Strange, Yet Effective Big Reactors

[Skyqula]

At low temperatures you don't produce much radiation but it is primarily Slow radiation.

All you have shown here is how controll rods work. Controll rod insertion reduces the amount of radiation produced as well as power generated. You didnt proof that temperature has an effect on radiation at all. Only that fuel rods need slow radiation for the most benefit. Keyword most. As checker does not beat dotted.

Radiation produced is dependant on core temperature.

So where do you get this? I see no proof of this. And did you take a look at this:

Compare this 4 rods huge reactor to this 4 rod small reactor.

Just for fun and gigles, set both to 51% rod insertion. Can you explain why the lower temperature reactor is better?

 

[rhn]

All you have shown here is how controll rods work. Controll rod insertion reduces the amount of radiation produced as well as power generated. You didnt proof that temperature has an effect on radiation at all. Only that fuel rods need slow radiation for the most benefit. Keyword most. As checker does not beat dotted.



So where do you get this? I see no proof of this.

No I don't know how to datamine the source code. But I think it was mentioned by someone who did in another thread here on the forums. Or it was on reddit. Probably wasn't the main subject of the thread, which is why I have not had any luck finding it again.
And I don't really know how else to explain it if you cannot see that that no matter which reactor you build you will always find the reactivity maximum around 1000C(if the reactor is capable of reaching that high a temperature). You can change the size of the reactor or materials in it, but the maximum will always be around 1000C.

EDIT: Here is one source that mentions it:
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/threads/ultimate-ish-big-reactors-guide.60235/
It was however not the original one I remember. But according to this it seems that all radiation simply drops in production as you go above 1000C(not just slow radiation). Pretty sure the other source I read mentioned it the way I described earlier, so maybe it changed in the meantime?

Just for fun and gigles, set both to 51% rod insertion. Can you explain why the lower temperature reactor is better?

I am not sure. Either it is one of the few things that seem to change with scaling up reactors(like temperature does) or it is a flaw in the code of the simulator. Best guess is that it is a scaling "buff" to make larger reactors more efficient.



EDIT: Actually rather confused why you are trying to convince me that radiation is not bound to temperature when in my search for the source of finding the information originally just found this quote from who I presume is you:

1000 degrees is not an optimal temperature. 1000 degrees is the breakpoint. Where if your go higher, you get significantly more fast radiation instead of slow (slow can be turned into power, fast needs to be slowed down first). What is the optimal temperature? As low as possible, with the general note: avoid going over 1000 degrees.

http://www.reddit.com/r/feedthebeas...quick_intro_to_big_reactors_and_a_few_sample/

 

[RavynousHunter]

WAIT WAIT WAIT. Fucking what? 4 rods, no matter how tall, shouldn't be outputting over 160,000 RF/t. Sweet Christ, I've been doing it wrong this whole effing time!

[ETA]

I think the reason the huge 4-core reactor is so much more efficient is that the neutrons have more space to move around and, more importantly, die. The more neutrons that die before reaching the outer casing, the more fuel-efficient your reactor will become since that increases the casing temperature and, thus, increasing the rate at which fuel is used.

 

[rhn]

WAIT WAIT WAIT. Fucking what? 4 rods, no matter how tall, shouldn't be outputting over 160,000 RF/t. Sweet Christ, I've been doing it wrong this whole effing time!

For small to medium(x and z) reactors, the best thing to put next to a fuel rod is another fuel rod. No fancy patterns, no conductive materials, just lots of fuel rods clumped together

(well mostly the case for actively cooled reactors, for passive you very early need to start adding in more conductive material to keep temperature down)

 

[RavynousHunter]

Eeh, can't be arsed to bother with actively-cooled reactors. Hard to automatically taper the output and kinda eliminates most of the fun of the mod. Least, for me.

 

[rhn]

Eeh, can't be arsed to bother with actively-cooled reactors. Hard to automatically taper the output and kinda eliminates most of the fun of the mod. Least, for me.

Why do you need to "taper" (reduce?) the output? You simple set the turbine to a fixed mB/t level and then set your control rods on the reactor to match that in mB/t.
And why does it eliminate the fun? It is the exact same mechanics, just with more added.

 

[Skyqula]

Actually rather confused why you are trying to convince me that radiation is not bound to temperature when in my search for the source of finding the information originally just found this quote from who I presume is you:

That is indeed me. There is, however, a difference here. Temperature effects the speed of radiation emited. I have found no effidence that it effects the amount of radiation emited.

