Technologies That Do Not Need To Be Developed Further

[Spacescifi]

I believe that all technologies have a growth stage that ends at a stagnation point that cannot go any further.... without making something new altogether

For example:  The wheel. It started out basic, but from it, we developed an artficial air bladder based wheel called a tire, which is not the original, it is something new. Yes you can improve the tire, but you can only do so much to it or risk creating something that is not a traditional tire (a sphere tire for example).

That even happens at a macro scale. If you take a star and keep adding more mass what you get won't be star according to current understanding, just a dense nebula. Since the radiation pressure would be absurdly strong enough to keep the star mass from compressing enough to become a star.

So what technologies do you think have maxed out their growth or will shortly? They cannot be improved upon without developing altogether different technology?

You may discuss.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Spacescifi

[AngrybobH]

Batteries. Our current technology is miserable and new science/engineering makes them only marginally better. I'd imagine something new would need developed to move energy storage forward but, I cannot even imagine what that would be. If I could, I'd be a billionaire overnight.

[Shpaget]

Transistor based computers.

We have almost reached the smallest possible footprint for individual transistors on a wafer. Quantum effects are already starting to crop up. Further increase in computational power won't be possible for long, by just cramming more transistors into the same package. Sure, we can make cores bigger and use more of them, but that comes with its own set of problems.

We could really use X, where X to transistors is the same as transistors were to vacuum tubes.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Shpaget

[Spacescifi]

9 minutes ago, AngrybobH said:

Batteries. Our current technology is miserable and new science/engineering makes them only marginally better. I'd imagine something new would need developed to move energy storage forward but, I cannot even imagine what that would be. If I could, I'd be a billionaire overnight.

 

Good answer.

At any rate the answers are strangely enough... worth looking into both for real life applications AND scifi creation.

Back to your topic on batteries though... I think that metallic gases (does not have to be metallic hydrogen) are the answer.

Since they may make for better super conductors... although I do not know if that means better batteries.

But I do know that a cursory look at solid glass made from gas shows that it has interesting and useful properties.

So there is that.

3 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Transistor based computers.

We have almost reached the smallest possible footprint for individual transistors on a wafer. Quantum effects are already starting to crop up. Further increase in computational power won't be possible for long, by just cramming more transistors into the same package. Sure, we can make cores bigger and use more of them, but that comes with it's own set of problems.

We could really use X, where X to transistors is the same as transistors were to vacuum tubes.

 

I dunno... cellular computers?

I read somewhere that we have managed to store more information using cells or something organic than traditional digital storage can.

Makes sense actually... how else are all those crime cold cases solved?

[StrandedonEarth]

Reciprocating internal combustion engines (piston engines). About the only improvement left to make would be solenoids powerful enough to actuate the poppet valves directly, instead of using a camshaft. Aside from lighter materials, which applies to practically any tech. 

[AngrybobH]

13 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

solenoids powerful enough to actuate the poppet valves directly

Look up a rotary valve from Coates, LTD. One of their valves could be easily actuated by an electric motor. Poppets are terrible for many reasons (air flow shrouding, piston interference, etc). The rotary valve has many improvements(less detonation from more quench area making higher compression is just the beginning) for recip piston engines. Combining direct injection, turbo, electric rotary valve variable actuation, and variable compression (like in the '20 Nissan 2.0 turbo) would be a huge jump in efficiency and power. I think the rotary valve is actually the new thing needed but car companies have refused buying the design and favoring in house or out of patent designs.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Reciprocating internal combustion engines (piston engines). About the only improvement left to make would be solenoids powerful enough to actuate the poppet valves directly, instead of using a camshaft. Aside from lighter materials, which applies to practically any tech. 

Don’t forget laser ignition instead of spark plugs.

OP: I’d say rocket engines. They’re not going to get better without a lot of effort, and by the time thet are they may be outclassed by non rocket based propulsion.

5 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Transistor based computers.

We have almost reached the smallest possible footprint for individual transistors on a wafer. Quantum effects are already starting to crop up. Further increase in computational power won't be possible for long, by just cramming more transistors into the same package. Sure, we can make cores bigger and use more of them, but that comes with its own set of problems.

We could really use X, where X to transistors is the same as transistors were to vacuum tubes.

Keep in mind that wafers are two dimensional - indeed there is a school of thought that making 3d chips may be the way to go in the future. They come with disadvantages but adding the third dimension can increase performance density quite a lot.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Reciprocating internal combustion engines (piston engines). About the only improvement left to make would be solenoids powerful enough to actuate the poppet valves directly, instead of using a camshaft. Aside from lighter materials, which applies to practically any tech. 

Koenigsegg, has an engine using this now, they split it off as an separate company, freevalve for use outside their supercars. 
Down the line hybrid systems will take over most places and you can go fixed rpm. One engine design used an oscillating  piston with an combustion chamber in both ends.
Benefit here is that you could have multiple pistons and bring then online if needed, here freevalve is kind of pointless. 

Still long haul trucks probably work better with standard engines? 

[StrandedonEarth]

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Still long haul trucks probably work better with standard engines?

Yet they would also benefit from hybridization even more, given the mass to  accelerate and decelerate. Also bear in mind that trains use electric drives, with diesel generation when not externally powered. 

[magnemoe]

Lots of technologies reach an plateau, guns is one, no significantly progress since the selective fire automatic rifles. 
Obviously next step would be caseless ammo but this has been hard even if standard for artillery for an very long time. All of the battleship level guns was caseless, modern 5" guns are too. However most naval guns up to 4" and the new 5" uses cases as they are easier to auto load. 

Main issue with rifles is the requirements, yes  caseless is lighter but requirement is work almost as well in the arctic or the tropic, after being stored for 20 years there. 
Also the main improvement of an gun would be to give it an tank level targeting computer who is IT. Real life aimbot
---
Trains had reached an plateau and then took off again with high speed trains. This was mostly economical as its travel outgrew airports as high speed rail is expensive. 

19 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Yet they would also benefit from hybridization even more, given the mass to  accelerate and decelerate. Also bear in mind that trains use electric drives, with diesel generation when not externally powered. 

Yes, read that its an push for batteries on high speed electrical trains as this would make tunnels cheaper. 

[kerbiloid]

Stone axes. Unless we grow them like a single crystal, there is nothing to add.

Moonshine. Everything is already tested.

Bulat steel. It's anyway worse than modern steels.

Newcomen-class atmospheric engines. The Watt engine made them useless.

Edited November 8, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Skorj]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Lots of technologies reach an plateau, guns is one, no significantly progress since the selective fire automatic rifles. 
Obviously next step would be caseless ammo but this has been hard even if standard for artillery for an very long time. All of the battleship level guns was caseless, modern 5" guns are too. However most naval guns up to 4" and the new 5" uses cases as they are easier to auto load. 

Main issue with rifles is the requirements, yes  caseless is lighter but requirement is work almost as well in the arctic or the tropic, after being stored for 20 years there. 
Also the main improvement of an gun would be to give it an tank level targeting computer who is IT. Real life aimbot
---
Trains had reached an plateau and then took off again with high speed trains. This was mostly economical as its travel outgrew airports as high speed rail is expensive. 

Yes, read that its an push for batteries on high speed electrical trains as this would make tunnels cheaper. 

Caseless ammo is already a thing.  FN had a couple models, as did others, and militaries tried them out.  Turns out ejecting hot brass is just too important to cooling - plays far more of a role than anyone really expected.

Tank level targeting computers are gradually coming downmarket.  There are scopes now that do most of the same work, though they don't account for stuff like barrel droop due to heating.  The main advantage a tank has is active sensors, flooding the area with IR and mm microwave.  That tells everyone where you are, but heck at least you're in a tank.

I'd say scopes and targeting in general is starting to plateau. 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Skorj

[kerbiloid]

31 minutes ago, Skorj said:

Caseless ammo is already a thing.  FN had a couple models, as did others, and militaries tried them out.

While still not used in available firearms for many reasons.
Fragile, spontaneously combusting inside a hot barrel on automatic fire and thus requiring more complicated mechanics with shell preloading or so, producing soot to be extracted from the barrel instead of staying in the case,  gases breaking back from the barrel through the gap (as there is no case to block this gap), and so on. Not a problem for a tank, but a problem for a small fire-spitting boomstick.

Edited November 8, 2019 by kerbiloid

[benzman]

The jerrycan was designed in the nineteen-thirties and cannot be improved upon. Google them.  The whole subject is fascinating. 

[kerbiloid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench

[wumpus]

21 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Don’t forget laser ignition instead of spark plugs.

OP: I’d say rocket engines. They’re not going to get better without a lot of effort, and by the time thet are they may be outclassed by non rocket based propulsion.

Keep in mind that wafers are two dimensional - indeed there is a school of thought that making 3d chips may be the way to go in the future. They come with disadvantages but adding the third dimension can increase performance density quite a lot.

Laser ignition is less efficient than compression-based ignition which Mazda is about to bring to market.  Nissan made an engine that  is pretty much "everything except ignition improvements" and I doubt it could break 40mpg.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4

Compression ignition (like a diesel, only with normal gas fuel) should help ICE last a bit longer, but I suspect they will soon be largely used as range extenders for hybrid cars.  Electric cars have too many advantages (except range, where a tiny ICE can help).  Note that if the engine is small enough (like a prius engine) it is relatively easy to make extremely efficient at normal cruising speed (and let the electric be efficient at everything else).

Flash memory is already going 3d, but logic is already limited by power density.  Going 3d simply makes the power density even worse, although I'd love to see a two-layer CPU (or GPU) where one layer is standard logic and the other is a DRAM memory chip that is used as a cache with arbitrarily high bandwidth to the chip (DRAM and logic use essentially inverted processes, so the DRAM that went on your XBOX (or whichever chip used a lot of it) didn't have nearly the density of your normal "off the shelf" DRAM).  There used to be a lot of research into things like "reversible computing" that would be far more efficient, but modern 21st century transistors simply leak too much power (a nano-amp here and a nano-amp there and with a few billion transistors it really adds up).

I'd put internal combustion engines at the top of this list.  There's a few more places to eke out a bit more efficiency, but electric engines are almost certain to sweep them into history before they can get there.  The engines used by power companies to generate power might well also be on this list.  Not thanks to upcoming obsolescence (it will take acceptance of nuclear power or an obscene amount of batteries to do that), but to simply hitting Carnot's efficiency (or really, really, close).  You simply can nae get more power without breaking the laws of physics.

Speaking of the "laws of physics", I've heard that error-correction-codes can pretty much hit mathematical limits.  This doesn't mean that everybody that uses ECC will hit those limits (the stuff that does takes some time to do all the calculations), but for things like Starlink (woo-hoo, actual space reference there) expect to see near-Shannon rates (either through Turbo codes or LDPC [LDPC was a curious "forgotten tech" invented by then man who "wrote the book on data coding" but didn't include LDPC because it was a theoretical exersize and he was writing about important and real work.  Fast forward a couple of decades and someone develops the Turbo codes (a development that was such a jump that it inspired claims of fraud.  You know you have something patent worthy when big names are claiming it can't possibly be true).  This lead to digging through the records and finding LDPC from said "guy who wrote the book"''s thesis (which showed a realizable system that could asymptotically approach ideal rates) and realized that modern computers could do the calculations.

I'm not sold on batteries being on this list.  Certainly, fuel cells or ideally liquid batteries (closed loop reversible fuel cells) would be better for most situations, but batteries always seem to improve by a fixed small percentage every year, and as we've seen form Moore's law that can really add up.  I'd be really curious if methanol could be used as a car/truck fuel for a fuel cell (hydrogen simply seems too much of a problem in itself.  The fact that it isn't overwhelmingly used in space (and not at all in aircraft) makes me laugh at the idea of using it in cars).  When batteries stop steadily gaining in power density/cost/power you can stick them on this list.  I don't think this will happen as long as a significant percentage of the worlds gross product is spent on cell phones and other battery operated equipment.

[AngrybobH]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

Laser ignition is less efficient than compression-based ignition

And it had some issues like compression ignition happening before laser ignition. Quite a problem if you are not set up for for it.

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

I doubt it could break 40mpg

The regular 2.5L altima already achieves 39mpg without turbo or variable compression. Although, strangely, the 2.0 turbo VC is listed as 38mpg. It does really get out of its own way though. Also, I feel obligated to mention I work for Nissan. 

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

but electric engines are almost certain to sweep them into history before they can get there.

I really doubt this. electric motors are okay but generating power and storing it isn't really there mainly because of batteries. Charge efficiency, self discharging,  energy and power density, electrodes degrading, and heat issues are all major problems of batteries on top of the fact that they are heavy. Add to that the environmental impact of mining and refining the needed materials, recharge time, and other customer bothering issues like the cost of replacing the batteries every 2-3 years and you have a significant problem to overcome. Most electric and hybrid cars are on the road to attempt to push the technology forward while getting paid by customers that believe they are/will be better. I'm not saying they won't get better but a new way to store energy is really needed. Hybridizing with a small ICE running at a constant RPM (like a train) would probably mask a bit of the issues but still not solve them. 

I see the energy future being in using better/cleaner infrastructure creating storable chemical fuel (like butanol) that wouldn't drastically change the way we use energy for transportation or transport the fuel. That is until a real solution to batteries multiple problems comes along.

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

I'm not sold on batteries being on this list.

I am

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

cell phones and other battery operated equipment.

The problem is with the scale required for larger things like cars. And batteries don't scale real well unless you like fires in your mode of transportation.

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

I'd be really curious if methanol could be used as a car/truck fuel for a fuel cell

I imagine it could but methanol is also used as fuel for race engines and I also imagine you get more energy using the heat(burning it) than you would from the fuel cell with current technology. Perhaps fuel cells should be on the list as well as they could use some real work.

[farmerben]

On 11/7/2019 at 5:47 PM, AngrybobH said:

Look up a rotary valve from Coates, LTD. One of their valves could be easily actuated by an electric motor. Poppets are terrible for many reasons (air flow shrouding, piston interference, etc). The rotary valve has many improvements(less detonation from more quench area making higher compression is just the beginning) for recip piston engines. Combining direct injection, turbo, electric rotary valve variable actuation, and variable compression (like in the '20 Nissan 2.0 turbo) would be a huge jump in efficiency and power. I think the rotary valve is actually the new thing needed but car companies have refused buying the design and favoring in house or out of patent designs.

 

I'm curious if you have been looking at piezoelectric.  They have already started using piezoelectric in some diesel fuel injectors.  They open and close faster, and could be programmed for any partial opening pattern, if that is desirable.  I'd imagine this could be applied to air intakes quite easily.  And maybe boosting compression ratio, or generating sparks.  

Also I don't think we have realized the potential for LNG fuel.  It can tolerate a much higher compression ratio than gasoline, and it mixes with air very fast.  Also every ICE I've seen runs the coolant at about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.  But with LNG we might make the cold sink colder.  

I've only worked on engines that run gaseous natural gas, and they seem like gasoline engines with minimal adaptation, but the potential for improvement with LNG seems pretty huge.   

[magnemoe]

On 11/8/2019 at 5:56 AM, kerbiloid said:

While still not used in available firearms for many reasons.
Fragile, spontaneously combusting inside a hot barrel on automatic fire and thus requiring more complicated mechanics with shell preloading or so, producing soot to be extracted from the barrel instead of staying in the case,  gases breaking back from the barrel through the gap (as there is no case to block this gap), and so on. Not a problem for a tank, but a problem for a small fire-spitting boomstick.

This, in some combat settings you might have to fire a lot. You can use an assault rifle for suppressing fire, you prefer machine guns for this but they work if you don't have machine guns. You buying time until you get support as in artillery or air. 
It happened multiple times in war on terror, many cases the guns was discarded after event because of barrel overheating. 
Yes you can go open bolt but this reduces single shot accuracy. An smart scope might automate this but this add complexity to system. 
And in an war your main priority is that the gun shoot then you press the trigger. Only other place this is relevant is then you hunt dangerous animals, still lots of this type of guns are bolt action, yes its more accurate who is important at the range but not so much then you hurt an hippo and its charging but in this setting you are not going to use much ammo, 

[wumpus]

15 hours ago, AngrybobH said:

And it had some issues like compression ignition happening before laser ignition. Quite a problem if you are not set up for for it.

The regular 2.5L altima already achieves 39mpg without turbo or variable compression. Although, strangely, the 2.0 turbo VC is listed as 38mpg. It does really get out of its own way though. Also, I feel obligated to mention I work for Nissan.

Which is extremely disappointing for an engine which at first appeared to be the holy grail.  It sounds like it isn't doing variable displacement, which is probably needed to really get the (low load) efficiency up.  But it really says a lot about ICE that they really can't beat the mileage of the original Prius.  On the other hand, electric cars are hardly limited to sane levels of power (in ICE you can have power or efficiency [cheaply].  With electric, you can have both [and it will cost you]).

15 hours ago, AngrybobH said:

I really doubt this. electric motors are okay but generating power and storing it isn't really there mainly because of batteries. Charge efficiency, self discharging,  energy and power density, electrodes degrading, and heat issues are all major problems of batteries on top of the fact that they are heavy. Add to that the environmental impact of mining and refining the needed materials, recharge time, and other customer bothering issues like the cost of replacing the batteries every 2-3 years and you have a significant problem to overcome. Most electric and hybrid cars are on the road to attempt to push the technology forward while getting paid by customers that believe they are/will be better. I'm not saying they won't get better but a new way to store energy is really needed. Hybridizing with a small ICE running at a constant RPM (like a train) would probably mask a bit of the issues but still not solve them.

The problem is with the scale required for larger things like cars. And batteries don't scale real well unless you like fires in your mode of transportation.

"Hybridizing like a train" apparently is too expensive, although not terribly unlike what the Honda Accord hybrid uses.  That has an ICE that either runs a generator or directly powers the wheels (without a transmission, but through an extremely "overdriven" differential).  That sounds like an ideal setup for a hybrid, especially one that is more "plug in" (with significant battery range).  Pure electrics seem to do surprisingly well, I have to wonder how much is leaving out the wildly complicated automatic transmission (and engine, but the transmission is more complex and probably more expensive).

I'm sure Henry Ford had to explain why you needed to have something as explosive as gasoline in your "horseless carriage" as well.  Seems to work out (in everything but the Pinto and some modern exotics.  And don't ask about old magnesium Porsches.  German firefighters learned to simply let them burn to the ground/road rather than try to put them out).

[AngrybobH]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

It sounds like it isn't doing variable displacement

It is but I think it isn't fully optimized yet. They want the thing out there and 'proven' reliable (by de-tuning it slightly). Car companies can suffer greatly when public opinion sours on a product. Look at the pinto you mentioned. If it wasn't for the penny pinchers it would have had a bladder fuel tank, air bags, and most of a roll cage. With those left out and the vehicle not redesigned made it known as one of the worst cars ever. The Pontiac Fiero was another example(and appropriately named). First year of those caught on fire. They fixed it by the half year but, its' reputation never recovered. 3 years later they cancelled it.

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

ICE that they really can't beat the mileage of the original Prius. 

Funny thing is, if you take the skinny wheels off a prius and put them on a same year corolla, you get the same mileage on the highway and very close in the city. Same is true for the civic and civic hybrid. turns out the batteries and inverter are VERY heavy and skinny tires, while bad for handling, reduce rolling resistance really well.

Absolutely electric cars can do insane things but you cut into range very quickly if you use it. The same is true for ICE motors too. For example I have a Mercury Comet resto-mod (modern tech on an old car) that has a 413 bhp v8. It knocks down 24-26 mpg(better than most modern high HP v6s) on the highway cruising at sane speeds. On the track it gets less than 6 mpg. A very fast electric can use an entire charge in less than 10 minutes. But, when I run out of fuel, it takes 2 minutes to fill 16 gallons(~400 mile range) while an electric would require many hours to charge from empty without reducing its capacity(Yes, fast charge hurts your batteries).

