Simply because temperature is the way to "read" how much RF you get out of your fuel.. The closer your temperature is to 800 degrees (I think that's it, right?) then the more efficient it is. It'll produce more RF for less fuel consumption.
Good Big Reactors setup
- Thread starter Varogh
- Start date
I get that (as I mentioned above, already), but it seems to be mostly uncertain, mumbo-jumbo-ey, talk, when it comes to temperature. Even in your post here, you aren't sure what the best, most efficient temperature is. Everyone seems to 'think' the sweet spot is somewhere between 800 and 1000 degrees, but no one seems quite sure, since different reactor designs will have different production efficiencies at different temperatures. Without some clear numbers, it's a far less useful measurement than the actual fuel consumption number in the reactor. It tells you, right there, how many mB are being used.
And a far, far more useful unit of measure, when doing reactor design comparisons, is how many RF are produced in total by a single ingot of fuel (or, for easier measuring, how many ingots it takes to make a million RF, or how much RF a stack of ingots produce)
When I see a description of a reactor design (like in that very informative spreadsheet), I want to know 2 things: how fast does the reactor produce RF, and how many RF can I squeeze out of my limited supply of fuel ingots.
Yes, they are fairly plentiful, but they are still a limited resource, and in a modpack like Monster, where it's ridiculously easy to consume a gargantuan amount of energy, getting every RF for my ingots is just good business.
No, I was unsure about whether or not it was 800 or 8000, not any other number. I always forget how many 0's come after my numbers, especially when I'm trying to remember a particular one.
And so far, temp has been the best measure of mB -> RF for me. It was made specifically to measure the efficiency after all.
No, it really wasn't, at all. Not remotely. If you look at what sparse documentation there is for Big Reactors, you'll notice that there's that picture of a semi-complex flowchart of how the reactor calculates output, and heat is used at several points during the calculation. While at higher temperatures there is a fuel usage penalty applied, there are so many more variables involved in calculating output and efficiency.
I have found that the operating temperature is useful for optimizing/tweaking a particular reactor design, as I play with the control rods to find that reactor design's perfect settings, but it's beyond useless in comparing different reactor designs, since it doesn't actually tell you anything about what makes the reactors different. RF/t output, and actual fuel efficiency in measurable units are the only thing I've found that allows me to compare different reactor designs in any useful way.
Then I'll take your word for it.
I've never actually gone too far into Big Reactors besides setting up one of the predetermined "best" reactor designs.Is there an easy way to reset a reactor? I did some tests with them, and now want to see how much they generate with one ingot. Except they're so full they're taking forever to drain. Destroying the bottom-center block doesn't work like it does with Railcraft tanks.
Destroy the control rods and the fuel rods which (in theory) should remove all fuel, as they are the ones that actually contain the fuel.
Finding out how much energy they generate with one ingot in the reactor is useless as the reactor will not be operating at full efficiency. Just plug it up to a energy storage and watch the waste generation and stop it once it hits 1000mb (1 ingot), then look at the energy level in the storage.
Playing in Agrarian Skies 2.12 (what I have most updated), with Big Reactors 0.3.0A, I ran a couple experiments. Using a 7x7x5 reactor, X placed rods in the center (15 total, 5 three-highe groups). All reactors were designed and set up the same way. First experiment was with single coolants, second with two. All were simply stuffing the reactors full of fuel and checking later. Note that I'm not certain what exactly some of this does, and that due to the fluctuating nature of the numbers the results aren't exact.
case temp core temp RF/tick fuel/tick reactivity
air/water 425 2220 2.72k 0.165 250
milk/fluid coal 443 2240 2.84k 0.147 285
graphite blocks 890 913 5.87k 0.096 434
fluid glowstone 900 1011 5.91k 0.098 424
fluid redstone 1028 1032 6.77k 0.104 403
pyrotheum 1006 1220 6.62k 0.112 375
diamond blocks 1062 1055 7k 0.102 407
fluid ender 1112 1135 7.34k 0.105 397
cryotheum 1145 1140 7.56k 0.101 413
Pyrotheum, cryotheum, and glowstone source blocks settle, so you need more of them than other fluids. I didn't try other fluids except for lava, which prevented the reactor multiblock from forming.
Also, there was no difference between air and water. Or if there was, it was so slight it fell within the fluctuations.
