News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:MIT at center of political power play over campus fusion ... by pdonis on Sunday June 08, 2014 @10:08PM (#7866664)
This may be true if by "basic science" you mean being able to rigorously derive the behavior of a complex system like a plasma from first principles. I don't have a PhD, but I have a Master's in Nuclear Engineering, and a lot of the plasma physics I studied while getting it was full of heuristics and phenomenological laws rather than rigorous or at least semi-rigorous derivations from first principles.

However, it's not clear that we need to know all that to achieve controlled fusion, and the fusion reactors that are being pushed for global funding are not being pushed as improving our basic science about plasma physics. They are being pushed as engineering efforts that will achieve ignition. As I said in another post upthread, we know what conditions we need to achieve for ignition; we just don't know how to engineer a device to achieve them. That's what ITER and these other devices are supposed to help us figure out.

Re:MIT at center of political power play over campus fusion ... by neltnerb on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @09:23PM (#7876173)
Thanks for the clarification. What I meant by "basic science" was that we were able to model plasmas well enough to predict what would happen with something akin to CFD given a real model of the apparatus. So if you can do that with heuristics and "laws", that would meet my definition of "understood".