And that differs from what I said exactly where?If you would see list of team members of any fusion experiment you would see at least third of them are engineers.
We all here are discussing on definition.
For example, injection of high current into synchrotron without particles losses is scientific or engineering challenge?
Or how to avoid anode erosion in Focus Fusion Device?
And who is scientist? The man having PhD degree, only theoretic, who a little bit or significantly changed anode’s design in others invention?
Who?
Yes, there are many engineers involved with fusion experiments. The goal of the engineers is usually to make things work.
The scientists want results, one way or the other. If they discover a previously unknown problem, they view that as A result too and write a paper about it. Being a scientist versus an engineer, has, IMHO nothing to do with the title, or the degree, or whatsoever. You can be a scientist and not have a degree at all. All you need is the will to do research and apply the scientific method. You also need the will to accept results that are not what you expected and see them as what they are "scientific discovery".
But then, this is probably hard to understand for engineers, who most of all want to make things work and see something that does not work as expected as a failure.
Or let me put things in another way:
Engineers get paid to make things work as expected.
Scientists get paid to research things, whether they work as expected or not is note quite as relevant (not always completely true, but this is a generalization).
Its like what Dr. B said about the Toks: It will never make for a practical fusion reactor, but its really good science...
