Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

[mrvn]

maybe not a contest but just show big builds of nuclear trains? i would contribute but i don't feel like competing in anything, this thread kind of shows why, it kinda gets out of hand.

That's actually what I wanted too. To see ideas. Would have been more important to me to see a novel design than to have that design win. Seeing how long a train you can actually fill was a goal but not the only goal.

I got some improvement ideas from it for train networks in general but nothing on actual reactor design. Which is really sad when this was about reactors.

[mmmPI]

I hope that you understand that you've effectively ruined this whole thread.

thank you for sharing your opinion

it's sad you let other people like me get in your mind, i'm not that important for you to feel like you can't submit any design anymore, just ignore me and post your novel design of the longest train filled with heat exchanger pump fluid wagon.

[mrvn]

You truly are incapable of letting anyone have the last post, right?

[mmmPI]

i said i wouldn't lose time on you mrvn, but if you keep quoting me and asking question you makes it difficult don't you think ?

I tried to ignore you because it seem to me like you refuse to face evidence about the contest of the longest train being ridiculous since there is no limit to train size, only you who decide when a train is considered artificially elongated and should be divided after you saw the design.

Now if you ask me questions i can explain to you all over again why steam/s and Train lengh are 2 different metrics but given how bad faithed you are, I can't understand it for you if you persist in denial.

If you ever need a reminder please quote me again i will practice my english to explain math to kids as you noticed it could be improved otherwise maybe you should (must) stop poking me with quote.

[mrvn]

i said i wouldn't lose time on you mrvn, but if you keep quoting me and asking question you makes it difficult don't you think ?

I tried to ignore you because it seem to me like you refuse to face evidence about the contest of the longest train being ridiculous since there is no limit to train size, only you who decide when a train is considered artificially elongated and should be divided after you saw the design.

Now if you ask me questions i can explain to you all over again why steam/s and Train lengh are 2 different metrics but given how bad faithed you are, I can't understand it for you if you persist in denial.

If you ever need a reminder please quote me again i will practice my english to explain math to kids as you noticed it could be improved otherwise maybe you should (must) stop poking me with quote.

And yet you still do. So who is "bad faithed" here?

Obviously steam/s and train length are 2 different metrics. That's the whole point. What good would be using a metric as deciding factor that is identical to the first metric that wasn't decisive (is that the right word?) enough? You really do need to practice your english more, I even quoted your the definition for "deciding" seems you seemed incapable of understanding the word itself.

And again I challange you to not reply. Let someone else have the last post.

[mmmPI]

from the person who explained to me that tileable train design didn't mean infinite train lengh and one was possible and the other impossible, from the person who explained me that the rules was "should" and not "must" but it was still a rule, from the person who answer things like "it depends probably" when asked for a non-interpretative rule, from the person who uses any single english mistake/ typo to quote 15 lines of the message and not adress the point but only the typo to avoid argument, from this person, getting quoted and asked who's bad faithed is a really easy answer, you are.

What good is a 200 size house if your fenemy already has a size 200 house and you want to claim to have the bigger house? It always depends on what the goal is.

Since i need to practice my english, can you explain to me the word "fenemy". Seems to me like someone you'd be jealous from his bigger house and you'd do everything you can to have a biggest. In this context you'd never say the house is overprice, like you'd never say the train is artificially elongated, right ? if your goal is to make the longest train.

but if your goal is to make the longest train that carries more steam/s then you don't have a clear goal. That's 2 different metric. And if everytime a train is longer but carries less steam it's considered artificially elongated then the goal is not to have the longest train but the more steam/S/wagon which is a metric like price/square meter that doesn't care at all about the size of the house, like it doesn't care at all about the size of the train.

Especially if making a train design that's tileable to infinity is possible. Then the contest of the longest train is measuring steam/s for different tileable to infinty train. And even after you realized that fact implicitly and started to argue on english mistake or other dishonnest way to avoid the math/rationnal aspect of the problem, you continue in denial.

You said you made a contest but without ranking method, to see innovative design while restricting all freedom in the choice of design.

And again I challange you to not reply. Let someone else have the last post.

Do you mean "challenge" ? i'm sorry pal i'm trying to improve my english as you said but you are not helping me by using words that don't exist i looked it up on google to make sure it was not a new word.

