RotaryCraft Questions

  • Please make sure you are posting in the correct place. Server ads go here and modpack bugs go here

Bigpak

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
539
3
1
Yes however if you want to speed the machine up I suppose the only way is to add more engines which will in turn add more torque which means you can lower the ratio in a CVT so it will have more speed? Am I correct or somewhat close?

What would you prefer to use on most machines, a microturbine or a gas turbine?
 

Padfoote

Brick Thrower
Forum Moderator
Dec 11, 2013
5,140
5,898
563
Yes however if you want to speed the machine up I suppose the only way is to add more engines which will in turn add more torque which means you can lower the ratio in a CVT so it will have more speed? Am I correct or somewhat close?

Correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigpak

Bigpak

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
539
3
1
Ah, so what engines are some of the most popular? I want to eventually automate jet fuel production but I have a feeling I might want to get AE started before I try. Gasoline Engines also seem like a fairly cool engine.
 

madnewmy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,119
0
0
depends on what you need to do :p
Gasoline and performance are good engines that have multi uses
 

DriftinFool

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
642
0
0
Power is a factor of Torque x Rads. So no matter what you gear things to, the power output is still the same. Torque goes up, speed goes down and vice versa. The example you posted sounds like the gearboxes are set to speed, not torque. You need to click or shift click (can't remember which) on a gearbox with a screwdriver to switch it from speed to torque. Clicking it with an empty hand will open the GUI of the gearbox and you will be able to see if it is set to speed or torque.

Your setup now is putting out about 12 MW. Your total torque is 6 x 16 =96. 8192 / 96= 85.33. So you need to gear it down 85 times. The closest you can get to that is 16x and a 8 x like I said in the previous post which will give you 128 x torque and speed will be divided by 128. You will end up outputting 12288 torque@ 1024 rads. With 4 engines, you would have the same speed, but the torque would be exactly 8192. The extra 2 are probably just wasting fuel since most machines with a minimum torque requirement can be made faster by keeping the minimum torque while increasing speed. You will be making extra torque, but without a way to convert more of it to speed because of the odd ratio, your machine should run the same operation time with 4 as with 6.
When working with multiple engines, it is best to stick with 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. since they match the math and gearboxes. Using 6 will will make it so you can't get exactly what you need, but it will work just fine.
 

DriftinFool

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
642
0
0
Ah, so what engines are some of the most popular? I want to eventually automate jet fuel production but I have a feeling I might want to get AE started before I try. Gasoline Engines also seem like a fairly cool engine.
If you look at the output of the engines and the input of the machines, you will find there is a use for every engine. RoC definitely is more of powering machines individually instead of giant power networks until you get into reactors. They make enough power to run everything.
 

Bigpak

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
539
3
1
With reactors, is it even useful to use fission reactors or should I just try to go straight to fusion?
 

madnewmy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,119
0
0
With reactors, is it even useful to use fission reactors or should I just try to go straight to fusion?
Fission is needed to make a fusion reactor

Depends on how much power you need. Fission are in the (IMHO) 3-20 GW needs. Need more, go make a fusion. Need less, I would make HTGR
 

DriftinFool

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
642
0
0
With reactors, is it even useful to use fission reactors or should I just try to go straight to fusion?
Considering a very simple reactor can max out a turbine at almost 1 GW, I personally would never need a fusion reactor. The fusion reactor makes power on the scale of powering an entire server. It also takes an immense amount of resources and infrastructure just to turn on. As far as I know, you have to get into fission to make the fuel for fusion. I saw a HTG reactor the other day that was only 4 chambers and 4 boilers and ran a turbine at near maximum power. I would never need more, but some people do.
 

madnewmy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,119
0
0
Considering a very simple reactor can max out a turbine at almost 1 GW, I personally would never need a fusion reactor. The fusion reactor makes power on the scale of powering an entire server. It also takes an immense amount of resources and infrastructure just to turn on. As far as I know, you have to get into fission to make the fuel for fusion. I saw a HTG reactor the other day that was only 4 chambers and 4 boilers and ran a turbine at near maximum power. I would never need more, but some people do.
3 CO2 pebble bed reactor core will max a turbine, 6 for two and it seems like 8 can do 3
 

Ieldra

Popular Member
Apr 25, 2014
1,810
733
129
Fission is needed to make a fusion reactor
No it isn't, except in a very technical sense. You do need to do uranium enrichment and put the uranium into fuel cores, but you won't need to deal with the tricky stuff, namely keeping things cool and running in a reactor that generates power. In my fusion reactor project, I never built a real fission reactor, just a tritium breeder, which is a reactor only in a very technical sense. Here's what I did instead.

