Not upset, more along the lines of advice for someone who, right or wrong, has a reputation for being discourteous online.
I'm defining safe as "has run for days without incident" whereas with ammonium it blows up in a matter of minutes
Mod Feedback [By Request] RotaryCraft Suggestions
- Thread starter Reika
- Start date
-
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
Not upset, more along the lines of advice for someone who, right or wrong, has a reputation for being discourteous online.
I'm defining safe as "has run for days without incident" whereas with ammonium it blows up in a matter of minutes
I believe I've read that it's possible (and probably necessary for even reasonably long-term efficiency) to set up the magnetic containment in a tokamak such that helium is attracted to the edges of the toroidal field, where it can be skimmed off the surface and extracted. Presumably some kind of helium skimmer block could be created, but I would imagine it would require that each time a fusion event occurs, in addition to a neutron entity you'd have to spawn a helium entity as well, which would likely lower the frequency of fusion events until skimmed off. Perhaps the skimmer functionality could be built into the injector structure, but if it's worth increasing the already high number of entities flying about to add such functionality I'm not sure.
On a related but more political note, in the future, say a few hundred years from now when we actually have working fusion reactors, they may become one of the only reliable source of helium left; practically all the helium on the planet comes from alpha decay of subterranean radioactive elements which collects in deep caves, and is usually only collected as a byproduct of natural gas extraction. Indeed, the only reason helium is perceived as being as cheap and plentiful as it is thanks to a fairly recent US government blunder; since the 1920s, the US government has hoarded enormous quantities of helium (look up the National Helium Reserve), and in 1996 Congress decided they had to be rid of it by 2005, which forced them to attempt to sell it off way below true market value. There have been partially successful attempts to save the helium reserve since, but the damage has already been done, and as a result helium isn't treated with the respect it deserves as a somewhat rare, very useful, finite resource. Joy.
On a related but more political note, in the future, say a few hundred years from now when we actually have working fusion reactors, they may become one of the only reliable source of helium left; practically all the helium on the planet comes from alpha decay of subterranean radioactive elements which collects in deep caves, and is usually only collected as a byproduct of natural gas extraction. Indeed, the only reason helium is perceived as being as cheap and plentiful as it is thanks to a fairly recent US government blunder; since the 1920s, the US government has hoarded enormous quantities of helium (look up the National Helium Reserve), and in 1996 Congress decided they had to be rid of it by 2005, which forced them to attempt to sell it off way below true market value. There have been partially successful attempts to save the helium reserve since, but the damage has already been done, and as a result helium isn't treated with the respect it deserves as a somewhat rare, very useful, finite resource. Joy.
[quote uid=72579 name="Reika" post=1394619]...So is getting upset when something gets missed.<br /><br />Again, define "works fine". [/QUOTE]<br /><br />Not upset, more along the lines of advice for someone who, right or wrong, has a reputation for being discourteous online.<br /><br />I'm defining safe as "has run for days without incident" whereas with ammonium it blows up in a matter of minutes
The only one appearing discourteous in this exchange is you though.
Reika had said that at the temperatures you're running at, you're over the point where ammonia will explode. So if you're using ammonia at a temperature that will cause it to explode, then that's not a Reika bug, that a user error.
Quoting on the phone is hard.
The only one appearing discourteous in this exchange is you though.
Reika had said that at the temperatures you're running at, you're over the point where ammonia will explode. So if you're using ammonia at a temperature that will cause it to explode, then that's not a Reika bug, that a user error.
Quoting on the phone is hard.
[QUOTE="Rubyheart]
Reika had said that at the temperatures you're running at, you're over the point where ammonia will explode. So if you're using ammonia at a temperature that will cause it to explode, then that's not a Reika bug, that a user error.
[/QUOTE]
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 idea that it may be wise to fiddle somewhere or somewhere else with the current reward that comes of using ammonium versus the current limits and inconveniences
Reika had said that at the temperatures you're running at, you're over the point where ammonia will explode. So if you're using ammonia at a temperature that will cause it to explode, then that's not a Reika bug, that a user error.
[/QUOTE]
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 idea that it may be wise to fiddle somewhere or somewhere else with the current reward that comes of using ammonium versus the current limits and inconveniences
In truth, I wasn't asking for ReC purposes. It was a similar discussion regarding the GT5u fusion reactor, and whether the various types of plasma should produce byproducts. I figured this was the best place to learn.That still does not help me solve the issue.
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 easy to do with Redstone trickery with an instant and consistent Redstone signal coming from any machine that jams, without I'll have to get a bit more elaborate. I suppose that challenge may be a good design choice anyhow
I'd just attach a CVT to each boring machine and have each boring machine's comparator output to the same circuit. Might have to wire in a pulse extender too, in case that ends up causing a clock effect when a boring machine jams.
If there's a delay before a jammed machine outputs a signal it might not be possible to keep the machines in perfect lock-step though.
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
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 boring machines go through blank spaces at a different speed than occupied spaces even when the torque and speed are very very high
Edit: even that doesn't work. I think it's because the boring machines go through blank spaces at a different speed than occupied spaces even when the torque and speed are very very high
Last edited:
Very very wrong.
That is not a good definition of "safe". A reactor running that hot can easily run away the moment water supply hiccups, and in the event it does go up, the long time spent at high temperature makes the resultant failure worse.
If it jams, it should emit a signal and not stop (since it does not stop being jammed)...
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?
Is there a reasonable amount of time a reactor could run that would result in you considering it safe?
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 may be rare enough to be insignificant, and/or it may not be important to make ammonium's bonus high enough that we'd be amply rewarded for making weaker cooler running reactors
Either way I won't engage in anymore disagreements about the definition of safe, or the disagreements that sprung from it
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 may be rare enough to be insignificant, and/or it may not be important to make ammonium's bonus high enough that we'd be amply rewarded for making weaker cooler running reactors
Either way I won't engage in anymore disagreements about the definition of safe, or the disagreements that sprung from it
If my reactor were unsafe with water, then running weaker reactors on ammonium would make more sense, certainly
Chances are you need to figure out how to make a reactor that is safe with ammonia. Or maybe ammonia reactors are designed to be always dangerous. Knowing Reika, ammonia is not supposed to be an upgrade to water but an alternative.
I wonder if you are one of those types who whine when they put deisel in their petrol car and wonder why your engine is getting wrecked.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
I wonder if you are one of those types who whine when they put deisel in their petrol car and wonder why your engine is getting wrecked.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
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 I've made no complaints or whining about the game. I was simply offering suggestions on the mod's balance, however wise or unwise those suggestions may have been.
MongrelVigor, methinks your reactors don't have enough cooling. That is, there's too many cores and not enough boilers. Though I've never built with ammonia in mind (never found enough ammonium chloride to make it worthwhile), I believe the general rule of thumb is to take the amount of cooling you think you need and double it. Yeah, it makes things bulkier, but a reactor that runs cool is far, far more preferable to one that runs hot. At least with a cool reactor, you aren't running the risk of turning your house into Chernobyl.