The second experiment I paired some of the better coolants. The outer layer outside the rods and the inner layer of the four squares between the rods. I read that the different materials affect the radiation differently, and some were better between the rods than between the rods and the walls. All listed in outer/inner order.
case temp core temp RF/tick fuel/tick reactivity
end/cryo 1146 1150 7.56k 0.101 413
cryo/end 1100 1109 7.26k 0.14 397
cryo/diamond 1102 1096 7.27k 0.103 404
diamond/cryo 1099 1093 7.25k 0.1 415
end/diamond 1112 1115 7.34k 0.104 403
diamond/end 1076 1084 7.09k 0.105 399
graph/diamond 959 959 6.31k 0.101 413
diamond/graph 1039 1046 6.85 0.098 425
cryo/graph 1087 1094 7.17k 0.99 422
graph/cryo 997 998 6.57k 0.1 419
end/graph 1095 1118 7.22k 0.01 420
graph/end 983 1004 6.47k 0.105 400
Note that the placement of type of coolant DOES make a difference. I have no idea if the differences would be more noticeable in a larger reactor. And reactivity is one of the things I don't understand.
air/water 425 2220 2.72k 0.165 250
milk/fluid coal 443 2240 2.84k 0.147 285
graphite blocks 890 913 5.87k 0.096 434
fluid glowstone 900 1011 5.91k 0.098 424
fluid redstone 1028 1032 6.77k 0.104 403
pyrotheum 1006 1220 6.62k 0.112 375
diamond blocks 1062 1055 7k 0.102 407
fluid ender 1112 1135 7.34k 0.105 397
cryotheum 1145 1140 7.56k 0.101 413
Pyrotheum, cryotheum, and glowstone source blocks settle, so you need more of them than other fluids. I didn't try other fluids except for lava, which prevented the reactor multiblock from forming.
Also, there was no difference between air and water. Or if there was, it was so slight it fell within the fluctuations.
The second experiment I paired some of the better coolants. The outer layer outside the rods and the inner layer of the four squares between the rods. I read that the different materials affect the radiation differently, and some were better between the rods than between the rods and the walls. All listed in outer/inner order.
case temp core temp RF/tick fuel/tick reactivity
end/cryo 1146 1150 7.56k 0.101 413
cryo/end 1100 1109 7.26k 0.14 397
cryo/diamond 1102 1096 7.27k 0.103 404
diamond/cryo 1099 1093 7.25k 0.1 415
end/diamond 1112 1115 7.34k 0.104 403
diamond/end 1076 1084 7.09k 0.105 399
graph/diamond 959 959 6.31k 0.101 413
diamond/graph 1039 1046 6.85 0.098 425
cryo/graph 1087 1094 7.17k 0.99 422
graph/cryo 997 998 6.57k 0.1 419
end/graph 1095 1118 7.22k 0.01 420
graph/end 983 1004 6.47k 0.105 400
Note that the placement of type of coolant DOES make a difference. I have no idea if the differences would be more noticeable in a larger reactor. And reactivity is one of the things I don't understand.
Further experiments.
In another experiment with a larger reactor I played with the rod percentages. it was a 9x9x6. It started out at 1622 temp, 20.4k RF, and 0.312 fuel. Raising all thirteen rods to 60%, except one at 50%, I got it to 1000 temp, 12.4k RF, and 0.13 fuel. A 40% reduction in Rf, but at 39.3% of the fuel.
And finally I made a 20x20x12 reactor for the fun of it. 1,280 fuel rods. Cooled by resonant ender. And it took 5,120 ingots to fuel.
2980 case temp, 2990 core temp, 244k RF/tick output, 6.95 mb/tick fuel consumption, and 513 reactivity. It would take twenty-five power taps to keep up with it. But at the cost of an ingot every six to seven seconds.
Five 7x7x5 and one 6x6x5. Four stacks of three rods in various configurations. Graphite coolant, since blocks are easier to place.
Configurations have to be shown. H=rods, O=space.
Corners
HOOOH
OOOOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
HOOOH
Square
OOOOO
OHOHO
OOOOO
OHOHO
OOOOO
Diamond
OOOOO
OOHOO
OHOHO
OOHOO
OOOOO
Large Box
OOOOO
OHHOO
OHHOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
Small Box (6x6)
OOOO
OHHO
OHHO
OOOO
Offset
OOOOO
OHOOO
OHOHO
OOOHO
OOOOO
Case Core Output Fuel Reactivity
Corners 745 819 4.87k 0.077 438
Square 753 773 4.92k 0.076 442
Diamond 713 733 4.66k 0.081 414
Large Box 725 841 4.74k 0.077 432
Small Box 909 1018 4.36k 0.08 415
Offset 722 774 4.72k 0.078 426
The placement of the rods and the size of the reactor makes a difference.