From what i understand you will stop answering because you want someone else having the last post ? You couldn't be expecting me not to answer when you quoted me and asked me if you were bad faithed, while i explictly told you that i would use the opportunity of having someone that purposefully act like he don't understand math to practice my explainings in english. I know you like to argue, you could teach me english and i could teach you math, but it would be more appropriate to stay on the topic of the nuclear reactor and the longest train.

Why don't you show one of your design ? maybe it will give me idea to improve mine.

[mrvn]

Here my reactor design. It's a bit bigger than mmmPIs joke submission. In fact it's so big that infinizoom won't let me zoom out far enough to capture it all. The blueprint shows it all, if you can call that showing at that scale:

Longest-Reactor-2x16-248-max-zoom.png (727.65 KiB) Viewed 2496 times

Longest-Reactor-2x16-248-blueprint.png (150.31 KiB) Viewed 2496 times

The design is powered by a 2x16 reactor in the middle and has 496 heat exchangers each on the top and bottom fed by a chain of unpowered reactors. The trains have a locomotive at the start and end and 11 locomotives in the middle where the 16 reactors are. Due to needing to fuel the reactor there is no space for heat exchangers there. So the perfect place for the locomotives. On each side of the locomotives there are 124 fluid wagons for a total of 248 fluid wagons per trains.

Longest-Reactor-2x16-248-middle.png (4.15 MiB) Viewed 2496 times

Longest-Reactor-2x16-248-logic.png (3.71 MiB) Viewed 2496 times

Longest-Reactor-2x16-248-end.png (4.27 MiB) Viewed 2496 times

A 2x16 reactor can power 496 heat exchangers according to https://factoriocheatsheet.com/ which is exactly the amount used for each train. There is some logic at the right side of the reactor to alternate between filling each train with a tiny overlap. I wanted to make the pumps on one train attach in the tick the pumps on the other train detach so there are always exactly 496 heat exchangers. But that didn't turn out to be a stable configuration with the simple logic. I start filling the next train when the other train reaches a certain steam level (24950 steam per fluid wagon). If I wait longer then sometimes the train leaves before the inserter moves the fish and the reactor gets stuck. Actually it just did again with 24950 as trigger after working for many trains. The alternating logic should probably be changed to something more robust. So there is some work left to be done if you want to use the reactor for real.

The reactor is constantly fueled and in the save its barely below 999.8°. It cools down some more over time. The heat exchangers at the end are at 505°C for me now with the reactor at 995°. So there really is not much temperature range to play with. It produces over 3 million steam per minute or over 51k steam a second or 4.96GW of power. Takes just over 2 minutes to fill each train.

[mmmPI]

congrats! that's really the longest train that is loaded with steam i've ever seen; i would understand if you un-make me the winner of the contest to take the lead of your contest.

I'm not sure i'm going to use it for real, because it would also require making the unload station with turbines and not rely on infinity pipe for water, but it's easy to park another train the same size of the one existing filled with water, harder to find any use to it though.

I see you used the mock-up design i proposed in the first page for reactor placement, train composition and heat exchanger pattern but you loaded on both side which allow to better control the temperature and prevent overheat at the cost of a smaller train since you use 2 where for the same energy you could have used 1 twice as long provided the rules on fuel efficiency are precised.

You must understand now that if you throttle the fuel you can make the reactor longer before it overheat, and thus extend the size of the train indefinitly, unless of course it's considered elongating artificially the train, then you could just have 2 areas with locomotives, unless you say it's using 2 cores, but then you could put 1 fuel in each reactor at init, and then only refuel some of them at the same time.

Many possibilities which one can't tell if they are allowed or not ....

[mrvn]

You can't make it twice as long because the heat gradient isn't there to drive heat exchangers non-stop. You can maybe squeeze in one more fluid wagon but in my tests the heat exchanger then only managed ~50 steam/s.

That leaves you three choices:

1) removing heat exchangers at the front to place them further away to make the train longer
2) buffering heat in advance of filling the train
3) multiple reactors

All of that has already been discussed to death with you. You simply seem to be incapable of listening.

PS: I thought you where done with this? Still can't leave anyone else have the last post, can you?

[Koub]

[Koub] This is going nowhere, locking the thread, and now, I'm the tyrant who stole the last word.
I'm baffled when I see the "my dad is better than yours" level of the argument. And I apologise to the few others who have tried to contribute constructively for :
1) not having prevented the 5 pages of hairsplitting about the wording. Threads in Show your creations don't usually need moderation, so I didn't come and read it every day.
2) locking the thread now. Feel free to recreate a challenge, but this time, I'll be reading it every time I visit the forum.