|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 22, 2016 5:41:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Dec 22, 2016 6:23:57 GMT
[...] including a 40.2 GW design that is a major upgrade for basically any boat using his older Tungsten-Tantalum thermocouple equipped 40 GW reactor, mostly due to the savings of almost 50 Mc in terms of cost and almost 19 kt in terms of weight [...] If apophys wants me to change the name of any of these reactors, I will be happy to do so. He has clearly demonstrated that he is better at the reactor optimization game than me. I'm flattered.  The 40GW reactor was created as a joke, and I have always treated it so (although in the original ancient post, the joking nature may not have been apparent).  The limits of a practical design used to be reached soon after 25GW, and nowadays somewhere around 30-35GW. That is where a maximum size thermocouple would be the optimum for the heat needing to be pumped. I cannot imagine any situation where the horrible mass and cost penalties accrued beyond this point would be worth it. I mostly just called my reactors standard out of laziness. If there are multiple of the same class called a standard, then confusion will arise. A better naming system should be devised somehow (i.e. we should both be naming things differently than we are currently doing). I will post updated reactors soon-ish (probably tomorrow). I've got mostly optimized 100MW, 1GW, 10GW, and 25GW replacements (for 2400K) right now; still need to work out a 10MW one, then build 2500K versions, and tweak everything slightly. The ones I've got are both lighter and cheaper than your edits for the same power tier, so they will be straight upgrades. |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 22, 2016 6:42:41 GMT
Around 34 GW it becomes more and more mass prohibitive to add extra power; it costs much more to get to 36GW than it costs to go from 30 GW to 34.
Which is a shame; if 5x40GW would reduce size/weight compared to 6x33.5GW, or even remain the same, it would reduce crew size (and thus become a net gain).
My Ultima C series are 33.5 GW ea because my freighters are designed around the 200 threshold (for many reasons) and 6x33.5 GW is an almost perfect drop-in upgrade from 8x25 GW.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Dec 22, 2016 7:04:32 GMT
I spent some time min-maxing around nuclear warhead yield / cost ratios and optimized some warheads for 1kt, 5kt, 10kt, 50kt, 100kt, 500kt, 1Mt, 5Mt, and 9.64Mt. If you find any lower cost setups for these yields let me know. All designs: imgur.com/a/Y0LcQThe 9.64Mt:  Why is the 500 kt nuke so much more heavier than the 1 mt version? |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 22, 2016 7:16:09 GMT
I spent some time min-maxing around nuclear warhead yield / cost ratios and optimized some warheads for 1kt, 5kt, 10kt, 50kt, 100kt, 500kt, 1Mt, 5Mt, and 9.64Mt. If you find any lower cost setups for these yields let me know. All designs: imgur.com/a/Y0LcQThe 9.64Mt: Why is the 500 kt nuke so much more heavier than the 1 mt version? Because it is a very sub-optimal yield (due to the fission mass required). It is right before reaching super critical on it's own from the mass of the fission fuel. After 97kg of U-233 it is super critical on its own and all you have to do is hollow it out until it is stable (which is a much smaller requirement than hollowing it out to the point of having enough explosive surface area to collapse the nuke into super critical). Nukes with less than 97kg of U-233 require explosive force to push the fissionable matter together to achieve a fission explosion, Nukes with greater than 97kg of U-233 need to have the fissionable mass thinned out to not detonate on its own but also require much less encouragement to explode. But you do make a decent point, now that I think about it (as writing this) that for the 500kt, and possibly 100kt warheads it might be better to take a super critical mass and just make it less efficient to reach 500kt (as it would be lighter but it would also cost more which this was min-maxed for cost). U-233 is the most expensive part of the nuke (by a large margin) *Edit Note: Just double checked it is confirmed to be 1.5x more expensive to add enough extra U-233 to try the method described above so not worth it in terms of cost would be okay-ish if you want that yeild for mass, but imo you might as well use a 1Mt nuke at that point, they will be about the same mass and cost* |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 22, 2016 9:14:29 GMT
You did give me a great idea though for making a denser more fusion based bomb (which will likely replace my existing nukes with due to the smaller size/mass while still maintaining the cheapest possible / yield). This only works from ~125kg to 150kg of U-233 but I think it is more useful on missiles due to the smaller size.   |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 22, 2016 9:56:01 GMT
I have a few reactors to add to the small category: 250W 120 grams (154 with 1 minimum sized calcium radiator) this is a significant improvement over the existing 200W 2kg option listed   I also have a 13.9W reactor that can be supported by a min sized lithium radiator for those ~10W gun drones (since we didn't have anything in the small category)   |
