ReactorCraft - clever reactor setups?

[Pyure]

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.

This is an interesting part of the mod. I can't tell you how much I hated the temperature mechanic (with the heat jumping all over the place unrealistically) until I studied and saw how it worked. I have *not* looked at the code for steam boilers, so this is purely observation.

Every cycle (second?), a boiler will look at its heat store. If its above 100, it will execute a loop and begin consuming heat and water and transforming that into steam. It seems to do it in chunks, say 10C at a time. (pure speculation)

Here's the trick. The loop seems to have two conditions: It can run while the temperature is greater than 100C. But it also has a maximum number of iterations. As a result, there's a sweet spot where you nail a lot of iterations without the water staying above 100C.

I don't know where that sweet spot is but I try to keep my boilers around 250C. This means your cores are probably going to be hissing and smoking.

I try to stabilize my cores around 500C. This is probably a bit aggressive

@Reika, would there ever be a point in showing the distinction between "heat" and "temperature"? Temperature would rise and fall more gradually and would let me be a nuclear engineer of sorts, monitoring the reactor and making fine adjustments and noting the effects. It would also trigger the scram, hissing and other adjacent mechanics.

Heat would be purely a mechanic of steam creation.

 

[Reika]

This is an interesting part of the mod. I can't tell you how much I hated the temperature mechanic (with the heat jumping all over the place unrealistically) until I studied and saw how it worked. I have *not* looked at the code for steam boilers, so this is purely observation.

Every cycle (second?), a boiler will look at its heat store. If its above 100, it will execute a loop and begin consuming heat and water and transforming that into steam. It seems to do it in chunks, say 10C at a time. (pure speculation)

Here's the trick. The loop seems to have two conditions: It can run while the temperature is greater than 100C. But it also has a maximum number of iterations. As a result, there's a sweet spot where you nail a lot of iterations without the water staying above 100C.

I don't know where that sweet spot is but I try to keep my boilers around 250C. This means your cores are probably going to be hissing and smoking.

I try to stabilize my cores around 500C. This is probably a bit aggressive

@Reika, would there ever be a point in showing the distinction between "heat" and "temperature"? Temperature would rise and fall more gradually and would let me be a nuclear engineer of sorts, monitoring the reactor and making fine adjustments and noting the effects. It would also trigger the scram, hissing and other adjacent mechanics.

Heat would be purely a mechanic of steam creation.

I treat them as the same parameter, or I have to worry about things like thermal capacity.

 

[Pyure]

I treat them as the same parameter, or I have to worry about things like thermal capacity.

You have to worry about that anyway. Do you see where the distinction is a step towards rather than away from simulation?

 

[Reika]

You have to worry about that anyway. Do you see where the distinction is a step towards rather than away from simulation?

Normally temperatures do not escalate wildly, so I do not see this giving much benefit.

EDIT:
Upon reviewing the code, I already do model this as temperature, not as direct heat energy.

 

[Pyure]

Normally temperatures do not escalate wildly, so I do not see this giving much benefit.

EDIT:
Upon reviewing the code, I already do model this as temperature, not as direct heat energy.

A well-balanced ReC reactor will have boilers dropping from 300-100C in a cycle every few seconds. The only exception is a reactor whose boilers are stable at just over the boiling point.

I really like the coded mechanic: its clever. But I dislike the unrealistic temperature variation, and the unrealistic inability to gauge a "true overall temperature" of the block.

For a mod that strives for realism, I think this would be both more true to the simulation, and incredibly useful for anyone designing and monitoring their reactor.

I'd even have to consider starting up my ReC world again, so there's a downside.

 

[Reika]

A well-balanced ReC reactor will have boilers dropping from 300-100C in a cycle every few seconds. The only exception is a reactor whose boilers are stable at just over the boiling point.

I have never seen that.

I really like the coded mechanic: its clever. But I dislike the unrealistic temperature variation, and the unrealistic inability to gauge a "true overall temperature" of the block.

For a mod that strives for realism, I think this would be both more true to the simulation, and incredibly useful for anyone designing and monitoring their reactor.

I am very reticent to change the existing mechanics, as it could wildly impact the power generation capabilities.

 

[Pyure]

At this point I'm just engaging in interesting discussion rather than trying to persuade you to anything.

I have never seen that.

I'm not at home unfortunately. Perhaps someone else could demonstrate a video of it.

I am very reticent to change the existing mechanics, as it could wildly impact the power generation capabilities.

The heat-consumption mechanic should be unchanged. Temperature is an addition that would not affect steam creation in any way.

It would not in any way determine whether a quantity of steam should be created. It would inform the user as to the overall status of a block, and it would inform the block as to whether it should be transforming into an explosive pile of radioactive debris.

I lack the maths to determine how it rise and fall over time; that's your strong suit so I wouldn't even contribute to the discussion.

 

[Reika]

At this point I'm just engaging in interesting discussion rather than trying to persuade you to anything.


I'm not at home unfortunately. Perhaps someone else could demonstrate a video of it.


The heat-consumption mechanic should be unchanged. Temperature is an addition that would not affect steam creation in any way.

It would not in any way determine whether a quantity of steam should be created. It would inform the user as to the overall status of a block, and it would inform the block as to whether it should be transforming into an explosive pile of radioactive debris.

