Big Reactor ... Reactors

[GreenZombie]

So, after stuffing around in creative mode for an entire day. Build 21 reactors with cores from 1 to 12 control rods (control rod blocks that is, up to 9 discreen control rod columns)

I eventually settles on a watercooled 7x3x7 reactor with a 3x3 core of fuel rods. Out of all of the "sub 12 fuel rod block" designs, this seemed to have the best ... fertility and temperature characteristics I guess as it rather rapidly filled over 9 redstone energy cells using less than half the initial fuel, other small reactor designs were ... less productive and generally yielded less than a redstone cell per control rod (once 50% of the fuel was consumed).

I do not understand what I would, or could, do with the moderation rods - theyre just set to 0%. Can I achieve a greater fuel effiency?

How big are people making these things?

 

[trajing]

I have a 5x5, but that's just normally. I have all sorts of sizes when I'm running out of things. Bu now that I have an auto smelt pick, graphite isn't so hard to come by.

 

[Wagon153]

Using liquid ender instead of water to cool your reactor is much more efficient. The rods control how much power it puts out. The higher the percentage is, the less power it produces and the less fuel it uses.

 

[AlanEsh]

I do not understand what I would, or could, do with the moderation rods - theyre just set to 0%. Can I achieve a greater fuel effiency?

The temperature of your reactor directly affects fuel efficiency. I think you want to try to keep the temp down below 300C for best efficiency. So if you make a large reactor that burns at 800C, you push the rods in 60-80% or whatever, and get the temp down.

/edit: this does reduce the power output, but the advantage is you can pull the rods up and blast power if you need it, but at lower fuel efficiency.

//edit: here is a setup I like for its cheapness, if you don't have a lot of liquid ender handy :
~~~~~~~
~GFGFG~
~~GFG~~
~GFGFG~
~~~~~~~
~ = water
F = fuel/control rod
G = column of gold blocks

 

[GreenZombie]

I also see there are turbines now. Are they more efficient, in terms of yellowrium -> Rf, or just different? Im not even sure what changes I need to make to get a proper turbine based big reactor setup.

 

[Wagon153]

I also see there are turbines now. Are they more efficient, in terms of yellowrium -> Rf, or just different? Im not even sure what changes I need to make to get a proper turbine based big reactor setup.

Much more efficient. To get the steam, you can use either a boiler from railcraft, or convert a Big Reactor to produce steam(not sure of the specifics). And the reactors produce a LOT of steam.

 

[GreenZombie]

RC boilers produce 10, (or 20 for hp) mb of steam per boiler tank block iirc. From the sounds of it, this is not a quantity that BigReactors steam turbines would really recognize.

 

[Platinawolf]

Just thought I'd pop in a link to some Big Reactor Steam turbine testing data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...TUxOUGxMRlpERWtPMmtGT213bmc&usp=sharing#gid=1

As for a RC boiler not producing enough,,, Well, that depends on the size of the turbine... I'm running 2X 80 blades/9enderium at low speed and its taking 1953 steam/tick (Producing 24k RF/T). I could be running that of 3 HP steam boilers instead of my reactor (Assuming ofcourse that the max for a steam boiler is still 1440 mb/tick)... Ofcourse, getting the steam into the turbine is rather annoying unless your using a tesseract to move the steam as then you just plop one at the reactors exaust and another at the turbines import.

 

[AlanEsh]

What is annoying about moving steam from a Big Reactor to the turbine?

 

[Platinawolf]

Steamboiler to turbine. Reactor to turbine is effortless


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AlanEsh]

Steamboiler to turbine. Reactor to turbine is effortless

Wouldn't a steam boiler just need a cluster of connected fluiducts reduced to a single line and run to the turbine?

 

[Platinawolf]

Wouldn't a steam boiler just need a cluster of connected fluiducts reduced to a single line and run to the turbine?

