Would you build this?

[EyeDeck]

I like the idea, but worry about implementation. It means three new fluids, four new steam types (each with their own block IDs), and a total rewrite of turbine code.

Hmm, I see what you mean. I never realized that steam was fed to the turbine in the form of rising steam blocks and not piped in through e.g. a nozzle of some sort.

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to throw ideas around, but I agree that integrating a variable-pressure-level turbine setup (or even a casing for the turbines to reduce how much needs to be rendered) into that sort of system might be more trouble than it's worth. Even so, there must be a better, more realistic way to reduce the total number of turbines required - or more importantly, the rendering cost - than to add "super" turbines as was mentioned earlier in the thread.

After watching you fiddle with all of the toroid magnets for about 10 minutes, I have to wonder if there's a reason they aren't simply placed facing away from the player à la mob heads. It would certainly be convenient only to have to smack the things with a screwdriver once or twice rather than about 16 times once you're on the far side, which works out to about 272 adjustments for the whole apparatus.

Looks fun, anyway, I can't wait to build one for myself.

 

[Reika]

Hmm, I see what you mean. I never realized that steam was fed to the turbine in the form of rising steam blocks and not piped in through e.g. a nozzle of some sort.

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to throw ideas around, but I agree that integrating a variable-pressure-level turbine setup (or even a casing for the turbines to reduce how much needs to be rendered) into that sort of system might be more trouble than it's worth. Even so, there must be a better, more realistic way to reduce the total number of turbines required - or more importantly, the rendering cost - than to add "super" turbines as was mentioned earlier in the thread.

I want one too.

After watching you fiddle with all of the toroid magnets for about 10 minutes, I have to wonder if there's a reason they aren't simply placed facing away from the player à la mob heads. It would certainly be convenient only to have to smack the things with a screwdriver once or twice rather than about 16 times once you're on the far side, which works out to about 272 adjustments for the whole apparatus.

Would that not be far less accurate?

 

[EyeDeck]

Would that not be far less accurate?

Well, yes, and perhaps no. You said yourself in the tutorial video that you were relying more on visual orientation compared to the preceding toroid magnet than you were on counting your clicks, and ideally, assuming the player were facing near enough towards the center block of the reactor when they placed each magnet, they might not have to do any adjustments at all. I'm basing this off the assumption that the average player (e.g. me) is going to haphazardly right click each magnet until each one is approximately correctly adjusted anyway, then fine tune and double check before turning anything on, and placing them facing away from the player would probably feel more intuitive than the way it works in the video.

I am, of course, not advocating the removal of screwdriver adjustment, that would be silly, just initial placement versus the "always west" or whatever way it works in the tutorial.

 

[Reika]

Well, yes, and perhaps no. You said yourself in the tutorial video that you were relying more on visual orientation compared to the preceding toroid magnet than you were on counting your clicks, and ideally, assuming the player were facing near enough towards the center block of the reactor when they placed each magnet, they might not have to do any adjustments at all. I'm basing this off the assumption that the average player (e.g. me) is going to haphazardly right click each magnet until each one is approximately correctly adjusted anyway, then fine tune and double check before turning anything on, and placing them facing away from the player would probably feel more intuitive than the way it works in the video.

I am, of course, not advocating the removal of screwdriver adjustment, that would be silly, just initial placement versus the "always west" or whatever way it works in the tutorial.

I can look into that, but parsing it into 47 different angles is going to be a pain.

 

[Yusunoha]

excuse me, are we still in Minecraft?

 

[SkeletonPunk]

at the rate this mod is going, it could very much likely be the new "center everything around this mod" mod that FTB uses.

 

[Barend]

Halfway into your video now, can follow it decently.

One question: can the whole be sustainable?
A thing about the fission reactors is that they require fuel, and the way I like mympower systems is so that I build it to be sustainable (e.g. treefarms) and I won't have to bat an eye about resource collection.

(I know the GT reactor can be made to be sustainable, so I'm hoping this one can be too, but I'm asking nonetheless)

 

[Barend]

I'm having a problem running it in FTB monster (1.10)

Crash Report: http://pastebin.com/MMpNT2q7

Manually updated Expanded Redstone, Geostrata, Reactorcraft, Rotarycraft and Dragon Api. (If nothing went wrong)

I've localized the problem to be something that has to do with Rotarycraft and Reactorcraft, seeing it runs fine without those 2 whilst having the other mods.