Also this is temporary. Once you've built enough fusion fuel to start up your fusion reactor, the fusion reactor can be made to generate its own tritium at an absolutely negligible loss of power. You'll find how to do that further down in the linked thread.

Having said that, a fusion reactor is a huge, huge project. Not mainly because of the resources - though that also is a factor, but the amount of production processes you need to make the components, and most of all the supporting infrastructre required. For instance, you can start thinking about how to make a canola farm that puts out 4 buckets of lubricant per second (!) to run the turbines. I've been joking about how the fusion reactor runs on lubricant, not on fusion plasma, since you'll need about 20 times more lubricant to run the turbines than you need tritium and deuterium to run the tokamak.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pizzawolf14

madnewmy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,119
0
0
No it isn't, except in a very technical sense. You do need to do uranium enrichment and put the uranium into fuel cores, but you won't need to deal with the tricky stuff, namely keeping things cool and running in a reactor that generates power. In my fusion reactor project, I never built a real fission reactor, just a tritium breeder, which is a reactor only in a very technical sense. Here's what I did instead.

Also this is temporary. Once you've built enough fusion fuel to start up your fusion reactor, the fusion reactor can be made to generate its own tritium at an absolutely negligible loss of power. You'll find how to do that further down in the linked thread.

Having said that, a fusion reactor is a huge, huge project. Not mainly because of the resources - though that also is a factor, but the amount of production processes you need to make the components, and most of all the supporting infrastructre required. For instance, you can start thinking about how to make a canola farm that puts out 4 buckets of lubricant per second (!) to run the turbines. I've been joking about how the fusion reactor runs on lubricant, not on fusion plasma, since you'll need about 20 times more lubricant to run the turbines than you need tritium and deuterium to run the tokamak.
It's true that you do not need a fully made fission reactor. But you would need to make one too learn how reactors work, since they are very different then htgr :)

Oh and don't worry, I do watch your thread :d
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,191
383
Waterloo, Ontario
With reactors, is it even useful to use fission reactors or should I just try to go straight to fusion?
With your current confidence level with rotarycraft, fusion is completely out of the question.

If you look through Ieldra's thread, you'll get a good idea of just what you're undertaking. Its a monstrous quantity of infrastructure, and it requires a strong understanding of RoC fundamentals just to get started.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padfoote

madnewmy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,119
0
0
With reactors, is it even useful to use fission reactors or should I just try to go straight to fusion?
To give you an idea:
You need to run a compactor, which requires bedrock, which requires tungsten, which requires an extractor and a frictional heater at 1350C or more
You need a few HP turbines which takes around 6k steel each
With the amount of rezy, you will need some quarying or boring machines for 27k lodestone (spawns at 60+) around 20k iron ore in the extractor and some fluorite/uranium for fission events (to get the first bits of tritium)
Oh, need some deuteurium and tritium. Trit comes from deut which comes from electrolyzing heavy water, which needa and heavy water extractor
And lubricant, like leidra said, up too 4 buckets per second
Want to do that in reasonable time? You will probably need some CVT's, tons of diamond gearbox and even more lubricant

And I am probably missing tons of stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyure

DriftinFool

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
642
0
0
To give you an idea:
You need to run a compactor, which requires bedrock, which requires tungsten, which requires an extractor and a frictional heater at 1350C or more
You need a few HP turbines which takes around 6k steel each
With the amount of rezy, you will need some quarying or boring machines for 27k lodestone (spawns at 60+) around 20k iron ore in the extractor and some fluorite/uranium for fission events (to get the first bits of tritium)
Oh, need some deuteurium and tritium. Trit comes from deut which comes from electrolyzing heavy water, which needa and heavy water extractor
And lubricant, like leidra said, up too 4 buckets per second
Want to do that in reasonable time? You will probably need some CVT's, tons of diamond gearbox and even more lubricant

And I am probably missing tons of stuff
You make it sound so simple. LOL.
I am near 100% certain that there is nothing in all of MC anywhere, that is even close to the complexity of the fusion reactor and it's infrastructure. Even to build a self sustaining one in a creative world would take over a week easily, I would think.(not using infinite sources for lubricant, etc..making it as it would be in a survival world)
 

madnewmy

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,119
0
0
You make it sound so simple. LOL.
I am near 100% certain that there is nothing in all of MC anywhere, that is even close to the complexity of the fusion reactor and it's infrastructure. Even to build a self sustaining one in a creative world would take over a week easily, I would think.(not using infinite sources for lubricant, etc..making it as it would be in a survival world)
Just trying to motivate you xd
 
  • Like
Reactions: pizzawolf14

Bigpak

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
539
3
1
Am I the only one thats going to attempt to build like 6 of these? Its not about why, its about why not.