|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 18, 2016 4:22:31 GMT
Just like the title says lets get to designing the most mass efficient and cost efficient reactors possible. Total output doesn't matter it can be as high or low as you want the total output of the reactor will be divided by the total combined mass/cost of the reactor and radiator to get the Watts/gram and credits/gram. Looking forward to seeing some amazing reactors.  Example of what to submit to get things started off (disclaimer this isn't min-maxed yet just using it as a submission example): 54.19254 Watts / gram 2932.7731 Watts / credit   |
|
|
|
Post by mmmfriedrice on Dec 18, 2016 16:22:01 GMT
You may want to factor in the use of crew modules into low-power/extreme efficiency reactors. I prefer using a larger number of lower-power reactors despite the volume inefficiency, but often that will require me to bump up the size of crew modules.
|
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Dec 18, 2016 16:29:32 GMT
Another factor is that getting a very high efficiency reactor is technically easy: you just drop the output temperature really low, and you'll get a better ratio of power to heat.
The problem with that is you end up with huge radiators.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 18, 2016 16:34:17 GMT
Another factor is that getting a very high efficiency reactor is technically easy: you just drop the output temperature really low, and you'll get a better ratio of power to heat. The problem with that is you end up with huge radiators. True, but didn't someone mathematically prove that with unarmoured, lightweight radiators, 2400 K is the best exit temperature? (2500 is better for armoured warships with redundant radiators). |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 18, 2016 19:41:46 GMT
Another factor is that getting a very high efficiency reactor is technically easy: you just drop the output temperature really low, and you'll get a better ratio of power to heat. The problem with that is you end up with huge radiators. True, but didn't someone mathematically prove that with unarmoured, lightweight radiators, 2400 K is the best exit temperature? (2500 is better for armoured warships with redundant radiators). I think that proof, while useful, is a bit of an over simplification to a problem that has more variables and I am sure the person who did that math would agree the problem is a bit more complicated. As you increase the outlet you need more reactor mass to deal with the heat, or proportionally less power output for the same mass. Radiator compositions come into account as well anything over 2349K is Amorphous Carbon (2100 kg/m^3) but on the lower outlets you have up to 2270K (RCC at 1750 kg/m^3), and 2348K (Boron 2080 kg/m^3) radiators to take into account. Boron is interesting to me since it is both cheaper and slightly less dense than AC (they both appear 2100kg/m^3 in-game but Boron is actually 2080 some kind of weird rounding?). Most of my most efficient designs (I just finished one that is 58.3 W/g but horribly expensive) end up about 50/50 reactor to radiator mass (which is an interesting observation that is probably just a coincidence and probably not actually optimal). But I could be totally wrong the answer could be obvious that is what the challenge is about finding out the answers. My hunch is ~2348K outlet with Boron radiators might be optimal for cost and mass but that is currently just an unproven theory. I am interested to see what people come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Dec 18, 2016 20:16:13 GMT
2550-2600 K region is optimal in terms of just radiator area. Include the reactor and it is probably just a tad lower (2400-2500 maybe?). Reactor efficiency doesn't go much higher once you get below 2500K (at least compared to the desperate sacrifices it sees above 2600K).
You are using boron at its melting point as a radiator? Is it not ultra-susceptible to thermal damage (lasers, nukes)?
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 18, 2016 20:36:17 GMT
2550-2600 K region is optimal in terms of just radiator area. Include the reactor and it is probably just a tad lower (2400-2500 maybe?). Reactor efficiency doesn't go much higher once you get below 2500K (at least compared to the desperate sacrifices it sees above 2600K). You are using boron at its melting point as a radiator? Is it not ultra-susceptible to thermal damage (lasers, nukes)? The challenge isn't really about practical solutions it is about pushing the limits and finding out exactly where they are. It could have uses outside of combat in building more and more efficient traveling ships for the time trial missions etc. so it isn't a total waste in that sense. If you know the highest possible watt / mass you can get is x and your design is x - n you can make a more accurate assessment of if the cost in n is worth the gains in tolerance to external effects. Start building some reactors though and prove the 2400K-2500K theory though. I am interested to see what people come up with. I could be too honed in on Boron that I am missing out on more efficient options; thus the call for a global challenge and getting a bunch of sets of eyes and different approaches. |
|
