - so its a much better absorber, but it converts a lot less of what is absorbed into RF = so it comes out only slightly better at converting radiation into RF than cyrotheum (63% effective conversion for ender vs 62.7% for cyrotheum). At 200%, it is the 2nd best moderator, but can't match cyrotheums moderation ability at all.

Between Gelid Cyrotheum and Resonant Ender, they have the best absorption, heat efficency, moderation - and heat conductivity of all the possible registered reactor interior blocks. Which I think is a shame as it does make (passive) reactor design rather boring: You are using these - or you are doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:

namiasdf

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,183
0
0
It's just more about how that energy gets turned into something useful. For a MC mod, it's fine, but for RL comparison... Many questions.
 

GreenZombie

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,402
-1
0
I guess a lot of that comes down to "what is RF?". In Big Reactors case think of RF as something that simply "fills" the reactors interior - like some kind of intangible gas - and can be tapped at the appropriate port :p.
 

McJty

Over-Achiever
Mod Developer
May 13, 2014
2,015
2,519
228
twitter.com
I guess a lot of that comes down to "what is RF?". In Big Reactors case think of RF as something that simply "fills" the reactors interior - like some kind of intangible gas - and can be tapped at the appropriate port :p.

Given that RF conduits (at least from EnderIO, not sure about TE conduits) actually also have contents this can be seen as a good description. Perhaps RF should really be seen as some kind of fluid.
 

namiasdf

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,183
0
0
Redstone flux? It is probably similar to the way DC works. You have an current of "flux", which you use to do work. In real life we have to convert that electrical energy into mechanical energy via electrical engine. Causing a magnet to spin by running a current in a coil of wire around the magnet, etc. is how you generate torque in an electrical engine.

I am just going to assume that each block has its own "RF" engine which utilizes the effects caused by "charging" or putting liquid redstone into a state which holds potential energy, which when fed into each block which contains its own "RF" engine, that engine converts the potential energy held in the charged liquid redstone, into something useful.

i.e. Heat for a magma crucible, mechanical energy for a liquid transposer, pulverizer, etc. etc.