Simulation vs Hardware: An Honest Line

The burner's resilient-power case rests on design and simulation; the line between what is simulated and what is demonstrated is drawn explicitly.

Where the work stands

Everything on these pages about the burner is design and simulation. No burner has been built. The breeder (Hyperion) begins construction Q2 2027 and targets FOAK first tritium ~2030; the burner is a later, harder machine. Confusing simulation with demonstration would be the most damaging thing a resilient-power claim could do.

What simulation can and cannot establish

• Can: explore design points, size subsystems, identify and quantify gates.
• Can: bound performance and expose infeasibilities (e.g., plug stress 3–3.9×).
• Cannot: validate physics in a regime 166–830× beyond any device.
• Cannot: substitute for measured availability, MTTR, or hardware behaviour.

The discipline

Kronos states which numbers are design points (Q_sci 3.076, 85.0 MW and the breeder parameters; 26.49 T plug, 5.44% neutron fraction for the burner) and which are open gates (plug stress, plug regime, helium-3 supply, availability). The frozen design figures are used exactly; the gates are stated at full candor. This is how a design-stage claim earns trust.

The honest line is simple: the burner is a credible design with named, quantified obstacles, evaluated in simulation, awaiting the experiments and hardware that alone can promote simulation to demonstration.

What promotes simulation to demonstration

Simulation can explore design points, size subsystems, and expose infeasibilities such as the 3–3.9× plug overstress, but it cannot validate physics 166–830× beyond any device or substitute for measured availability and repair times. Only intermediate experiments and, ultimately, hardware promote a simulation result to a demonstrated one. Kronos labels which numbers are design points and which are open gates.