Strange, Yet Effective Big Reactors

  • The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
rhn

rhn

Too Much Free Time
Nov 11, 2013
5,706
4,420
333
RavynousHunter said:
Wow, that last one really puts out some serious steam, don't it? I'm tempted to try that in my world...
Click to expand...
Outputting lots of steam it really easily achieved. And sadly the most efficient way to design reactors is simply to have a big clump of fuel rods. It completely puts all the different fun mechanics out of the picture for most reactors. As you can see using different materials to deal with different kinds of radiation etc. is completely irrelevant when you can just plop down a pile of fuel rods. Major flaw in the design of the mod that really lowers its quality if you ask me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyure
R

RavynousHunter

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,784
-3
1
rhn said:
Outputting lots of steam it really easily achieved. And sadly the most efficient way to design reactors is simply to have a big clump of fuel rods. It completely puts all the different fun mechanics out of the picture for most reactors. As you can see using different materials to deal with different kinds of radiation etc. is completely irrelevant when you can just plop down a pile of fuel rods. Major flaw in the design of the mod that really lowers its quality if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Aye. That's one of the reasons I don't bother with turbines. Sure, they might be more fuel-efficient, but I just adore playing with the various little aspects of the reactors themselves; putting my gloves on and digging around in their guts to see how they work.
 
rhn

rhn

Too Much Free Time
Nov 11, 2013
5,706
4,420
333
RavynousHunter said:
Aye. That's one of the reasons I don't bother with turbines. Sure, they might be more fuel-efficient, but I just adore playing with the various little aspects of the reactors themselves; putting my gloves on and digging around in their guts to see how they work.
Click to expand...
Aye. The temperature aspect of passive reactors does elevate the importance of the other mechanics. But still think that it is a problem that the most efficient material to have next to a fuel rod is another fuel rod 95% of the time.
 
R

RavynousHunter

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,784
-3
1
So, whilst blasting Chimaira before class, I thought of something. The format for a reactor is really simple in the simulator, its just a string of X length depending on the internal length and width of the reactor, so a 5x5 reactor will have 25 characters in it. The simulator itself does some run-length encoding to compress the strings a bit, so if you have "EEEEEEEE" representing 8 consecutive blocks of resonant ender, it'll compress it to "8E," but the longer string will still work just fine.

Sooooooooooo...I'm working on a Python script (because why not?) that brute forces the simulator for optimum results for a given variable. So, say we want the best 5x5x5 reactor for sheer output, we'd use BRuteOutput( 5, 5, 5 ), and it'd do the rest. Of course, this will be a lot of simulations. Even a small 3x3 reactor ends up with 43 million possible permutations (9^8). However, we could end up getting some crazy shit! However, I have class, so I'll catch you guys later!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreekAnalyzer and Pyure
Someone Else 37

Someone Else 37

Forum Addict
Feb 10, 2013
1,876
1,440
168
RavynousHunter said:
So, whilst blasting Chimaira before class, I thought of something. The format for a reactor is really simple in the simulator, its just a string of X length depending on the internal length and width of the reactor, so a 5x5 reactor will have 25 characters in it. The simulator itself does some run-length encoding to compress the strings a bit, so if you have "EEEEEEEE" representing 8 consecutive blocks of resonant ender, it'll compress it to "8E," but the longer string will still work just fine.

Sooooooooooo...I'm working on a Python script (because why not?) that brute forces the simulator for optimum results for a given variable. So, say we want the best 5x5x5 reactor for sheer output, we'd use BRuteOutput( 5, 5, 5 ), and it'd do the rest. Of course, this will be a lot of simulations. Even a small 3x3 reactor ends up with 43 million possible permutations (9^8). However, we could end up getting some crazy shit! However, I have class, so I'll catch you guys later!
Click to expand...
I'd like to see this work... but I'm wondering if brute-forcing that too much would crash the site.
 
rhn

rhn

Too Much Free Time
Nov 11, 2013
5,706
4,420
333
RavynousHunter said:
So, whilst blasting Chimaira before class, I thought of something. The format for a reactor is really simple in the simulator, its just a string of X length depending on the internal length and width of the reactor, so a 5x5 reactor will have 25 characters in it. The simulator itself does some run-length encoding to compress the strings a bit, so if you have "EEEEEEEE" representing 8 consecutive blocks of resonant ender, it'll compress it to "8E," but the longer string will still work just fine.

Sooooooooooo...I'm working on a Python script (because why not?) that brute forces the simulator for optimum results for a given variable. So, say we want the best 5x5x5 reactor for sheer output, we'd use BRuteOutput( 5, 5, 5 ), and it'd do the rest. Of course, this will be a lot of simulations. Even a small 3x3 reactor ends up with 43 million possible permutations (9^8). However, we could end up getting some crazy shit! However, I have class, so I'll catch you guys later!
Click to expand...
Think you will have a hard time with that since the site gives a rather large variance if you run the simulation again.
 
R

RavynousHunter

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,784
-3
1
rhn said:
Think you will have a hard time with that since the site gives a rather large variance if you run the simulation again.
Click to expand...

