Alternate Technology
- Thread starter Chrispi
- Start date
I'm not sure that the percussion cap system of firing guns could have been developed much earlier without having chemistry more developed - the caps had a chemical compound in them that I don't think was discovered until the beginning of the 19th century.
I read somewhere that a couple of engineers working for a private Swiss company actually designed and tested a rocket-powered anti-tank weapon not all that different from the panzerfaust or bazookas that were actually used almost 10 years later. No one was interested at the time, though. I read a scenario where a similar invention is developed in Poland in the mid 1930s and the Polish army decides to produce it on a large scale because the Soviets already have many tanks and the Germans are beginning to build up their armored forces. There is an unpleasant surprise for the German panzer divisions in 1939.
I read somewhere that a couple of engineers working for a private Swiss company actually designed and tested a rocket-powered anti-tank weapon not all that different from the panzerfaust or bazookas that were actually used almost 10 years later. No one was interested at the time, though. I read a scenario where a similar invention is developed in Poland in the mid 1930s and the Polish army decides to produce it on a large scale because the Soviets already have many tanks and the Germans are beginning to build up their armored forces. There is an unpleasant surprise for the German panzer divisions in 1939.
tetsu-katana said:Strange things can always happen. Zeppelin travel kinda failed because of initial disasters like the Hindenburg. What if the first few commercial airliners experienced disaster, and the airline industry never took off (no pun intended.)? We might be jetting around on superfast mag-lev trains that line the country like highways.
I agree. the nick of fate often seems to be underestimated in most TLs i read. Just take Titanic as an example; the sinking of the ship, and the sinking of the development of the industry in question was impossible to forsee (yet percautions could have been in place, yes). I mean, logically, with the prestige and money that was to be made from that method of traveling, just having the development stop overnight (more or less), granting the sucsess of other menas of transportation, such as by aircraft, would be considered highly unlikely if it was presented in a TL.
If I understand you correctly, I also agree. The success of any particular technology is not preordained by its efficiency or utility. Just look at the wheel (or lack thereof) in the precolumbian civilizations. This was particularly true in the late 19th-early 20th century when so many new technologies were being developed at about the same time. As I've noted in other posts, a delay in as little as 5 years in the development of one (like airplanes) could have led to the victory of other (like airships). Once the direction of an industry is set and gets its internal momentum (infrastructure, subcontractors, education,training,acceptance, etc) it becomes harder of another to supplant it. And that leaves out the very real element of conspiracy and collusion. The victory of IC engines over steam or electricity as prime mover for privale cars is also a case in point
Electromagnetics were discovered by accident in the early 19th century. It could have been delayed twenty years.
Electronics, ditto. No Lee De Forest and radio isn't really developed before the second world war. No Hitler?
Disease theory, ditto.
Quinine, ditto.
Mosquito vectors for malaria.
Separate condensers for steam engines. Quadrupled their efficiency.
Fulminate detonators for gunpowder.
Penicillin. Delayed sexual revolution.
Coke ovens for steel.
Haber-Bosch process for synthetic nitrates. WWI lasts six months.
I was thinking of a timeline using Kelvin water drop electrostatic generators for a variety of industrial tasks. Merlin could have had one of those. Think what it would have done for the Roman empire. No electromagetic engines because the effect was discovered by the proximity of a compass and the Romans didn't have compasses.
Electronics, ditto. No Lee De Forest and radio isn't really developed before the second world war. No Hitler?
Disease theory, ditto.
Quinine, ditto.
Mosquito vectors for malaria.
Separate condensers for steam engines. Quadrupled their efficiency.
Fulminate detonators for gunpowder.
Penicillin. Delayed sexual revolution.
Coke ovens for steel.
Haber-Bosch process for synthetic nitrates. WWI lasts six months.
I was thinking of a timeline using Kelvin water drop electrostatic generators for a variety of industrial tasks. Merlin could have had one of those. Think what it would have done for the Roman empire. No electromagetic engines because the effect was discovered by the proximity of a compass and the Romans didn't have compasses.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Evil_evol said:
The Titanic wasn't a cruise-liner in the modern sense, it was a Trans-Atlantic liner, more or less the only way to cross from Europe to the Americas at the time (the alternative being passage on a merchant ship which I believe happened not infrequently in some areas).
