ReactorCraft - clever reactor setups?

[Pyure]

If I can make it work, I'm thinking of building an 8-core as one boiler surrounded by fuel cores surrounded by boilers surrounded by reflectors, and no control rods, and then replace some components with irradiation chambers. Does anyone see a reason why a design like that should or should not work? Remember my main objective is not power, but the reactor should still generate some.

I'm not really sure, since I don't know how irradiation chambers treat neutrons. I have to assume they absorb them, but no idea what %.

Assuming they absorb at 50%, I'd try your 8-core, 1 boiler design, surrounded by chambers, surrounded by reflectors.

If they absorb at 100%, the reflectors would be extraneous.

If your reactor gets too hot, I'd replace one or more chambers with boilers (which is basically your own plan already, in reverse, and more hazardous)

 

[Someone Else 37]

Meanwhile, I'm thinking a reactor with 8 cores might not work if I put down irradiation chambers. Does anyone have an idea about where best to place those irradiation chambers? They must be somewhere where neutrons pass, of course, and I guess the more, the better, but I wonder if I should replace neutron reflectors from regular designs or steam boilers. Or if the main components should stay the same and I just put irradiation chambers on the outer edges where you'd put concrete otherwise.

If I can make it work, I'm thinking of building an 8-core as one boiler surrounded by fuel cores surrounded by boilers surrounded by reflectors, and no control rods, and then replace some components with irradiation chambers. Does anyone see a reason why a design like that should or should not work? Remember my main objective is not power, but the reactor should still generate some.

Having no experience with this, and running off blind (and probably wildly incorrect) intuition, I would try to have one irradiation chamber be bombarded by as many neutrons as possible. I would either put the eight fuel cores around it in a square, or in a plus shape with the irradiation chamber in the center. And in any case, I would put control rods between all the cores and boilers around.

Since neutrons travel in unrealistically predictable paths (straight lines in cardinal directions), you can put any amount of space between your fuel cores without changing the behavior of the reactor very much. In this space, you can put control rods and more boilers. I recommend that you ALWAYS put control rods between all of your cores, just in case.

As for what fraction of neutrons the irradiation chamber, someone could do a test on that with a fuel core and a few blocks of fluorite. Those glow when hit by neutrons, right? Hmm... Do they absorb neutrons, too?

Also, another note, fuel pellets only fit in the middle column of the cores, and only the bottom one actually depletes. The three slots above it don't actually exist, for radioactivity purposes- they're like a built-in radiation-proof hopper sitting atop the core. When the bottom pellet depletes, the one above it drops into its place, then starts to deplete.

 

[Reika]

I'm not really sure, since I don't know how irradiation chambers treat neutrons. I have to assume they absorb them, but no idea what %.

70%.

 

[Ieldra]

Thanks, everyone. I think I can now start building reactor components. Well, after I've created the deuterium production chain, but that should pose no problem at all. One last question: how many cores must a reactor have in order to utilize the HP turbine? I know it depends on design, I'd just like some info that helps me make a decision about whether to make my reactor a little bigger if necessary or use a standard turbine.

 

[Pyure]

Since neutrons travel in unrealistically predictable paths (straight lines in cardinal directions), you can put any amount of space between your fuel cores without changing the behavior of the reactor very much. In this space, you can put control rods and more boilers. I recommend that you ALWAYS put control rods between all of your cores, just in case.

This is an odd comment. The straight lines part anyway.

Everything in the universe travels in a straight line, outside influences and curved space-time notwithstanding.[DOUBLEPOST=1405083408][/DOUBLEPOST]

Thanks, everyone. I think I can now start building reactor components. Well, after I've created the deuterium production chain, but that should pose no problem at all. One last question: how many cores must a reactor have in order to utilize the HP turbine? I know it depends on design, I'd just like some info that helps me make a decision about whether to make my reactor a little bigger if necessary or use a standard turbine.

Hard to say because you're absorbing neutrons instead of letting them chain-react. I can tell you for certain that a normal, neutron-reflecting 16-core reactor will easily run an HP turbine plus at least a small turbine alongside it.


Edit to include: I'm going to put forward that a 16-core will work for you, based on the fact that I never engage every neutron reflector in my 16-core setup. I typically have 16 reflectors, with only 5-7 actually exposed. The rest could theoretically be replaced with irradiation chambers.