Configurations have to be shown. H=rods, O=space.
Corners
HOOOH
OOOOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
HOOOH
Square
OOOOO
OHOHO
OOOOO
OHOHO
OOOOO
Diamond
OOOOO
OOHOO
OHOHO
OOHOO
OOOOO
Large Box
OOOOO
OHHOO
OHHOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
Small Box (6x6)
OOOO
OHHO
OHHO
OOOO
Offset
OOOOO
OHOOO
OHOHO
OOOHO
OOOOO
Case Core Output Fuel Reactivity
Corners 745 819 4.87k 0.077 438
Square 753 773 4.92k 0.076 442
Diamond 713 733 4.66k 0.081 414
Large Box 725 841 4.74k 0.077 432
Small Box 909 1018 4.36k 0.08 415
Offset 722 774 4.72k 0.078 426
The placement of the rods and the size of the reactor makes a difference.
In another experiment with a larger reactor I played with the rod percentages. it was a 9x9x6. It started out at 1622 temp, 20.4k RF, and 0.312 fuel. Raising all thirteen rods to 60%, except one at 50%, I got it to 1000 temp, 12.4k RF, and 0.13 fuel. A 40% reduction in Rf, but at 39.3% of the fuel.
And finally I made a 20x20x12 reactor for the fun of it. 1,280 fuel rods. Cooled by resonant ender. And it took 5,120 ingots to fuel.
2980 case temp, 2990 core temp, 244k RF/tick output, 6.95 mb/tick fuel consumption, and 513 reactivity. It would take twenty-five power taps to keep up with it. But at the cost of an ingot every six to seven seconds.
You wouldn't need 25 power taps. Just one with a tesseract sending power to an Ender io Capacitor bank which could handle that amount of RF/t
Reactivity is the display text for the FuelFertility variable, and along with control rod settings and a few other variables, is used to determine the consumption rate of fuel. Higher Reactivity is better for fuel efficiency, but the value that raises it also raises heat production.
Note that individual coolants have four different values : radiation absorption, radiation moderation, efficiency of conversion from radiation to thermal energy, and thermal conductivity. Diamond, Enderium, and Cryotheum are /very/ good at moving heat (the best currently implemented, short of Tartarite), but only capture radiation about 60% as well as Liquid Ender.
Note that individual coolants have four different values : radiation absorption, radiation moderation, efficiency of conversion from radiation to thermal energy, and thermal conductivity. Diamond, Enderium, and Cryotheum are /very/ good at moving heat (the best currently implemented, short of Tartarite), but only capture radiation about 60% as well as Liquid Ender.
Here two Google docs with different setups (I didn't create them, just found the links when researching possible setup):
Big Reactors 2.0.12 The numbers are different now, but the best setups from that version are still valid now.
Big Reactors 3.0.x Also includes some of the steam output values.
You only want to capture radiation between rods and housing. Between the rods it's better to moderate it (slow it down), since the radiation also increases the fertility for the rods. And high fertility means higher energy output.
http://wiki.technicpack.net/Multiblock_Reactor#Design_Principles
Big Reactors 2.0.12 The numbers are different now, but the best setups from that version are still valid now.
Big Reactors 3.0.x Also includes some of the steam output values.
You only want to capture radiation between rods and housing. Between the rods it's better to moderate it (slow it down), since the radiation also increases the fertility for the rods. And high fertility means higher energy output.
http://wiki.technicpack.net/Multiblock_Reactor#Design_Principles
The trick with the reactor designs is to produce a lot of power with low consumption. Duh, right? Just remember that the planar graph of power output is a curve. High core temps lower efficiency and output.
Some other things that are not obvious:
Some other things that are not obvious:
- Rods "radiate" out along the compass directions. Rods in a grid will output more than rods at a diagonal because of this.
- Rods also emit heat. If they are adjacent to a rod, the heat will go there. Otherwise it goes into the casing.
- Casing heat is easier to manage than core heat, so it's preferable to not let your rods touch unless your coolant is superior.
- Effective use of touching rods and strong coolants is essential to small (<= 5x5x5) reactors
- High heat reactors can be VERY good if you have good redstone control logic. Actually the best, before you can make turbines.
- People tend to build the reactors on a square plan. You need not do this. In fact, it's easier to make cheap water cooled reactors on a rectangular plan.