I lack the maths to determine how it rise and fall over time; that's your strong suit so I wouldn't even contribute to the discussion.

So you basically want temperature a separate display-and-failure-only parameter that is just a more slowly-updating version of the heat levels?

 

[Pyure]

So you basically want temperature a separate display-and-failure-only parameter that is just a more slowly-updating version of the heat levels?

That sums it up. If you can figure out the incremental temperature changes. I can't model it in my head.

I'd probably cheat and do something similar to your steam pressure algorithm, where new temperature is a product of the difference of the previous temperature and new maximum, but its sketchy.

 

[Reika]

That sums it up. If you can figure out the incremental temperature changes. I can't model it in my head.

I'd probably cheat and do something similar to your steam pressure algorithm, where new temperature is a product of the difference of the previous temperature and new maximum, but its sketchy.

This essentially makes the temperature the integration of the heat flux, which is actually accurate, but the problem is that it means, in practice, the creation of a duplicate temperature variable and a doubling of the amount of sync data sent over the network. It also changes the failure mechanics in ways I do not enjoy.

Additionally, I cannot simulate this code in my head, and as such am very leery of implementing it as I cannot be sure of the final result, and once the code is implemented, it is permanent.

 

[Demosthenex]

Anyone had an issue where the HP turbine would not assemble out of the multiblocks? On our server I can't even get a two deep one to assemble. Yes we run MCPC+, but it hasn't impacted any other RoC functions.

 

[Reika]

Anyone had an issue where the HP turbine would not assemble out of the multiblocks? On our server I can't even get a two deep one to assemble. Yes we run MCPC+, but it hasn't impacted any other RoC functions.

Check for the RailCraft hidden block.

 

[Pyure]

Anyone had an issue where the HP turbine would not assemble out of the multiblocks? On our server I can't even get a two deep one to assemble. Yes we run MCPC+, but it hasn't impacted any other RoC functions.

The last time I had this happen it was just a hair too close to the walls/floor/ceiling. ymmv.

 

[Demosthenex]

Check for the RailCraft hidden block.

Monster has the hidden block set to 0 by default, so that should be disabled.[DOUBLEPOST=1405524783][/DOUBLEPOST]

The last time I had this happen it was just a hair too close to the walls/floor/ceiling. ymmv.

Isn't two clear blocks per side enough? I've tried to build it underground where it was tight, now I'm outside in an open area and it's 2 off the ground and still won't assemble.

 

[Pyure]

Monster has the hidden block set to 0 by default, so that should be disabled.[DOUBLEPOST=1405524783][/DOUBLEPOST]

Isn't two clear blocks per side enough? I've tried to build it underground where it was tight, now I'm outside in an open area and it's 2 off the ground and still won't assemble.

Should be fine. Doesn't help if you break a block in the structure and replace it?
Can I see a pic of the first couple stages you've built?

 

[pizzawolf14]

Isn't two clear blocks per side enough? I've tried to build it underground where it was tight, now I'm outside in an open area and it's 2 off the ground and still won't assemble.

Fwiw, I had to place the actual turbine block last when I was making mine.

 

[Demosthenex]

Monster has the hidden block set to 0 by default, so that should be disabled.[DOUBLEPOST=1405524783][/DOUBLEPOST]

Isn't two clear blocks per side enough? I've tried to build it underground where it was tight, now I'm outside in an open area and it's 2 off the ground and still won't assemble.

Reverting the sync interval to 1 make it assemble normally. It remains assembled when I set the sync back to 20. The root cause appears to be the sync 20.[DOUBLEPOST=1405526142][/DOUBLEPOST]

Should be fine. Doesn't help if you break a block in the structure and replace it?
Can I see a pic of the first couple stages you've built?

I made the diagram... and I must have built fifty of these in creative by now.

It's the sync interval.

 

[Reika]

Reverting the sync interval to 1 make it assemble normally. It remains assembled when I set the sync back to 20. The root cause appears to be the sync 20.[DOUBLEPOST=1405526142][/DOUBLEPOST]

I made the diagram... and I must have built fifty of these in creative by now.

It's the sync interval.

Sync packets have nothing to do with the multiblock.

 

[Demosthenex]

Sync packets have nothing to do with the multiblock.

Reika, all I can say is i made it three times, took out one block, shutdown the server and set sync to 1 in the server config. Started it back up, placed the last block and *pop* it assembled. Shutdown, reverted to sync 20. Startup it's still there, break one block out and replace it, it refuses to assemble.

So from the programming side I understand you assert it isn't related. From the user experience, I can consistently replicate this pattern where the sync is somehow preventing me from doing it. Or the sync is the only variable I changed.

 

[Ieldra]

Does anyone know if one Hydrogen Preheater is enough to supply four Plasma Injectors? I am finding that if not, I may actually not have enough wool... I have 12k...I feel like in Agrarian Skies: "Your next quest is to collect 20000 wool. Reward: a fusion reactor blueprint".

Also I'm wondering if you can send fusion plasma through a tesseract. LOL, I don't think I've ever done so much testing for a MC building project. Too bad I can't test this too far in advance because I need a functional hydrogen preheater.