[Big Reactors] Help with on/off system

[r0lyat]

Hi, so I recently made an on/off system to activate while above 5% internal battery, and to turn off at 95% internal battery. The issue is that when i'm using power but producing more than im using, it will just dance around on/off every few seconds, which doesnt really bother me except that it's inefficient on my fuel because as soon as the heat builds up to make enough rf/t as it can, it shuts off, cools down again and repeat. So i'm not getting the bang for my buck basically. This is just a passively cooled system, not up to steam turbines yet (gotta get around to learning mariculture for titanium lol)

I'm currently using a system (which could probably be improved upon but i couldnt figure it out, although im willing to learn) that uses 3 redstone ports: the middle one is the on/off signal and each side is the how high/low signals.

So whats a way I can achieve what I'm wanting to do? thanks.

edit: im using wanderlust reloaded pack. has most the typical mods including thermal expansion, extra utilities, mekanism, ic2, buildcraft, ender io, rednet... not using red/blue power as i've heard theyre buggy and strain cpu a stupid amount?

 

[Someone Else 37]

The simplest solution using those mods, to my knowledge, would be to forget about the reactor's internal buffer, have it output into an EnderIO capacitor bank, and use EnderIO's power monitor in engine control mode to turn your reactor on when it the capacitor bank hits 5% charge, and back off when it reaches 95%.

However, that's not quite the problem you're trying to solve. The most compact way would almost certainly be to use a single reactor RedNet or computer port and place an MFR programmable rednet controller or ComputerCraft computer next to it, although I don't know how you'd program either of them.

Barring that, this would be a pretty simple problem to solve with either ProjectRed or BluePower. You'd just need your three redstone ports, an RS-NOR latch, maybe a not gate, and some redstone dust or either mod's version of it. However, you can do the same with vanilla redstone alone with a bit more space.

Configure one of the redstone ports to turn on when the internal buffer is above 95% charge, and the other to turn on when it's BELOW 5% (or have it turn on above 5% and stick a redstone torch on it). Then, wire these into the two inputs of an RSNOR latch, and send the output (whichever output does the right thing, that is- it'll be easier for you to test it than it will be for me to explain precisely) into the third redstone port. Do note that the redstone ports will all probably need to be at least one block apart, so they don't power each other directly.

 

[adamich]

try this

updated version

 

[GreenZombie]

Three redstone io ports on the big reactor, and a simple redstone latch can get the reactor to turn off at 95% and only turn on again at 5%.

This demonstrates the basic technique:

 

[Yusunoha]

personally I use the rednet controller in a setup I saw from @PurpleMentat
you can see how he configured the controller in this video

basically what the rednet controller will do is it'll scale down the reactor control rods to how full the internal RF storage is. so for example if your internal RF storage of the reactor is filled upto 80%, the control rods will be set to 20%

 

[ChemE]

If you are after fuel efficiency then I recommend against altering the control rod position based upon internal battery. I enjoy maximizing RF/mB waste as a mini game even though yellorium is almost as common as iron and I never even remotely come close to running out. Personally, I just make a computer port, plunk down an advanced computer and edit startup to automatically control the reactor. Assuming your pack has CC the following code should work:

reactor = peripheral.wrap("back")
low = 0.05
high = 0.95

while true do
batt = reactor.getEnergyStored()
if batt < low*10000000 then
reactor.setActive(true)
elseif batt > high*10000000 then
reactor.setActive(false)
end
sleep(5.0)
end

EDIT: Changed 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 to correctly reflect the internal battery of the reactor power tap

This code could be a little more compact but I wanted to make it easy to change the high/low set points. Stylistically I should be checking to see if the reactor is already off before turning it off but this is quick and dirty and there is no harm so...

 

[Methusalem]

basically what the rednet controller will do is it'll scale down the reactor control rods to how full the internal RF storage is. so for example if your internal RF storage of the reactor is filled upto 80%, the control rods will be set to 20%

It doesn't need the Rednet Controller for that. Simply have two Rednet Ports, one is set to output the level of the energy buffer, the other set to control the rod positions. Then conect both with a rednet cable.

 

[rhn]

I use this CC script:
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/thr...uide-collection-etc.42664/page-10#post-657819
It automatically controls the control rods to stay within the most optimal range(950C'ish) and then toggles the reactor on at 15% internal capacity and off at 85%. It also gives you all kinds of neat information on attached Monitors and is capable of controlling multiple Reactors at the same time.