- Watch your control rods carefully and make sure to play with them a bit. It's possible to use them to get equivalent power output with less fuel consumption.
This is interesting, I'm playing Agrarian Skies at the moment and this seemed to gel into what I was thinking, I need an inefficient reactor to produce the materials for the turbine quickly, and then once I have the materials I would need to rework that reactor into an efficient steam producer for the turbines.
So I guess I'll try crafting all the blocks to make my 7x7x3 steam provider to make an uncooled tower of inefficiency. Could be worth a vid Dave, you explain things so well and most tutorials are on just how to build them, not good practical survival setups.
Certainly more fun than just throwing together an 11x11x11 big reactor and ticking power off as done.
Just tested, and you can increase your power gen by making the reactor bigger with the same number of rods.
My five-rod X formation, ender on the outside graphite between the rods, going from 7x7x5 to 9x9 to 11x11: 7.22k to 8.76k to 9.21k. With an almost unnoticeable decrease in fuel consumption (0.1/t to 0.095/t). And a huge decrease in temperature.
If you need to watch your fuel consumption, you want bigger with fewer rods.
My five-rod X formation, ender on the outside graphite between the rods, going from 7x7x5 to 9x9 to 11x11: 7.22k to 8.76k to 9.21k. With an almost unnoticeable decrease in fuel consumption (0.1/t to 0.095/t). And a huge decrease in temperature.
If you need to watch your fuel consumption, you want bigger with fewer rods.
To save the argument over to use a X or + formation, well there's next to no difference, the X is ever so slightly better than a + and before you argue go test it yourself you will see.
The only thing NOT to do is a diagonal line from one corner to the other like a / that's really really really bad thing to do (you get 0 fuel reactivity and burn up yellorite like no tomorrow) unless ofc you're running turbines.
The only thing NOT to do is a diagonal line from one corner to the other like a / that's really really really bad thing to do (you get 0 fuel reactivity and burn up yellorite like no tomorrow) unless ofc you're running turbines.
Yall numbers are significantly lower than mine. I have a 7x7x5 reactor running 5 rods in an X pattern cooled with resonant Ender and it outputs 12.7KRf/t or 12,700Rf/t. Saw someone with my same design getting half that and I'm confused
Mod packs can alter the power ratings so to be honest you can only compare within the same mod pack.
First, if you are seeking ultimate efficiency, you need to build an actively cooled reactor with turbine(s).
That said, when building passively cooled big reactors. If you are seeking yellorium efficiency, the mod is well named: Bigger is better:
First off, there are a number of ways RF is generated in a Big Reactor, and one of those ways is via the absorption property of the coolant used.
Radiation travels 4 blocks from a fuel rod so, to capture all the available radiation, you need to construct the reactor with 4 blocks of separation between the edge of your reactor core, and the walls.
One of the other ways that RF is generated is captured is via heat flow from the rods, into the reactor casing, and this requires the reactor environment to be cooler than the fuel rods. As it turns out (and quite logically) the generated heat is dissapated into the *volume* of the big reactor, so larger reactors have a cooler environmental heat, making them better at generating RF.
Lastly, in the core of the reactor, you are seeking to maximize fertilization (and minimize the amount of hard radiation). Past 1000 degrees core temp, the hard radiation % exceeds 40%, at which point half, or more, of the radiation is unavailable for fertilization or RF generation: to solve this you place blocks of a moderating material between fuel rods - which has the additional effect of cooling the core and perhaps reducing the amount of moderation required.
If you are building cryotheum cooled reactors, with 9 or less control rods, there is definitely no need to worry about "+" vs "x" type core designs: you can simply pack 9 fuel rods into a 3x3 space.
If you are running a pack with MFR, building and powering a MFR Mining lase with at least 1 yellow filter will make a passively cooled Big Reactor self sustaining.
Capacity planning: Compute how many RF/t you need, and double it. Each fuel rod block in your design will contribute ~500RF/t, so if you wanted 20,000RF/t, then a ~40 fuel rod reactor would be required. a 5 high, 3x3 core (i.e. 9 control rods) would supply this (with external dimensions of 11x7x11).
Lastly, use a MFR programmable rednet controller to control the big reactor: Use the MFR PRC setting that sets the output to the input to link the Big Reactors Energy remaining with its fuel rod moderation input and the reactor will scale its output (and fuel usage) to your energy usage. Big Reactors run more effeciently when moderated, you will achieve energy efficiencies of over 100MRF/ingot building an oversized reactor and running it heavilly moderated.