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 22, 2016 10:35:56 GMT
You did give me a great idea though for making a denser more fusion based bomb (which will likely replace my existing nukes with due to the smaller size/mass while still maintaining the cheapest possible / yield). This only works from ~125kg to 150kg of U-233 but I think it is more useful on missiles due to the smaller size. -nukes snip- some suggestions: boron->UHMPE shave off 3-4kg 150kg will also give you around 2% more boom for the mass (8.5kT/kg yeild ftw!) |
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Dec 23, 2016 7:08:51 GMT
Hi, I'm new to the forums and new to the game, but I updated the 95.0 t Nuke, shaving off 8 grams, 0.7 credits and 0.3 millimeters (0.03 centimeters), this might be interesting since you do a lot of shaving credits and mass here.   |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Dec 23, 2016 7:41:45 GMT
Hi, I'm new to the forums and new to the game, but I updated the 95.0 t Nuke, shaving off 8 grams, 0.7 credits and 0.3 millimeters (0.03 centimeters), this might be interesting since you do a lot of shaving credits and mass here. Nice bomb . You can shave off much more mass with a larger core, but this will be a trade-off for a slightly larger diameter. Alternatively you can go with more expensive fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 23, 2016 7:50:43 GMT
Hi, I'm new to the forums and new to the game, but I updated the 95.0 t Nuke, shaving off 8 grams, 0.7 credits and 0.3 millimeters (0.03 centimeters), this might be interesting since you do a lot of shaving credits and mass here. Welcome to the forums/game good to have new players I liked your build and tinkered with it a bit and found that it looks like it has a little bit of extra explosive mass, you could hollow it out another 0.2mm, cut the delay comp to 0, and shave 0.02cm off the inner explosive to shave another couple of grams off. A really solid design though. |
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Dec 23, 2016 7:53:15 GMT
Hi, I'm new to the forums and new to the game, but I updated the 95.0 t Nuke, shaving off 8 grams, 0.7 credits and 0.3 millimeters (0.03 centimeters), this might be interesting since you do a lot of shaving credits and mass here. Nice bomb . You can shave off much more mass with a larger core, but this will be a trade-off for a slightly larger diameter. Alternatively you can go with more expensive fuel. You can shave off more with my method too, I just got bored, shifting the cavity, the pressure and the explosives a few micrometers at a time after about an hour, it would likely help with an implementation of the Newton-Raphson method, though that would probably reduce the value of the game as a game. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 23, 2016 8:02:03 GMT
Hi, I'm new to the forums and new to the game, but I updated the 95.0 t Nuke, shaving off 8 grams, 0.7 credits and 0.3 millimeters (0.03 centimeters), this might be interesting since you do a lot of shaving credits and mass here. Nice bomb . You can shave off much more mass with a larger core, but this will be a trade-off for a slightly larger diameter. Alternatively you can go with more expensive fuel. Indeed I used that approach with the min cost ones I posted (did a 95t real quick for science). But I think the small size one zorbeltuss made would be a bit better for firing out of a coilgun due to the smaller radius.  |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Dec 23, 2016 8:14:38 GMT
Nice bomb . You can shave off much more mass with a larger core, but this will be a trade-off for a slightly larger diameter. Alternatively you can go with more expensive fuel. Indeed I used that approach with the min cost ones I posted (did a 95t real quick for science). But I think the small size one zorbeltuss made would be a bit better for firing out of a coilgun due to the smaller radius. Indeed . I'm more sensitive to mass since mine are intended for use on missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Dec 23, 2016 8:22:05 GMT
Nice bomb . You can shave off much more mass with a larger core, but this will be a trade-off for a slightly larger diameter. Alternatively you can go with more expensive fuel. Indeed I used that approach with the min cost ones I posted (did a 95t real quick for science). But I think the small size one zorbeltuss made would be a bit better for firing out of a coilgun due to the smaller radius. Thank you for the welcome. ^^ The intention was to use it in a missile made for a coilgun, the problem I have though is that I can't make a coilgun work. But here's a reactor I made in the same formfactor. ^^  |
|
The limits of a practical design used to be reached soon after 25GW, and nowadays somewhere around 30-35GW. That is where a maximum size thermocouple would be the optimum for the heat needing to be pumped. I cannot imagine any situation where the horrible mass and cost penalties accrued beyond this point would be worth it.