If you have problems with the internal buffer getting emptied every few seconds and your reactor then flickers on and off, I would seriously consider doing your power setup differently. Either start using active cooled reactors and turbines for power gen(It is IMO stupid to even think of fuel efficiency too much for a passive reactor, active+turbine is something like 5-10x more efficient), or as mentioned use EnderIO Capacitors and Power Monitors to trigger different smaller reactors in stages as your power needs grow.

 

[rhn]

personally I use the rednet controller in a setup I saw from @PurpleMentat
you can see how he configured the controller in this video

basically what the rednet controller will do is it'll scale down the reactor control rods to how full the internal RF storage is. so for example if your internal RF storage of the reactor is filled upto 80%, the control rods will be set to 20%

Major flaw with this setup is however that it will with no hesitation bring the reactor up over 1000C or more and raise the fuel consumption enormously.
This is why IMO you should never regulate the reactors on the Controls rods(unless you set up limits on the temperatures).

 

[Pyure]

If you are after fuel efficiency then I recommend against altering the control rod position based upon internal battery. I enjoy maximizing RF/mB waste as a mini game even though yellorium is almost as common as iron and I never even remotely come close to running out.

Glad you mentioned this; I personally do care about fuel efficiency, for the valid reason that our pack (infitech2) has no MFR mining drills, or regular ore generation (and thus nobody does any sort of traditional quarrying). As a result, my fuel usage is important to me

I use this CC script:
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/thr...uide-collection-etc.42664/page-10#post-657819
It automatically controls the control rods to stay within the most optimal range(950C'ish) and then toggles the reactor on at 15% internal capacity and off at 85%. It also gives you all kinds of neat information on attached Monitors and is capable of controlling multiple Reactors at the same time.

If you have problems with the internal buffer getting emptied every few seconds and your reactor then flickers on and off, I would seriously consider doing your power setup differently. Either start using active cooled reactors and turbines for power gen(It is IMO stupid to even think of fuel efficiency too much for a passive reactor, active+turbine is something like 5-10x more efficient), or as mentioned use EnderIO Capacitors and Power Monitors to trigger different smaller reactors in stages as your power needs grow.

I'm really pleased you linked back to this rhn. I'd forgotten all about your CC setup and I'm at a point in my current world where I could actually benefit from it right now.

 

[Pyure]

btw: in my experience, I can't confirm a direct correlation between 950C and efficiency. If anything, I reliably see a sweet-spot at 750C.

As an example, see this amazing design (you can adjust control/rods temperature and confirm)

Edit: I was joking about amazing design, but 70k mb/mb is actually pretty good

 

[asb3pe]

personally I use the rednet controller in a setup I saw from @PurpleMentat
you can see how he configured the controller in this video

basically what the rednet controller will do is it'll scale down the reactor control rods to how full the internal RF storage is. so for example if your internal RF storage of the reactor is filled upto 80%, the control rods will be set to 20%

I didn't even need to use a rednet controller, I just used two BigReactor rednet ports and connected them with rednet cable. Then set each rednet port with a different setting. It's been a while and my brain is fuzzy, but this thread I just found might help explain it better. http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/how-to-automate-big-reactors.46006/page-2

They talk about 3 rednet ports, I only needed 2 of them. Here's the post in that thread that explains:

"If you have mfr ibstalled simpelst way is two rednet ports.
Set both on white channel (top left).
First port output energy level.
Second set to input cobtrol rod level for all control rods.

that way the reactor regulates it self.

ofc connect them both with a rednet cable."

 

[rhn]

btw: in my experience, I can't confirm a direct correlation between 950C and efficiency. If anything, I reliably see a sweet-spot at 750C.

As the heat inside a reactor rises, a small penalty is applied to fuel consumption. Below 200C, the penalty is nonexistent. It rises slowly until about 900-1000C, then increases rapidly until 2000C, at which point it levels off, eventually reaching a maximum at 5000C. By the time a reactor is operating at 1000C, the penalty is roughly 10%. By 2000C, it is over 66%.

http://wiki.technicpack.net/Multiblock_Reactor

There is no real optimal temperature. It is a tradeoff you have to make of between fuel efficiency and getting a decent power/material investment. 850-950C(what the script uses I think) is a very good compromise.

 

[Pyure]

http://wiki.technicpack.net/Multiblock_Reactor

All that says is that you get an increasing penalty until 900-1000C. In other words, you have a lower penalty at 500 than at 900.

Also, I'd be curious to know whether the wiki is more current than the simulator.

 

[rhn]

All that says is that you get an increasing penalty until 900-1000C. In other words, you have a lower penalty at 500 than at 900.

Also, I'd be curious to know whether the wiki is more current than the simulator.

Yes, temperatures negative influence on fuel efficiency is lower with lower temperatures. But you also produce less power with lower temperatures AND you also get less fertilization I believe.