 

[Ieldra]

Hard to say because you're absorbing neutrons instead of letting them chain-react. I can tell you for certain that a normal, neutron-reflecting 16-core reactor will easily run an HP turbine plus at least a small turbine alongside it.


Edit to include: I'm going to put forward that a 16-core will work for you, based on the fact that I never engage every neutron reflector in my 16-core setup. I typically have 16 reflectors, with only 5-7 actually exposed. The rest could theoretically be replaced with irradiation chambers.

I've thought about making a 16-core but wasn't sure I wanted to deal with the additional complexity added by the need for control rods since I wouldn't be able to just pack 16 cores together without risking an accident. Well, now I have two days to ponder this while I won't be able to play. Isn't it a bitch to have ideas in your head and being unable to try them out.... Anyway, about the reactor control block that controls the control rods: I've seen people put that at the center of the reactor, but must it go there? I think it would be more intuitive to place it somewhere where you can access it and not risk contamination, from a realism POV.

 

[Pyure]

I've thought about making a 16-core but wasn't sure I wanted to deal with the additional complexity added by the need for control rods since I wouldn't be able to just pack 16 cores together without risking an accident. Well, now I have two days to ponder this while I won't be able to play. Isn't it a bitch to have ideas in your head and being unable to try them out.... Anyway, about the reactor control block that controls the control rods: I've seen people put that at the center of the reactor, but must it go there? I think it would be more intuitive to place it somewhere where you can access it and not risk contamination, from a realism POV.

You can set it to the side, but a couple arguments run counter:
1) it has a limited range, and it automatically covers any reactor components in that range (even from another reactor)
2) the "center" of your reactor is frequently the hottest; if its going to save the day with an automatic scram, that's where it wants to be.

 

[Someone Else 37]

This is an odd comment. The straight lines part anyway.

Everything in the universe travels in a straight line, outside influences and curved space-time notwithstanding.

I was mainly referring to the cardinal directions part being unrealistic. In real life, you'd rarely want to put extra space in your reactor just so you can fill it with more control rods and coolant, because then there would be more space for neutrons to fly into that's not fuel, so more neutrons would be wasted. In ReactorCraft, the only downside is needing a bigger chunkloader to prevent spontaneous explosions.

Then again, real-life control rods probably don't take up nearly as much space as those in ReactorCraft do, so it's less of a problem.

 

[eric167]

You can get it down to less than one second with insane input speeds.


They are blocks, not entities, and due to odd designs of MC code will never affect TPS or FPS, but will affect UPS (block updates per second). To avoid them, condense steam and/or use the HP turbine.

in monster, you can still use the accelerators on stuff from rotary/reactor craft.
256x accelerator on a centrifuge and that thing probably outputs at 1 tick per op.
even without the accelerator, 10 million rad/s and 1 million N/m basically maxes it out. go higher, power received overflows into negative values.

regarding fuel, each ingot produces slightly more than one enriched dust, and each ore block has a enriched dust output of about 9.75, give or take.

 

[Reika]

in monster, you can still use the accelerators on stuff from rotary/reactor craft.

I strongly discourage people from advising others to use out-of-date versions and/or features.

 

[Xheotris]

This is an odd comment. The straight lines part anyway.

Everything in the universe travels in a straight line, outside influences and curved space-time notwithstanding.

I was mainly referring to the cardinal directions part being unrealistic.

*puts on nerd hat* Sorry, I do have to amend these statements in the name of scientific accuracy, especially in a thread about (simulated) nuclear science. Anything that is not being acted on by an outside force will travel, on /average/, in a straight line, while the actual path is a wave inversely related to particle size. Additionally, there is some bias in the quantum world towards symmetry along the six cardinal directions. Look at AFM images of electron shells if you don't believe me. *takes off nerd hat*

Sent from my brain using magical fluxes in a radiation field.

 

[Reika]

*puts on nerd hat* Sorry, I do have to amend these statements in the name of scientific accuracy, especially in a thread about (simulated) nuclear science. Anything that is not being acted on by an outside force will travel, on /average/, in a straight line, while the actual path is a wave inversely related to particle size. Additionally, there is some bias in the quantum world towards symmetry along the six cardinal directions. Look at AFM images of electron shells if you don't believe me. *takes off nerd hat*

Sent from my brain using magical fluxes in a radiation field.