My knowledge of how to analyse a MC crash report is extremely limited, so this is just my take on it and nothing more, but this is at the top of the crash report:
"PM Description: Initializing game java.lang.RuntimeException: Duplicate stat id: "achievement.pcb" and "achievement.borer" at id 5266883"
Something with achievement IDs, which I can't find in the configs.

Help is appreciated.

 

[masterzh]

I'm having a problem running it in FTB monster (1.10)

Crash Report: http://pastebin.com/MMpNT2q7

Manually updated Expanded Redstone, Geostrata, Reactorcraft, Rotarycraft and Dragon Api. (If nothing went wrong)

I've localized the problem to be something that has to do with Rotarycraft and Reactorcraft, seeing it runs fine without those 2 whilst having the other mods.

My knowledge of how to analyse a MC crash report is extremely limited, so this is just my take on it and nothing more, but this is at the top of the crash report:
"PM Description: Initializing game java.lang.RuntimeException: Duplicate stat id: "achievement.pcb" and "achievement.borer" at id 5266883"
Something with achievement IDs, which I can't find in the configs.

Help is appreciated.

I also have some kind of "achievement.pcb" error with V16.

 

[Pokefenn]

I also have some kind of "achievement.pcb" error with V16.

I had that also, i deleted the config twice and it worked eventually. Weird

 

[Reika]

Halfway into your video now, can follow it decently.

One question: can the whole be sustainable?
A thing about the fission reactors is that they require fuel, and the way I like mympower systems is so that I build it to be sustainable (e.g. treefarms) and I won't have to bat an eye about resource collection.

(I know the GT reactor can be made to be sustainable, so I'm hoping this one can be too, but I'm asking nonetheless)

Assuming you have enough fuel, easily.

I'm having a problem running it in FTB monster (1.10)

Crash Report: http://pastebin.com/MMpNT2q7

Delete the achievement section of your RC config.

 

[Barend]

Thanks it worked, just finished building the reactor in creative mode.
What a journey. It'll probably be a while before I can construct it in survival, but I'm excited nonetheless.

In your video you said you could power 40-50 turbines. That would put some stress on your pc, wouldn't it?

 

[YX33A]

Assuming you have enough fuel, easily.~

Maybe you should clarify what the fuel is, where we get it, and how we make it usable? I like more info. I read every change log I see for mods I like, often citing "change log me, baby" before clicking the link to it.

 

[Reika]

Thanks it worked, just finished building the reactor in creative mode.
What a journey. It'll probably be a while before I can construct it in survival, but I'm excited nonetheless.
In your video you said you could power 40-50 turbines. That would put some stress on your pc, wouldn't it?

The rendering will probably be fairly intensive, but that can be mitigated. Now, if your PC freaks out when told to calculate something...

Maybe you should clarify what the fuel is, where we get it, and how we make it usable? I like more info. I read every change log I see for mods I like, often citing "change log me, baby" before clicking the link to it.

Deuterium and Tritium, both made by electrolyzing heavy water (and the latter is made by putting the former through a Neutron Ionization chamber in a fission reactor).

 

[Barend]

Deuterium and Tritium, both made by electrolyzing heavy water (and the latter is made by putting the former through a Neutron Ionization chamber in a fission reactor).

Can the creation of heavy water also be achieved with the fusion reactor?
If no, then you can't make a fusion reactor sustainable, can you? Seeing as it relies upon a fission reactor which relies upon uranium. (mined material)

 

[Reika]

Can the creation of heavy water also be achieved with the fusion reactor?
If no, then you can't make a fusion reactor sustainable, can you? Seeing as it relies upon a fission reactor which relies upon uranium. (mined material)

Heavy water does not require the fission reactor to make. It requires the Heavy Water extractor (hint: heavy water occurs naturally).

 

[Barend]

Heavy water does not require the fission reactor to make. It requires the Heavy Water extractor (hint: heavy water occurs naturally).

Sorry I read your answer wrong, but I get what you meant now.

I will rephrase my question.

Say you have a limited amount of chunks in your world. (virtually unlimited in MC, I know, but this is for explaining my question)

Say there are a 100 chunks, and you have acquired the materials for a fusion reactor and other materials necessary, is there a way in which you can, in theory, let the fusion reactor run indefinitely?