My point being: It might be "better" for fuel efficiency to run your reactors at 200C, but you would have to build 50 huge reactors to produce enough power then. I would rather build one reactor then and run it at less optimal fuel efficiency if it can save me space and material resources. And 850-950C range is a very good compromise for that as you get as much power out of your reactor without getting into the very steep penalty band between 1000 and 2000C.

Also try and read it again. It says it rises "slowly" until 1k. Then after 1k it rises "Rapidly"!.

 

[Pyure]

No I already understand that, no worries. The "speed" of the graph isn't really as relevant as where it levels off.

And really, since we are specifically discussing fuel efficiency here, resources and space don't factor (otherwise I completely agree with you, particularly since I could barely afford the single turbine and reactor I already built).

I just want to clarify that your 950C wasn't originally stated as a compromise but rather as a sweet spot, which may not be applicable to all or most reactors. (playing with that simulator, I have yet to find a reactor that is happiest at 900-950. They invariable settle down to maximum efficiency at ~750C)

******************

I had to quickly learn something about Euler's Number to produce this. Its used in E.Beef's code. I'm terrible at math? Anyway:

Horizontal is temperature. Vertical is a penalty applied.

Edit: dunno what's up with the chart title there. I'm also terrible at Excel?

 

[rhn]

No I already understand that, no worries. The "speed" of the graph isn't really as relevant as where it levels off.

And really, since we are specifically discussing fuel efficiency here, resources and space don't factor (otherwise I completely agree with you, particularly since I could barely afford the single turbine and reactor I already built).

I just want to clarify that your 950C wasn't originally stated as a compromise but rather as a sweet spot, which may not be applicable to all or most reactors. (playing with that simulator, I have yet to find a reactor that is happiest at 900-950. They invariable settle down to maximum efficiency at ~750C)

******************

I had to quickly learn something about Euler's Number to produce this. Its used in E.Beef's code. I'm terrible at math? Anyway:

Horizontal is temperature. Vertical is a penalty applied.

View attachment 14181

Edit: dunno what's up with the chart title there. I'm also terrible at Excel?

Hmm doesnt really match up with the wikis information. You got the data from the code or?
Doesn't really sound right that a reactor running 2000C should have 90% penalty, do it? Haven't been running anything hotter than 1k since I found the script.

Wish these things were documented better. Specially when things change over different versions.

 

[Pyure]

Hmm doesnt really match up with the wikis information. You got the data from the code or?
Doesn't really sound right that a reactor running 2000C should have 90% penalty, do it? Haven't been running anything hotter than 1k since I found the script.

Wish these things were documented better. Specially when things change over different versions.

Agreed re. documentation.

Yep, this is from the code.

That penalty number: don't look at that as "you lose 90% of all your power." That number gets applied later to the hard radiation calculations. Hence why there won't be a 100% sweet spot for every reactor.

Personally I've been running my reactor at around 200C lately because honestly that's all the steam I can handle (turbines are expensive in infitech2). Did you try tinkering with that simulator? I've been trying to design something with >75k mb/mb efficiency, can't manage it

Edit: nevermind, I'd forgotten Skykula sent me this design for a 13x13x5(interior) reactor that peaks at 83k mb/mb (at 750C)
http://br.sidoh.org/#reactor-design...E11X2EXCXCXCXCXCX2E11XEO11EO&modpack=defaults

 

[r0lyat]

Thanks heaps for all the different suggestions! I'll try out a few of them.

In regards about being fuel efficient while using a passive reactor being an oxy-moron, that may be true but im still early game and 8k rf/t at 105krf/mb is more than I need, and as ChemE said, it is fun to be efficient even though its not needed. Once i get in to mariculture and have a decent base going, ill definitly set up a few turbines.

 

[rhn]

Edit: nevermind, I'd forgotten Skykula sent me this design for a 13x13x5(interior) reactor that peaks at 83k mb/mb (at 750C)
http://br.sidoh.org/#reactor-design...E11X2EXCXCXCXCXCX2E11XEO11EO&modpack=defaults

Yeah was gonna suggest something similar. Your main problem was you didn't have any moderation material around the outside. That setup can be even further enhanced by adding another layer of Ender around it. You will need 2 layers to absorb all the radiation afaik. And if it was possible you could improve it even further by having Cryotheum cooling the rods and then 2 layers of ender next to it. But unsure if it would be possible to actually build it with the two liquids next to each other.

Probably not possible:
http://br.sidoh.org/#reactor-design...11XC4ECXCXCXCXCXCXC4EC11XC2E3G11C6G11E6G11E3G