So I managed to model laws of physics I was not even aware existed.

 

[Xheotris]

Yeah, in a real, non-ideal reactor there are all kinds of scattering forces throwing things every which way, but I really don't mind the simplifications you've made at all. Physics is all about making reasonable simplifications.

Sent from my brain using magical fluxes in a radiation field.

 

[Pyure]

*puts on nerd hat* Sorry, I do have to amend these statements in the name of scientific accuracy, especially in a thread about (simulated) nuclear science. Anything that is not being acted on by an outside force will travel, on /average/, in a straight line, while the actual path is a wave inversely related to particle size.

Like I said, straight line

Additionally, there is some bias in the quantum world towards symmetry along the six cardinal directions. Look at AFM images of electron shells if you don't believe me. *takes off nerd hat*

What, really?

 

[Xheotris]

Like I said, straight line


What, really?

Really! Here's a link.
http://www.askamathematician.com/20...there-be-a-other-letter-orbital-beyond-that/
Check out the image halfway down. They have bi-axial symmetry when you look at a cross section. If you look at 3d models of electron shells, they have symmetry along the three Cartesian axes. It's a little mind blowing when you look at a piece of metal under an AFM microscope and see these weird, bulbous atoms all lined up almost perfectly. Unfortunately I can't find that particular picture online.

Sent from my brain using magical fluxes in a radiation field.

 

[Ieldra]

Phew....Deuterium production up and running. I spent a few hours fighting with the arrangement of machines in the Electrolyzer setup. One interesting discovery is that unlike the videos suggested (which I found odd), the Electrolyzer does not need to be powered. Only the Van de Graaff generators need power. Which means all the difference to me since I can now put them in a row adjacent to each other.

The following information would be nice to have in the handbook:
(1) Do torque and speed have any influence on the electrolyzing speed, or does only power matter. Evidence appears to indicate the latter.
(2) How are power and electrolyzing speed related?

Does anyone know if there's a use for kilobuckets of oxygen within ReactorCraft/RotaryCraft/Electricraft? I'm voiding most of it fow now and only keep some for experiments with the pulse jet furnace. It isn't as if the supply was limited...

 

[Reika]

Phew....Deuterium production up and running. I spent a few hours fighting with the arrangement of machines in the Electrolyzer setup. One interesting discovery is that unlike the videos suggested (which I found odd), the Electrolyzer does not need to be powered. Only the Van de Graaff generators need power. Which means all the difference to me since I can now put them in a row adjacent to each other.

It does need power if you are making salt.

The following information would be nice to have in the handbook:
(1) Do torque and speed have any influence on the electrolyzing speed, or does only power matter. Evidence appears to indicate the latter.

Only power.

(2) How are power and electrolyzing speed related?

@Override
public void onDischarge(int charge, double range) {
if (this.canMakeSodium() || this.canMakeHydrogen()) {
int extra = charge-this.getMinDischarge();
int n = extra > 0 ? (int)Math.sqrt(extra)/16 : 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
timer.update();
}
}

Basically, the number of "steps" the timer progresses through (visible in the GUI as larger progress bar jumps) is a function of the input charge, which is in turn a function of input power.

 

[Ieldra]

Thank you! Hmm....speed is proportional to the square root of the surplus charge. It appears you'd be better off using more medium-powered machines rather than few high-powered ones. Anyway, three electrolyzers at 1 MW each won't cut it if the recent statement on fuel usage of the fusion reactor is approximately correct.

 

[Ieldra]

Does anyone know the "safe" temperature limit for a fission reactor? I varied fuel core setup in my experimental and incomplete, non-production reactor and stopped once fuel core temperatures got up to 250C and kept rising. If nobody can tell me I'll have to find out in a test world but I'd rather ask first and save myself the work.

 

[Reika]

Does anyone know the "safe" temperature limit for a fission reactor? I varied fuel core setup in my experimental and incomplete, non-production reactor and stopped once fuel core temperatures got up to 250C and kept rising. If nobody can tell me I'll have to find out in a test world but I'd rather ask first and save myself the work.

Hissing and smoke begins at 500C, 800C triggers a SCRAM, and 1800C triggers a meltdown.