Design-Stage vs Demonstrated
A precise line between what exists as a validated design and what has been shown in operating hardware.
Two different kinds of confidence
Confidence in a design comes from physics that closes on paper and in simulation, cross-checked against experiments others have run. Confidence in a demonstrated capability comes from the specific machine doing the specific thing. These are not interchangeable, and conflating them is the most common way fusion programs lose credibility.
What is design-stage at Kronos today
- The breeder's plasma scenario (Q_sci 3.076, 85.0 MW, 9.66 MA) — a simulation result, not a shot on a machine.
- The burner's tandem-mirror confinement at a 26.49 T plug — a design point, gated on an open plug-density requirement.
- Tritium breeding at ratios of 1.1 / 1.5 / 1.8 — modeled as a lever, with local-vs-net reconciliation still open.
- Direct energy conversion efficiency in the burner — engineering design, not a delivered subsystem.
What is demonstrated — by the field, not by us
D-T fusion power, spherical-tokamak operation, high-field REBCO magnets, and tritium handling all have real experimental heritage in the broader community. Kronos builds on that heritage; it does not claim that heritage as its own hardware result. The distinction matters for a defense planner who must know which risks are retired and which are still live.
When a page in this library states a number, check the verb: simulated, designed, targeted, and measured are not synonyms, and we do not treat them as such.