 

[Reika]

Sorry I read your answer wrong, but I get what you meant now.

I will rephrase my question.

Say you have a limited amount of chunks in your world. (virtually unlimited in MC, I know, but this is for explaining my question)

Say there are a 100 chunks, and you have acquired the materials for a fusion reactor and other materials necessary, is there a way in which you can, in theory, let the fusion reactor run indefinitely?

Yes, as the heavy water does not consume nonrenewables. Additionally, a fusion reactor can produce tritium, but it will negatively impact its efficiency.

 

[EyeDeck]

Sorry I read your answer wrong, but I get what you meant now.

I will rephrase my question.

Say you have a limited amount of chunks in your world. (virtually unlimited in MC, I know, but this is for explaining my question)

Say there are a 100 chunks, and you have acquired the materials for a fusion reactor and other materials necessary, is there a way in which you can, in theory, let the fusion reactor run indefinitely?

Spoiler

The forum is eating my link, skip to about 19 minutes in

Assuming it works realistically, as is the theme with Reika's mods, the process should go something like:

1. Collect naturally-occuring heavy water as above
2. Electrolyze it into deuterium and oxygen
3. Run some of the deuterium through the a fusion reactor in place of one or more neutron absorbers*
4. Pump the deuterium you made from heavy water electrolysis and tritum you made from deuterium radiation into the plasma heating apparatus
5. Pump the plasma into the fusion reactor to generate neutrons
6. Repeat

* Note that this reduces efficiency because the neutrons produced by tritium/deuterium fusion are going towards converting 2H to 3H (very basic knowledge of nuclear physics would have you know that "hydrogen" typically refers to hydrogen-1, or protium, which is an atom composed of one proton and one electron; deuterium is hydrogen-2, an atom of one proton, one neutron and one electron; finally, tritium is hydrogen-3, one proton, two neutrons and one electron) instead of heating the neutron absorbers to produce steam for power generation.

I haven't delved very far into Reactorcraft, so I don't know exactly what percentage of neutron absorbers need to be replaced with whatever block is used for deuterium radiation, so it may end up being much more efficient to build a separate, smaller fission reactor for tritium production, but a completely automated fuel production system should theoretically be possible with just a fusion reactor by itself.

Also, since I'm not sure exactly how the deuterium to tritium conversion works, it might be the case that you'd need something like an inner ring of deuterium radiation boxes rather than directly replacing the neutron absorbers. I'd go figure it out, but I won't have access to a machine capable of running even vanilla Minecraft for the next few days.

 

[Barend]

Spoiler

The forum is eating my link, skip to about 19 minutes in

Assuming it works realistically, as is the theme with Reika's mods, the process should go something like:

1. Collect naturally-occuring heavy water as above
2. Electrolyze it into deuterium and oxygen
3. Run some of the deuterium through the a fusion reactor in place of one or more neutron absorbers*
4. Pump the deuterium you made from heavy water electrolysis and tritum you made from deuterium radiation into the plasma heating apparatus
5. Pump the plasma into the fusion reactor to generate neutrons
6. Repeat

* Note that this reduces efficiency because the neutrons produced by tritium/deuterium fusion are going towards converting 2H to 3H (very basic knowledge of nuclear physics would have you know that "hydrogen" typically refers to hydrogen-1, or protium, which is an atom composed of one proton and one electron; deuterium is hydrogen-2, an atom of one proton, one neutron and one electron; finally, tritium is hydrogen-3, one proton, two neutrons and one electron) instead of heating the neutron absorbers to produce steam for power generation.

I haven't delved very far into Reactorcraft, so I don't know exactly what percentage of neutron absorbers need to be replaced with whatever block is used for deuterium radiation, so it may end up being much more efficient to build a separate, smaller fission reactor for tritium production, but a completely automated fuel production system should theoretically be possible with just a fusion reactor by itself.

Thank you for this, especially your link to the video.

I have a basic grasp of the process, so I didn't need that but thanks for putting that out there anyway.

One of the things I couldn't get to work was the heavy water extractor. Did some quick searching and found out it occurs in something like 1 in every 3200 water molecules.
Just couldn't get the heavy water extractor to work, but thank to you, I can now!

Thanks again, I got it to work now and I love it!