The sinking of the Titanic did not derail the industry. It did not even do so for the owners, the White Star Line.
The German liners being built around the time of the start of the First World War were the largest, most luxurious and best liners ever for their time (look up Vaterland, Imperator and the third one which wasn't completed and whose name has escaped me...I believe Schichau was also building one as well).
What really kicked the industry in the teeth was the settlement of Versailles which gave the giant German liners to the British companies. This stymied further development, and with the economic depression and the beginning of aeroplane (and airship) travel led the industry into a decline, though it certainly was not terminal. The White Star Line merged with Cunard in the 1930s, I believe because of monetary pressures. Still, by World War Two one of the largest ships afloat was the French Trans-Atlantic liner Normandie
Grey Wolf
If I understand you correctly, I also agree. The success of any particular technology is not preordained by its efficiency or utility. Just look at the wheel (or lack thereof) in the precolumbian civilizations. This was particularly true in the late 19th-early 20th century when so many new technologies were being developed at about the same time. As I've noted in other posts, a delay in as little as 5 years in the development of one (like airplanes) could have led to the victory of other (like airships). Once the direction of an industry is set and gets its internal momentum (infrastructure, subcontractors, education,training,acceptance, etc) it becomes harder of another to supplant it. And that leaves out the very real element of conspiracy and collusion. The victory of IC engines over steam or electricity as prime mover for privale cars is also a case in point
I'm inclined to disagree. The wheel isn't nearly as useful when you don't have any large draft animals, which the precolumbian civilizations of the Americas didn't. Even if airplanes had been invented 10 years later and airships had been more widespread in commercial use, the far greater speed of airplanes would have eventually given them dominance in the market for carrying passengers - though airships could still have a large niche market as floating luxury cruisers. Internal combustion engines have one huge advantage over steam - you can start moving as soon as the engine is turned on, rather than having to wait 20 or 30 minutes for steam pressure to build up. The problem with electric power has been that most batteries until recently have needed to be recharged every few miles, while you can go hundreds of miles before having to refill a large tank for internal combustion engines.
I'm inclined to disagree. The wheel isn't nearly as useful when you don't have any large draft animals, which the precolumbian civilizations of the Americas didn't. Even if airplanes had been invented 10 years later and airships had been more widespread in commercial use, the far greater speed of airplanes would have eventually given them dominance in the market for carrying passengers - though airships could still have a large niche market as floating luxury cruisers. Internal combustion engines have one huge advantage over steam - you can start moving as soon as the engine is turned on, rather than having to wait 20 or 30 minutes for steam pressure to build up. The problem with electric power has been that most batteries until recently have needed to be recharged every few miles, while you can go hundreds of miles before having to refill a large tank for internal combustion engines.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
One particular aspect of this that has great interest for me due to an alternate TL I am developing is electric motors.
Electric motors are probably the most influential, as well as the most hidden, of all the inventions which have made up modern 20thc life. Practically every appliance in the modern home runs on electric motors. Most modern assembly line factories also depend on them to eliminate the incredibly complicated and dangerous systems of pulley belts which characterized most early manufactories.
Now note this para from a site on the history of electric motors.
"Motors began with electromagnets. In 1831, Michael Faraday succeeded in building the first electric motor. Joseph Henry was working with motors at that time. Henry and Faraday are both credited with building the first experimental electric motors. In 1837, Charles Grafton Page worked on improving the electric motor and created a model of his own. In 1887, Nikola Tesla introduced the Alternate Current (AC) motor. All other motors up to that time had been using direct current. Now, Alternate Current (AC) motors are easier to use than direct current (DC) ones. (my italics)
Why 50 years? One biography I have read of Tesla says that the AC motor was considered impossible by everyone in the field until he invented it.
If this is so it might indicate that while many, possibly most, inventions are more the product of the times than the inventor; there are still some that can only be ascribed to a 'wild talent' and that these are at least as influential.
But is it so in this case. Or was the invention of the AC motor something which had to await something else which was developed between 1837 and 1887?? Does anyone here know more of this? I would appreciate any further knowledge anyone might care to give
Electric motors are probably the most influential, as well as the most hidden, of all the inventions which have made up modern 20thc life. Practically every appliance in the modern home runs on electric motors. Most modern assembly line factories also depend on them to eliminate the incredibly complicated and dangerous systems of pulley belts which characterized most early manufactories.
Now note this para from a site on the history of electric motors.
"Motors began with electromagnets. In 1831, Michael Faraday succeeded in building the first electric motor. Joseph Henry was working with motors at that time. Henry and Faraday are both credited with building the first experimental electric motors. In 1837, Charles Grafton Page worked on improving the electric motor and created a model of his own. In 1887, Nikola Tesla introduced the Alternate Current (AC) motor. All other motors up to that time had been using direct current. Now, Alternate Current (AC) motors are easier to use than direct current (DC) ones. (my italics)
Why 50 years? One biography I have read of Tesla says that the AC motor was considered impossible by everyone in the field until he invented it.
If this is so it might indicate that while many, possibly most, inventions are more the product of the times than the inventor; there are still some that can only be ascribed to a 'wild talent' and that these are at least as influential.
But is it so in this case. Or was the invention of the AC motor something which had to await something else which was developed between 1837 and 1887?? Does anyone here know more of this? I would appreciate any further knowledge anyone might care to give
Last edited:
Paul Spring said:
I'm not saying that an inefficient technology will remain forever. If one technology is truly superior and suitable to the culture in question it will eventually rise to the top, however this my take many years if another technology has gotten a head start. You also can't exclude the possibility of outright collusion to retard development of alternative technologies.
CMYK computer displays
One of my timelines has things called Elms, short for Electronic Learning Machines (the ATL you-know-who company,) which are basically Xerox's dream come true: electronic paper with rudimentary computation power and telegraphic capabilities. To be light and consume virtually no power one needs to use CMYK pigments.
Has anyone else considered something like this?
One of my timelines has things called Elms, short for Electronic Learning Machines (the ATL you-know-who company,) which are basically Xerox's dream come true: electronic paper with rudimentary computation power and telegraphic capabilities. To be light and consume virtually no power one needs to use CMYK pigments.
Has anyone else considered something like this?
chrispi said:
Stirling engines-while very efficient-share one vice of steam engines:they are quite heavy. For example the WhisperGen, a Sterling power generator sold widly in Australia, weights 190 kilogramms for an output of 4 kw.
An you need a clutch and gearttrain arrangement in order to use it. So in the 19th Century the steam engine rightly succeeded. A more widespread use of Sterlings could cause other effects as well. They are very interesting if used in Submarines.
Eliminating or adding technology
Some technology can be hastened by the work of one isolated genius, or a stroke of luck. For example, suppose DaVinci had studied birds as gliders, and noted the shape of the wings' cross section. From there, a bold, crazy, smart, and lucky man could perhaps get a decent glider. Gliding could be a useful technology, but likely a dead end one for some time; without a good engine, there's no way to jump to the airplane. Gunpowder rockets would lead to a few spectacular disasters, I'd expect.
Gunpowder seems (to my non-chemist mind) like something that could be much postponed--does anyone know if it was independently discovered or not. No gunpowder means many changes...
Other technology requires the change of its predecessor technology. Find a way to delay inexpensive oil, and internal combustion never replaces steam for general use. Eliminate the lens, and medicine grows more slowly, as does astronomy. How do you eliminate or delay glass?
Social changes can also change technology. A society that seriously believes God banned man from the heavens might include the sky, and would not develop the airplane. Likely roast anyone who tried, but that's another matter.
As far as technology we haven't developed, think where we'd be if the people had demanded the moon, then Mars and beyond.
Some technology can be hastened by the work of one isolated genius, or a stroke of luck. For example, suppose DaVinci had studied birds as gliders, and noted the shape of the wings' cross section. From there, a bold, crazy, smart, and lucky man could perhaps get a decent glider. Gliding could be a useful technology, but likely a dead end one for some time; without a good engine, there's no way to jump to the airplane. Gunpowder rockets would lead to a few spectacular disasters, I'd expect.
Gunpowder seems (to my non-chemist mind) like something that could be much postponed--does anyone know if it was independently discovered or not. No gunpowder means many changes...
