IC2 Nuclear reactor automation in direwolf20

[ScottulusMaximus]

I've doubled reactor output in the configs so divide by 2 for what the standard EU/t is.

Uranium Reactor:

This is not a very efficient design, needed the plutonium...

Mox Reactor:

The hotter a MOX is the more powerful it is.

Heat the MOX by putting a quad cell in the corner with no components touching it, be VERY VERY CAREFUL it heats very quickly. At 70% it starts hurting you, 80% it sets fires and 90% starts melting other blocks(although this may or may not have been disabled, there are conflicting reports).

To automate have an import bus set to pull out the depleted cells and an export bus set to fill with full ones and you're golden. It's a good idea to use acceleration cards and have a stock of quad cells on the MOX as it'll lose heat if it's sitting without fuel.

 

[Pyure]

It's a good idea to use acceleration cards and have a stock of quad cells on the MOX as it'll lose heat if it's sitting without fuel.

Are you sure about this? I believe the design I suggested retains its heat (unrealistically) regardless of the fuel or lack thereof.

 

[rhn]

It's a good idea to use acceleration cards and have a stock of quad cells on the MOX as it'll lose heat if it's sitting without fuel.

Are you sure about this? I believe the design I suggested retains its heat (unrealistically) regardless of the fuel or lack thereof.

I doubt that because there is no Reactor heat vents or Reactor heat exchangers in the layout to interact with the Reactors hull temperature.

 

[Pyure]

I doubt that because there is no Reactor heat vents or Reactor heat exchangers in the layout to interact with the Reactors hull temperature.

You doubt which? that it loses its heat, or that it retains it?

I won't be surprised if his layout loses heat, but I'm pretty sure the 1000 eu/t one I mentioned earlier retains it.

 

[rhn]

You doubt which? that it loses its heat, or that it retains it?

I won't be surprised if his layout loses heat, but I'm pretty sure the 1000 eu/t one I mentioned earlier retains it.

That it looses heat. The only way to interact with the reactors hull is through the Reactor Heat Exchanger and the Reactor Heat Vent AFAIK. The MOX reactor I posted will keep its temperature indefinitely no matter which components/fuel rods you remove. In fact the only way I could get the temperature down when "dialling it in" initially was to use a Reactor Heat Exchanger.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Are you sure about this? I believe the design I suggested retains its heat (unrealistically) regardless of the fuel or lack thereof.

I'm talking about the design in the pic I posted.

I'm sure I read that my design I used would cool... Anyway it appears it won't

 

[GreenZombie]

This has proven to be a very lucrative thread. I am going to try that MOX design.

 

[Chocohead]

90% starts melting other blocks(although this may or may not have been disabled, there are conflicting reports).

It does melt stuff, but only non-TEs. Basically in 1.6 there was a bug that it only melted Bedrock and other indestructible blocks (10/10 reverse logic) which when fixed made it melt anything near (including it's own chambers). That was fixed so it should melt any reinforced stone acting as a casing or things like that, but not melt any machines that are far too close or it's connecting cable.

 

[GreenZombie]

Fantastic. The Nuclear Control Thermal Monitor is fantasically bugged and does not publish a block update when it toggles the redstone state. So it displays that its detected the temperature level change, but doesn't actually turn the reactor off as the redstone signal remains stuck in its prior state.
It will find a reactor up to 2 blocks away, so there is space to invert the signal, and the signal can be inverted in its UI, so it *could* control the reactor, if it actually bothered to actually publish its redstone signal changes that is.
Perhaps the remote variants are less buggy.
--
Ok, "direct" transmission of a redstone signal into the reactor works. There MUST be an intermediate block however.
So, build the reactor. Place a block adjacent to any part of the reactor. Place the thermal sensor on that block, not the reactor. Open its UI and switch it so it is redstone high when the temperature is below the threshold. Dial in 6900, pop a fuel rod in the reactor and it will, cross fingers, heat up to 6900, and shutoff safely.
Just don't try and use it with any kind of redstone circuit.
--
Ok. Heated a reactor to 99% using a Nuclear Control Thermal Monitor, and built the MOX reactor above. It does 1488EU/t (on standard direwolf20 1.8 settings).
It hurts mobs and players in a 7x7x7 area, and sets fires, vaporises water and dirt, turns stone, cobble and gravel and a variety of other blocks (incl chisel factory blocks)* to lava, within a 5x5x5 zone.
I don't know if its possible for a tps glitch to cause it to blow, its pretty close to the edge

* Let me ammend this to "all solid blocks including reinforced concrete and obsidian. Ironically, obsidian does not turn into a lava source block.

--
I do not understand how heat is leaving that MOX reactor. There are advanced heat vents, component heat exchangers, and component heat vents. The fuel rods are adjacent to advanced heat vents - which only shed heat, but don't take any up. Sooo. All the component heat exchangers are just moving the heat around. And then, component heat vents seem to do a bit of extra cooling to the advanced heat vents (is it 4 heat per adjacent component?).

How is the heat getting from the fuel rods to the cooling system?

 

[rhn]

Perhaps the remote variants are less buggy.

Do NOT bother with the non wireless version It is just..... (Or I am an idiot and have never been able to use it right)
The wireless version is great!

Heated a reactor to 99% using a Nuclear Control Thermal Monitor

That is.... brave? Most people just run it in the "hurt" zone. I would not advice taking it so far. Build more of them instead.

I do not understand how heat is leaving that MOX reactor. There are advanced heat vents, component heat exchangers, and component heat vents. The fuel rods are adjacent to advanced heat vents - which only shed heat, but don't take any up. Sooo. All the component heat exchangers are just moving the heat around. And then, component heat vents seem to do a bit of extra cooling to the advanced heat vents (is it 4 heat per adjacent component?).

How is the heat getting from the fuel rods to the cooling system?

The Advanced Heat Vents adjacent to the Cells absorb the all the heat from the cells(and dissipates a bit of it). The Component Heat Exchangers will balance the heat out between all adjacent components(in this case it sucks heat out of the AHV next to the cells and gives it to the other AHVs next to it).

The Component Heat Vents are somewhat just filling the gaps that nothing else can fill. They slowly suck heat from adjacent components and dissipates it.

 

[Chocohead]

That is.... brave? Most people just run it in the "hurt" zone. I would not advice taking it so far. Build more of them instead.

While there is nothing wrong with being totally reckless and doing that, I'd personally be a little weary of lag and run it at 95%. If the design is stable though there would be no other logical explanation for it to go wrong.

 

[GreenZombie]

While there is nothing wrong with being totally reckless and doing that, I'd personally be a little weary of lag and run it at 95%. If the design is stable though there would be no other logical explanation for it to go wrong.

Even with lag it cannot fail. Fuel rods only move heat into the reactor hull if there are no adjacent cooling components they can move heat to. If there eligible vents touching just once side of a fuel rod then heat will never go to the reactor.

 

[Chocohead]

Even with lag it cannot fail. Fuel rods only move heat into the reactor hull if there are no adjacent cooling components they can move heat to. If there eligible vents touching just once side of a fuel rod then heat will never go to the reactor.

What happens if you slip and pull a vent out accidentally? There should always be accident leeway.

 

[GreenZombie]

What happens if you slip and pull a vent out accidentally? There should always be accident leeway.

True that, but every fuel rod has 2 vents adjacent. I'd have to mess up twice.