You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Users might be able to achieve the behavior we are envisioning for CLOVER by using a different recipe for each fuel assembly in the Cycamore Reactor. We need to demonstrate the value of any features of CLOVER over this method. You wouldn't even need to have a unique recipe for each assembly, you could simply give the commodity different names and the same recipe. This would match the type of lowest fidelity case outlined in #11.
This issue can be closed with a PR that creates a simple example of one of the baseline cases that uses recipes in the way described above.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
By making one batch = one assembly, we can use EVER or Cycamore's reactor with preferences
Someone could always make recipes that incorporate generic movements ahead of time to get some sort of average composition of the fuel (especially where we have 3 assemblies, which is a huge simplification anyways).
Reactor runs from 10-730 (720 time steps)
Every 18 steps after step 10, we get 1 new assembly
Refuel for 1 time step
There’s 3 total in core at once and 1 gets replaced in the refuel
Users might be able to achieve the behavior we are envisioning for CLOVER by using a different recipe for each fuel assembly in the Cycamore Reactor. We need to demonstrate the value of any features of CLOVER over this method. You wouldn't even need to have a unique recipe for each assembly, you could simply give the commodity different names and the same recipe. This would match the type of lowest fidelity case outlined in #11.
This issue can be closed with a PR that creates a simple example of one of the baseline cases that uses recipes in the way described above.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: