Farnsworth's wide-eyed '60s optimism, in regard to an immediate and grand future for nuclear power was quite typical of his time - does anyone remember the atomic powered car on the cover of Popular Science? And PF's prophetic optimism was not too different from more modern predictions about the impending ascendancy of artificial intelligence over human intelligence.
In both cases, the predictive technique of projecting present trends forward in time but at an increasing rate - directly towards a presumed logical conclusion - is probably misguided. Intervening advances in other fields, some completely unrelated, may alter a course of events drastically away from what was formerly seen as a logical end point. Farnsworth never imagined an environmental movement or the lethargy of governmental control, just as Minsky (regarding A.I. a generation later), downplayed the unforeseen complications of natural language and visual processing - and certainly had little grasp of what genetic engineering might eventually accomplish.
Also, in both cases these visionaries could still someday be proven to be correct and way ahead of their time - or alternatively, not appreciative enough of the enormous complexity of all aspects of human advancement outside of the range of one's own specialty.
At any rate, the future of energy in the next millennium may go beyond even the most grandiose promises of fusion. Imagine cheap and unlimited energy, on a small scale at moderate cost and without a legacy of radioactive waste and Chernobyl style accidents.
Pie-in-the sky? Perhaps, but give a little consideration to the following:
The ideas presented are certainly not without criticism, and that is to be expected from anything so much at odds with the mainstream. But consider that the most admired scientist of the pre-atomic era, Lord Kelvin, once dismissed any prospect of harnessing the atom for energy as "moonshine."
Although many devotees of the Fusor are probably a little indignant over lack of recognition of their accomplishments vis-a-vis "big fusion," does either endeavor really have a justifiably rosy future, given all we know now about the difficulties of traditional fusion? Perhaps if oil gets to $300 a barrel then big fusion becomes affordable, but that may be generations away. In the mean time, does the Fusor ever scale up to overunity - or can it even become part of a sub-critical fission scheme that makes economic sense? I doubt it - unless some radical new techniques, such as Mill's or an as-yet-unknown process, can be brought in to enhance the process.
Consider that the Fusor may even derive some of it's surprising effects from the Mill's explanation of the hydrino process - see Scott Stephens take on this at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/907
If so, then some avenues for improvement should be readily apparent (i.e. what effect does a little Sr have on Fusor output?)
It is never too late for a few of the more farsighted in any energy-related field to give the more promising fringe technologies a closer look. Some may even abandon ship and jump a ride on the next wave to a potential utopia. Yes, the risks are great, but on the other hand, is there any real chance for the Fusor to play a real role in a fusion powered future without a massive increase in performance? Isn't the best that one can foresee for the Fusor of say 2010 at the present rate of advancement still little more than a source of neutrons for other experiments/ devices?
Consider this. Anyone who has built a Fusor should be easily capable of building a reverse gyrotron, ala Mills; and even if that particular technique doesn't work out as proposed it will have been an effort that had some chance at ultimate success in terms of the "big picture," and with several possible carryover effects.
My personal hope and expectation is that there there is still much to be discovered in regard to hydrogen physics and D+D fusion - but that much of it will not likely come from the mainstream, at least not at first.
Regards,
Jones Beene
Created on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:14 PM EDT by Jones C. Beene