Rather sure you'd have to have more than one input port due to the fluiducts "transfer cap per connection". Might be wrong though

 

[Padfoote]

Wouldn't a steam boiler just need a cluster of connected fluiducts reduced to a single line and run to the turbine?

IIRC, there is a cap on the transfer per connection, meaning that one line having a single connection won't be enough. Most piping systems can't keep up with the demand from the turbine due to this.

 

[trajing]

IIRC, there is a cap on the transfer per connection, meaning that one line having a single connection won't be enough. Most piping systems can't keep up with the demand from the turbine due to this.

Yes, he meant as in have a ton of fluiducts connected to a boiler, run a single line over there, and use a cluster of fluiducts there. Not have a bunch of separate lines into the turbine.

 

[Padfoote]

Yes, he meant as in have a ton of fluiducts connected to a boiler, run a single line over there, and use a cluster of fluiducts there. Not have a bunch of separate lines into the turbine.

The way I read it was run a cluster into a single line, and connect that single line to the turbine. Having a cluster go to a single, and then back to a cluster should work if the boiler can keep up with the steam demands though.

 

[GreenZombie]

Steamboiler to turbine. Reactor to turbine is effortless

How does a reactor hook up to a turbine effortlessly? Are they build directly adjacent to remove the port->pipe transfer caps?

 

[Platinawolf]

How does a reactor hook up to a turbine effortlessly? Are they build directly adjacent to remove the port->pipe transfer caps?

Reactors automatically output into adjacent pipes/liquid inventories. Thus if I wanted to run a bank of dynamo's I'd just run fluiducts like normally with one connection to the reactor and one to each dynamo. On the other hand, as turbines require about 7 times more steam than the fluiduct's can input per connection you can use a tesseract to bypass this restriction as tesseracts transfers as much fluid as they recieve without a any cap (that I've found)

 

[GreenZombie]

I still don't understand how I can hook a big reactor up to a turbine without running into cap issues: It seems that a fluiduct 'hydra' is required no matter what steam source is pumping steam to the turbine.

 

[Platinawolf]

I still don't understand how I can hook a big reactor up to a turbine without running into cap issues: It seems that a fluiduct 'hydra' is required no matter what steam source is pumping steam to the turbine.

Tesseracts don't have any transfer cap. So put a tesseract at the reactor's exaust port and another at the turbines import port. This will allow you to transfer the entire 2000 mb/t you need for the turbine. Mind you, if the turbine gets filled up then it slows down so make sure to reduce the max inflow to what the turbine can actually handle.

My setup has two turbines (each taking 1953 steam/tick) connected via tesseracts. The reactor has one tesseract and each of the turbines have their own tesseract.

Reactor Exhaust port1 -> Tesseract1
Tesseract2->Turbine1 fluid in port
Tesseract3 -> Turbine2 fluid in port
Reactor Exhaust port 2 -> Fluiduct -> bank of steam dynamo's.

The reactor can output atleast 7800 steam/tick on its own without any pulling.

 

[GreenZombie]

I have difficulty with tesseracts. They are super useful, but I feel that their use tends to trivialize engineering problems, and thus reduce my interest in a build. i.e. building a rail link from a quarry to my storage / sorting area is interesting, and keeps me building. Using tesseracts for the same trivializes the exercise - (why am I collecting all that iron if not to make steel to make railways).

My general rule is then to simply not use tesseracts, or anything that can move items vast distances without actually crossing the space.

My hope is that I can simply place the input port of the turbine adjacent to the output port of the reactor, and just build the two structures directly adjacent. Or use some kind of multi-output port on reactor to single input port on the Turbine which posts seem to indicate is possible - It should look very impressive...[DOUBLEPOST=1395732793][/DOUBLEPOST]I also see that Monster 1.1.0 has BR 0.2, but to even get turbines I need BR 0.3+.
Is there going to be a Monster update to BR 0.3 or is it not stable enough / out for some other reason in the interim?