 

[RavynousHunter]

Why do you need to "taper" (reduce?) the output? You simple set the turbine to a fixed mB/t level and then set your control rods on the reactor to match that in mB/t.
And why does it eliminate the fun? It is the exact same mechanics, just with more added.

To tailor it to what my base needs at any given moment, thus making it more fuel-efficient. With two MFR ports and a pair of RedNet cables, I can ensure that the reactor only ever outputs as much as it needs to maintain my base and run my machines. Even though I have a hilarious amount of uranium, I still have a finite amount, so ensuring my reactor is only ever producing as much as I need is a good way to make that fuel last much, much longer.

 

[rhn]

To tailor it to what my base needs at any given moment, thus making it more fuel-efficient. With two MFR ports and a pair of RedNet cables, I can ensure that the reactor only ever outputs as much as it needs to maintain my base and run my machines. Even though I have a hilarious amount of uranium, I still have a finite amount, so ensuring my reactor is only ever producing as much as I need is a good way to make that fuel last much, much longer.

Yeah well you CANNOT change the output of a turbine on the fly. It needs to run on the same RPM(and use the same mB/t steam) all the time to be efficent (900 or 1800 RPM). But that said a active reactor + turbine is something like 10x as efficient as any passive reactor is. So you can easily afford it running all the time IMO. Just dimension(don't make it too large) it as a backbone to cover the things always running and then have passive reactors or other power generators kick in when it is not enough.

Just make something like this:
http://br.sidoh.org/#reactor-design...ontrolRodInsertion=42&layout=G2CGC2X2C2XCG2CG
That will easily power 2x 4 Enderium Coil, 70 blade @1732 mB/t turbines giving a total of 40k RF/t.(default settings)

 

[RavynousHunter]

I'm...well aware of that. I've tried in creative several times in several ways. Running a turbine isn't exactly difficult, that's the biggest reason I avoid them: for me, they're boring. All you need is a lot of heat and boom, you got tonnes of power. It does take a little work to keep the reactor from eating thru fuel like a crackhead thru the world's biggest crack rock, but not nearly as much as a passive reactor. With those, you gotta balance things out, you need to know how to work with the neutrons and how to keep your fuel cores from getting too hot and overproducing fast neutrons.

Besides, its a personal taste thing. You might like things running at full-tilt, but I like my base only ever using what it needs. Please, stop trying to push turbines on me. Might not be what you're tryin to do, but that's how its comin across.

 

[rhn]

I'm...well aware of that. I've tried in creative several times in several ways. Running a turbine isn't exactly difficult, that's the biggest reason I avoid them: for me, they're boring. All you need is a lot of heat and boom, you got tonnes of power. It does take a little work to keep the reactor from eating thru fuel like a crackhead thru the world's biggest crack rock, but not nearly as much as a passive reactor. With those, you gotta balance things out, you need to know how to work with the neutrons and how to keep your fuel cores from getting too hot and overproducing fast neutrons.

Besides, its a personal taste thing. You might like things running at full-tilt, but I like my base only ever using what it needs. Please, stop trying to push turbines on me. Might not be what you're tryin to do, but that's how its comin across.

I am not trying to push anything to you. I am trying to explain that there is absolutely no difference in the reactor mechanics depending on if you use active or passive reactors. It is a very common misunderstanding that you have to remove all the conductive materials and run it hot to make steam. That is as far from the case as it could be. You have to make all the same considerations and use all the same mechanics. You need to keep the core cool to get better efficiency. You need to irradiate fuel rods to get higher reactivity. You have to use absorbing materials to catch slow radiation to turn it into steam. Steam is made when Heat reaches the "Casing". You need to use the right materials to get it there.
The only difference is that making it an active reactor adds a bonus to "cooling" so a reactor would run at lower temperature comparable to a passive reactor. And that with a properly designed turbine it is something like 10x as efficient.

And no I don't like wasting power or running "full tilt". Which is why my turbines are dimensioned to only supply the power that I know I will always be consuming. Once other things require more power they start draining my main EnderIO Capacitor bank and once it drops to certain percentages other power generators kicks in. For example in my current world I have it set up so that if my turbines(2x18kRF/t) is not enough a large bank of Dynamos running on Ethanol(7kRF/t) kicks in. If that is not enough then a large bank of Dynamos running on Fuel(7kRF/t). If that is not enough then a Passive BR(11kRF/t), and lastly another passive BR(11kRF/t).

 

[RavynousHunter]

Fair 'nuff. I just got bored with steam after Railcraft. Unless we're talking ReactorCraft steam. In that case, I'm immensely interested.