Other technology requires the change of its predecessor technology. Find a way to delay inexpensive oil, and internal combustion never replaces steam for general use. Eliminate the lens, and medicine grows more slowly, as does astronomy. How do you eliminate or delay glass?
Social changes can also change technology. A society that seriously believes God banned man from the heavens might include the sky, and would not develop the airplane. Likely roast anyone who tried, but that's another matter.
As far as technology we haven't developed, think where we'd be if the people had demanded the moon, then Mars and beyond.
Social and political circumstances affecting technology
My "For Want of a Nail" TL has automobiles with the driver's seat right in the middle. Why? Because countries, unlike OTL, disagreed on whether to drive on the left or right side of the road. How does a car inventor cope with this, use two steering wheels and two sets of floor controls? This inventor wants his machine to be street-legal on both left-hand and right-hand roads, remember, so he settles on a compromise: the driver's seat is centered.
(This arrangement has the added advantage over OTL of allowing the driver to step out on the sidewalk and away from traffic!)
My "For Want of a Nail" TL has automobiles with the driver's seat right in the middle. Why? Because countries, unlike OTL, disagreed on whether to drive on the left or right side of the road. How does a car inventor cope with this, use two steering wheels and two sets of floor controls? This inventor wants his machine to be street-legal on both left-hand and right-hand roads, remember, so he settles on a compromise: the driver's seat is centered.
(This arrangement has the added advantage over OTL of allowing the driver to step out on the sidewalk and away from traffic!)
Don't forget that plenty of countries in OTL do drive on different sides of the road! Britain and the rest of Europe for two. Which hasn't stopped cars with left and right hand drive versions developing.
One thing that does occur is that vehicle controls might be quite different between OTL and ATL(s), just because the technology has developed along different paths.
Apparently the car museum in Havana, Cuba, includes an early horseless carriage, powered by an internal combustion engine, but whose controls are nonetheless very closely based on those of a proper horse-drawn carriage, with reins for turning the front wheels, a great big lever applying a brake-pad directly to the outer edge of the wheel, and the driver's seat is outside, almost on the roof, just like a stagecoach. What might the controls of a car look like after 100 years of development from that sort of start?
Or what about cars from a world where they developed from boats, and have a single headlight in the middle, red and green navigation lights on the sides and are steered by something like a tiller? They might have a single rear wheel for steering and front wheel drive with acceleration controlled by twisting a control on the tiller. They'd be dangerously unstable at speed, requiring complicated counter-balancing suspension when you corner to avoid tipping over (or a very wide wheelbase instead). The driver must be at the rear unless drive-by-wire technology is used, hence the driver stands at the back of the car, or sits on the side, looking over the heads of the passengers.
One thing that does occur is that vehicle controls might be quite different between OTL and ATL(s), just because the technology has developed along different paths.
Apparently the car museum in Havana, Cuba, includes an early horseless carriage, powered by an internal combustion engine, but whose controls are nonetheless very closely based on those of a proper horse-drawn carriage, with reins for turning the front wheels, a great big lever applying a brake-pad directly to the outer edge of the wheel, and the driver's seat is outside, almost on the roof, just like a stagecoach. What might the controls of a car look like after 100 years of development from that sort of start?
Or what about cars from a world where they developed from boats, and have a single headlight in the middle, red and green navigation lights on the sides and are steered by something like a tiller? They might have a single rear wheel for steering and front wheel drive with acceleration controlled by twisting a control on the tiller. They'd be dangerously unstable at speed, requiring complicated counter-balancing suspension when you corner to avoid tipping over (or a very wide wheelbase instead). The driver must be at the rear unless drive-by-wire technology is used, hence the driver stands at the back of the car, or sits on the side, looking over the heads of the passengers.
Grey Wolf
Donor
chrispi said:
If you look at some of the early trucks and vans they DO have the driver's seat right in the middle, because it is the only one up front, so this certainly seems a possible idea to develop further. In fact, if you consider WHY the driver's seat is on the side of oncoming traffic then it probably is the only solution for what you outline above, as having a passenger on either side would negate the purpose and make it a dangerous car in BOTH sets of countries. So, just the driver, centred
Grey Wolf