Solved on Paper vs Needs Hardware

Which parts of the Kronos design are settled by published, reproducible calculation, and which parts remain open until a machine is built and measured.

Two categories of knowledge

We keep an explicit inventory of what is solved on paper and what needs hardware. The first category contains everything a verified physics model can produce: equilibrium and stability of the breeder (Hyperion) plasma, the scientific gain design point of Q_sci 3.424 at 88.7 MW fusion power, the 9.86 MA plasma current target, the 16.84 T peak field, and the neutron and isotope yields those imply.

Solved on paper (today)

• Plasma equilibrium and the negative-triangularity (delta -0.30) shaping
• The scientific-gain design point and its power balance under our model assumptions
• Neutron transport and the tritium / helium-3 yield given a blanket model
• Engineering layouts, magnet loads, and reproducible sensitivity scans

Needs hardware (not yet settled)

• Whether the built plasma actually reaches the design current and confinement
• The real tritium breeding ratio in a physical blanket
• Component lifetime under 14 MeV neutron fluence
• Net-gain of any kind — no machine has been built

The honest position is that the paper side is strong, published, and reproducible, and the hardware side is genuinely open. Progress means moving items across the gate one measurement at a time, and updating the record when we do.