Hondas' design seems to be compromising on range, mpg, and power. More electric power and/or means heavier equipment so, make the engine help the motor from time to time. Making a single torque peak ICE with a generator that specializes in a single RPM and load does not sound hard. And, if I had the cash to invest, I would take a Nissan Leaf and put a system in it. But, extending the range on the highway with an ICE is just another way of masking the horrendous problems with battery technology.

6 hours ago, farmerben said:

I'm curious if you have been looking at piezoelectric.

Piezos are cool, for sure but, for a valve, making a stack tall enough to move a sufficient distance is hard. Piezos shine when you need a valve in high pressure/low volume situation like modern diesels with their 29,900 psi fuel systems. The LNG systems are very interesting but in consumer use you tend to see the ring seal and the cylinder walls wear down much faster(LNG dilutes the engine oil). Cooler would seem to be better but really we keep the engine temp that high for emission reasons.

Edited November 10, 2019 by AngrybobH

[KerikBalm]

On 11/8/2019 at 5:45 AM, Skorj said:

Caseless ammo is already a thing.  The main advantage a tank has is active sensors, flooding the area with IR and mm microwave.  That tells everyone where you are, but heck at least you're in a tank.

I'm not aware of any tank using active sensors for identifying and engaging enemies. Early NV systems used IR illuminators, but modern NV uses image intensifiers (ie "starlight" scopes).

They also use actively cooled thermal imagers, but these are passive sensors detecting heat from targets.

The only active sensors on armored vehicles that I know of are for 1) anti-air systems (something like a zsu-23 shilka, 2s6m tunguska, etc)... Which are not properly considered tanks;

And 2) active defense systems to intercept incoming ATGMs, but these systems don't detect enemy tanks, infantry, etc, they aren't really used for targeting the weapons of the tank.... Except when an incoming missile is detected, it can intercept it, and then train the turret in the direction of the incoming fire... But that only points the turret in the general direction of the threat, it doesn't provide a targeting solution. The tank still needs to use FLIR or normal visual sighting to engage the target.

[Guest]

Tanks use a laser rangefinder, which is an active sensor. It also measures target speed, pretty much giving you a targeting solution. The only thing the gunner has to do is to point the turret at the target. 

Active sensors are problematic on modern battlefield, because they betray your position, which is bad when stealth and movement are the name of the game. Military equipment tends to use passive (usually thermal) sensors when possible. Radar is used by ships, air defense and aircraft, and the latter try to use IRST and targeting pod instead, when possible. Being in a tank doesn't help you all that much, it turns out, there's plenty of weapons around that can damage one.

[kerbiloid]

When electronics will get enough cheap (and this will probably happen in a couple of decades), every tree will become a network node, every field will be a distributed sensor cloud.
Then they will just look at each other in Google Earth Plus: Combat Edition ($99⁹⁸ per month for residents, $299⁹⁸ for others).

_{Just in case, a disclaimer: this is not a commercial of real software, prices are also fake}

Edited November 14, 2019 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Tanks use a laser rangefinder, which is an active sensor. It also measures target speed, pretty much giving you a targeting solution. The only thing the gunner has to do is to point the turret at the target. 

Active sensors are problematic on modern battlefield, because they betray your position, which is bad when stealth and movement are the name of the game. Military equipment tends to use passive (usually thermal) sensors when possible. Radar is used by ships, air defense and aircraft, and the latter try to use IRST and targeting pod instead, when possible. Being in a tank doesn't help you all that much, it turns out, there's plenty of weapons around that can damage one.

Not sure if an laser rangfinder is much of an issue, you don't get much warning from getting targeted from one to the shot arrives, beam is probably so narrow at tank combat ranges its difficult to detect.  Might be more effective as warning against laser guided missiles who is slower. Makes me wonder if an decoy emitting light at the laser frequency would work.