Comments

ThePowdertopian 19th April

I dont get the trend behind these reactors
MRGOLD 19th April

No this is ok.
nobodyagain 19th April

This by definition is a reactor, if we assume that isoz is atomically heavier than plut, and that the ptnm is the catalyst for it to release energy (and apperently, mass) in the form of phot, then it entirelly fits the bill.
klaotte003 18th April

Pro_kg6100_gr: you made yours up based off what your limited self is aware of
klaotte003 18th April

Pro_kg6100_gr: the definition of a reactor is something that contains and continues a certain reaction, containment is part of the definition
Pro_kg6100_gr 18th April

klao003: a reactor is something or someone that reacts by definition, and this has multiple reactions. so, you're wrong
doctorwhoseason22_2 18th April

i mean, at a certain size you realy have to push that definition
klaotte003 18th April

this is not a reactor by definition -1
nobodyagain 18th April

Best part about it is that it is also fully destructable, meaning that indestructable materials in the long run are less space efficent lmao
nobodyagain 18th April

Why didn't i think of that?!?!? +1

The Powder Toy