True, but if the simulations themselves don't take too long, I could do multiple simulations and give an average value as opposed to a one-off simulation. Hell, if you wanted, I could prolly have it give you the mean and standard deviation and five-number summary for a given simulation, if you want to go hog-wild with statistical analyses. Either way, I haven't, personally, see them vary by more than around 200 RF/t which, unless we're working with really small reactors, isn't all that much.
 
I

Iluvalar

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
223
0
0
RavynousHunter said:
True, but if the simulations themselves don't take too long, I could do multiple simulations and give an average value as opposed to a one-off simulation. Hell, if you wanted, I could prolly have it give you the mean and standard deviation and five-number summary for a given simulation, if you want to go hog-wild with statistical analyses. Either way, I haven't, personally, see them vary by more than around 200 RF/t which, unless we're working with really small reactors, isn't all that much.
Click to expand...
Please, if you're going to do this, don't abuse that poor guy CPU who made an awesome simulator. And invest the extra time to make your own simulator. If you know how to do all that, you probably know how to make that simulation as well without abusing of this guy bandwith and DDos him lol.

Here is my design. The liquid ender flow on the on the gold block on the second layer so I really need only 4 ender pearl as my coolant. 69,404.37 RF/mB and easily scalable in height. The reactor get slighly better the more you build it tall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhn
rhn

rhn

Too Much Free Time
Nov 11, 2013
5,706
4,420
333
Iluvalar said:
Please, if you're going to do this, don't abuse that poor guy CPU who made an awesome simulator. And invest the extra time to make your own simulator. If you know how to do all that, you probably know how to make that simulation as well without abusing of this guy bandwith and DDos him lol.
Click to expand...
Like

Iluvalar said:
Here is my design. The liquid ender flow on the on the gold block on the second layer so I really need only 4 ender pearl as my coolant. 69,404.37 RF/mB and easily scalable in height. The reactor get slighly better the more you build it tall.
Click to expand...
Not like. :(
It might be cheap, but putting Liquid Ender between the fuel rods kills the radiation that would give you higher efficiency. Instead I would scrounge up enough to make 4 source blocks of liquid ender and do this:
http://br.sidoh.org/#reactor-design...dInsertion=0&layout=OEOEOEXGXEOGOGOEXGXEOEOEO
If you place the ender in each corner on top of a block(graphite, glass or some other cheap block) and let it flow down each side.
 
I

Iluvalar

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
223
0
0
rhn said:
Like


Not like. :(
It might be cheap, but putting Liquid Ender between the fuel rods kills the radiation that would give you higher efficiency. Instead I would scrounge up enough to make 4 source blocks of liquid ender and do this:
http://br.sidoh.org/#reactor-design...dInsertion=0&layout=OEOEOEXGXEOGOGOEXGXEOEOEO
If you place the ender in each corner on top of a block(graphite, glass or some other cheap block) and let it flow down each side.
Click to expand...
Well that's enough graphite to double the height of the reactor. I should have been more precise in my first post, because indeed filling the corners with coolant is good even with the same technique. Also, simply increasing the size of the reactor, even if it's just to leave it empty is also a good way to improve efficiency. Here I use as much graphite as you did. (I know I use more yellorium and iron, but you get the main point; more space is good).
 
rhn

rhn

Too Much Free Time
Nov 11, 2013
5,706
4,420
333
Iluvalar said:
Well that's enough graphite to double the height of the reactor. I should have been more precise in my first post, because indeed filling the corners with coolant is good even with the same technique. Also, simply increasing the size of the reactor, even if it's just to leave it empty is also a good way to improve efficiency. Here I use as much graphite as you did. (I know I use more yellorium and iron, but you get the main point; more space is good).
Click to expand...
But graphite is dirt cheap... A tree farm and some left over gravel. And for me the Graphite part is always inconsequential in comparison to gathering the other materials to build/expand the reactor, such as steel and hardened glass.

And it doesn't really change my original point that you are putting a high moderation/absorption material between the fuel rods. It is killing the radiation that is one of the most important factors in assuring high efficiency. And IMO you are much better off using the cheap and easy obtainable Graphite between rods than Ender.

But neither are ideal ofc. If you are designing with gaps between rods(which is almost always the inefficient choice except perhaps with smaller reactors) then you want to aim for Cryotheum ofc.
 
Last edited:
R

RavynousHunter

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,784
-3
1
Iluvalar said:
Please, if you're going to do this, don't abuse that poor guy CPU who made an awesome simulator. And invest the extra time to make your own simulator. If you know how to do all that, you probably know how to make that simulation as well without abusing of this guy bandwith and DDos him lol.
Click to expand...
I might could copy his code and run it locally...it'd be faster, then, since the web requests would be the biggest choke point. I just don't like copying something I don't understand.
 
R

RavynousHunter

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,784
-3
1
Just happened upon another reactor design, based off of a SimCity 3000 city design: the (in)famous Magnasanti. Its kinda heavy on the cryotheum, but it puts out some serious power: ~120,000 RF/t @ ~66,000 RF/mB of fuel. If you need some serious power production, this one seems to be pretty good. I've tweaked it a fair bit, but there might be other ways to eke some more power out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom