While the tech industry often experiences price fluctuations — anyone who attempted to buy a graphics card during the recent cryptocurrency boom can attest to this — this current pricing crisis feels different. This is not just a temporary supply chain issue; the rise of artificial intelligence has altered how memory manufacturers allocate their resources. The semiconductor industry has changed at its core. Everyday consumers and regular enterprise IT are now competing for limited supplies. We are essentially locked in a zero-sum game with the booming AI sector, where, unfortunately for average buyers, AI has much deeper financial resources.

The Hunger for High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
To understand why standard desktop memory is now treated as a luxury, we need to look inside the data centers that support today’s cutting-edge technologies.

• ​Training and running large AI models requires transferring vast amounts of data faster than regular memory can manage.

• ​Standard modules simply lack the necessary bandwidth to feed the powerful graphics processing units (GPUs) that calculate billions of parameters every second.

• ​As a result, the industry is turning to High Bandwidth Memory (HBM).

• ​HBM stacks memory chips vertically, placing them directly next to the processor on the same package, allowing for unprecedented data transfer speeds.

Unsurprisingly, the race to lead in the AI space has sparked a hardware gold rush. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and OpenAI are buying AI servers on a massive scale, creating almost limitless demand for this specialized, ultra-fast memory that pairs with AI processors. Hardware manufacturers are locking into multi-year contracts to secure supplies of upcoming HBM3E and HBM4, which means this corporate demand is already affecting the market’s near future.

The Manufacturing Bottleneck
The core of the issue lies in the strict physical limits of semiconductor manufacturing. Memory manufacturers have limited factory space and silicon wafers, forcing them to make tough choices. The global DRAM market is largely controlled by three major players: Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron Technology. These companies operate complex fabrication plants that already run at full capacity, meaning that every silicon wafer allocated to one product type takes away from another.

When manufacturers look at their production lines, the choice between producing a low-margin kit for consumer desktops and a high-margin HBM stack for enterprise data centers is clear.

The “AI PC” Irony
This supply constraint is clashing with a sudden increase in hardware requirements on the software side. Ironically, as global memory production shifts away from everyday consumers, the minimum memory requirements for consumer tech are rising. We are quickly entering the era of localized artificial intelligence, where operating systems and applications are built to run complex neural networks directly on devices instead of relying solely on the cloud.

New “AI PCs” and local AI features, like Copilot+, are driving these requirements higher. For example, Microsoft has started advising users to opt for 32GB configurations for Windows 11 Copilot+ PCs, citing the substantial demands from background AI tasks and modern applications. Furthermore, when compiling large Python and C programming projects, or exploring vast open-world environments like Genshin Impact, your system needs significant memory to avoid operating system-level swapping and stuttering. Now, 32GB is the new standard for power users, creating a bottleneck as supply is limited and consumer demand grows. Just as the memory we urgently need becomes scarce, our daily digital lives are demanding more of it than ever.

Who is Feeling the Pinch?
The effects of this manufacturing shift are being felt across the entire tech ecosystem. This market change is tightening the squeeze on buyers everywhere:

• PC Builders and Gamers: For hardware enthusiasts, putting together a new system now costs more. PC builders and gamers find themselves having to pay for standard DDR5 kits that could have gone toward better CPUs or GPUs.

• Laptop & Pre-built Buyers: Companies like HP have recently reported that memory and storage now account for roughly 35% of a computer’s total bill of materials, a significant increase from past norms.

• Smartphone Users: The impact also extends to smartphones, causing “shrinkflation” or higher prices for buyers due to mobile DRAM costs. Mid-range smartphones may launch with the same or even less memory than their predecessors just to keep their retail prices stable.

• Business IT: The corporate sector isn’t immune to these steep price increases. Everyday businesses are also paying more to upgrade their web and database servers. Smaller IT departments and medium-sized companies are struggling with the rising costs of essential infrastructure upgrades, facing long lead times and constantly changing vendor quotes.

When Does It End?
Looking ahead, the market outlook offers little relief for the average consumer. The era of cheap memory may be over for a while. While semiconductor giants are heavily investing in expanding their capabilities to take advantage of this supercycle, physical infrastructure grows much slower than software innovation.

Building the multi-billion dollar fabrication plants needed to tackle this shortage will take years. New facilities in the US, South Korea, and Taiwan are not expected to begin substantial production until late in the decade. Due to this rigid timeline, analysts predict that the market squeeze will last well into 2027 or 2028.

Consumers who need to upgrade or build a PC now should act quickly because waiting for a significant short-term price drop is unwise. The technology market has undergone a structural shift, and the baseline cost of being part of the modern digital world has simply risen.

By Krishna Kunwar
Member
ASME-VIT

Introduction

For decades, Formula 1 has represented the peak of automotive engineering. Every season introduces faster cars, smarter technology, and new innovations that eventually influence normal road vehicles. However, one of the biggest revolutions in Formula 1 is arriving in 2026, when the sport introduces a completely new generation of engines. Modern Formula 1 cars already use highly advanced hybrid engines, but the upcoming regulations aim to push sustainability and efficiency even further. The new power units will rely more on electric energy, use fully sustainable fuels, and simplify certain engine components. These changes are expected to reshape not only Formula 1 racing but also the future of automobile engineering itself.

The Current Formula 1 Power Unit

Since 2014, Formula 1 cars have used 1.6-liter V6 turbocharged hybrid engines. These engines are not simple petrol engines; they combine fuel power with electrical systems to maximize efficiency and performance. The current power unit contains several important components: 1. Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) — the main fuel-powered engine. 2. Turbocharger — increases engine power by forcing more air into the combustion chamber. 3. Energy Recovery System (ERS) — converts wasted energy into electrical energy. 4. Battery Pack — stores electrical energy for additional acceleration. One of the most impressive technologies in Formula 1 is the ERS system. When drivers brake, some of the lost kinetic energy is recovered and stored in batteries. This energy can later be used to provide an extra speed boost during the race. Because of this advanced hybrid technology, current Formula 1 engines are among the most thermally efficient engines ever developed.

What Will Change in 2026?

The 2026 regulations will introduce major changes to improve sustainability and reduce environmental impact while keeping Formula 1 highly competitive.

Greater Use of Electric Power
The electrical systems in Formula 1 cars will become much more powerful. Currently, fuel provides most of the car’s performance, but from 2026 onward, electric energy will contribute nearly half of the total power output. This change makes Formula 1 technology more relevant to future hybrid and electric road cars

Removal of the MGU-H
The current engines include a complex system called the MGU-H, which recovers heat energy from the turbocharger. Although highly advanced, it is also extremely expensive and difficult to manufacture. To reduce costs and simplify engine development, the MGU-H will be removed in 2026. However, the MGU-K, which recovers braking energy, will remain and become more powerful

Sustainable Fuel
Another major change is the use of 100% sustainable fuel. These fuels are designed to reduce carbon emissions while still allowing Formula 1 to maintain combustion engines. Instead of moving completely to electric cars, Formula 1 aims to combine sustainability with the excitement and sound of traditional racing engines.

Why Formula 1 Is Changing Its Engines

The world automobile industry is rapidly shifting toward cleaner and more efficient technology. Governments and companies are focusing on reducing pollution and carbon emissions, and Formula 1 wants to remain relevant in this changing environment. The new regulations are also attracting major manufacturers such as Audi to join Formula 1 because the technology now aligns more closely with future road cars.

Formula 1 has historically acted as a testing ground for innovation. Technologies such as hybrid systems, aerodynamic improvements, and advanced braking systems were first perfected in motor sport before becoming common in consumer vehicles.

Criticism From Fans and Drivers

Despite the technological advantages, the new regulations have received criticism from some drivers and fans. Older Formula 1 engines, especially the V10 and V8 engines, were famous for their loud and aggressive sound. Many fans believe the newer hybrid engines lack the emotional excitement of previous generations. Some drivers are also concerned that future races may involve too much energy management instead of pure racing. Because of these concerns, Formula 1 officials have already discussed the possibility of introducing simpler V8 engines running on sustainable fuel in the future. This debate shows the challenge Formula 1 faces: balancing entertainment, speed, and sustainability at the same time.

The Future of Motorsport

The 2026 engine regulations represent one of the most important technological transitions in Formula 1 history. These changes are not only about racing faster but also about creating smarter and cleaner engineering solutions. As Formula 1 enters this new era, the sport will continue pushing the limits of innovation while influencing the future of transportation technology around the world. Even though opinions on the changes are divided, one fact remains clear: Formula 1 engines will continue evolving, just as they always have.

Conclusion

Formula 1 has always been more than just a racing competition. It is a global laboratory for engineering innovation. The upcoming 2026 regulations aim to make the sport more sustainable by increasing electric power, introducing sustainable fuels, and simplifying engine systems. These changes may redefine the sound and feel of Formula 1, but they also demonstrate how motor sport can adapt to a changing world. Whether fans support the new direction or prefer older engines, the future of Formula 1 technology promises to remain exciting, competitive, and revolutionary.

References

https://www.formula1.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.asme.org/topics-resources?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://medium.com/write-a-catalyst/how-to-format-your-medium-articles-to-get-more-than-1k-views-86457bb9e508?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Written by
Aashika Srivastava
ExComm
ASME-VIT

A Machine That Looks More Evolved Than Engineered

The first time you see the Northrop B-2 Spirit, you don’t immediately think “bomber.” You pause. You squint a little. And then you realize that what you’re looking at doesn’t seem assembled in a factory so much as grown.
Most airplanes are proud of their anatomy. They have a fuselage, wings that are attached on each side, engines that hang off the bottom, and a tail that sticks up out of the back like an exclamation point. The B-2 lacks these features. It is simply a smooth, vast crescent of dark composite material spreading across the sky like a shadow that forgot to stay on the ground.

And it’s not accidental. It’s intentional.

Since the B-2 is designed with a concept that engineers would eventually realize after many years of struggling to overcome the challenges posed by air flows and radar waves: nature had long ago overcome many of these challenges. Birds had long ago mastered the art of flight before the invention of the first radar systems, and predators had long ago evolved into the most aerodynamically efficient forms.

Among these forms, the Peregrine Falcon stands out as perhaps the most beautiful form of aerodynamics that evolution could ever produce. When engineers began to explore the concept of stealth aerodynamics and the most efficient forms of gliding flight, the similarities between the Peregrine Falcon’s flight mechanics and the flying wing concept were impossible to ignore.

The B-2, in many ways, is what happens when aerospace engineers stop trying to overpower physics and start quietly taking notes from nature.

The Peregrine Falcon: Nature’s Aerodynamic Blueprint

The impression is that the bird is flying smoothly through the air. The bird is circling, gliding, and adjusting the positions of the wings almost imperceptibly. However, the moment the falcon decides to plunge into the depths of the sea in search of food, it becomes the fastest creature on the surface of the earth, moving at a speed of over 320 km/h (200 mph).

The explanation for the speed of the falcon is the aerodynamic design of the falcons for the most efficient flight. The falcons have a streamlined body, a smooth-rooted wing, and no protrusions that may interfere with the smooth flow of the air. The design of the wings is equally captivating, smoothly tapering off into a curve that helps the falcon distribute the force of the lift over the width of the wings and not at a single point. This gives the falcon excellent gliding properties.

From an engineering standpoint, the falcon illustrates an efficient distribution of lift force with the least amount of drag and structural complexity.

The B-2 employs remarkably similar aerodynamic logic. Its flying-wing design eliminates the conventional fuselage and tail arrangement, allowing lift to be generated across the entire aircraft. Rather than wings attached to a body, the entire aircraft is the wing.

This creates a naturally efficient aerodynamic platform. The air flows smoothly over its surface, reducing turbulence and drag, as well as reflections off radar. Which is to say, the same design elements that make an airplane aerodynamically efficient also make it stealthier.

Of course, nature never designed a stealth bomber. However, it did design animals that glide efficiently and quietly through the air, and designers realized that the same principles could be used in an aircraft that had to sneak quietly through an enemy sky.

Why the B-2 Was Created

In order to understand the reason of the B-2 s existence, it is necessary to go back in time to the end of the Cold War.

Air defense technology was becoming ever more sophisticated. Radars were getting better, missiles were getting better, and interceptors were getting higher at an alarming rate. Conventional strategic bombers, large powerful aircraft capable of defeating air defenses quickly and at high altitude, were becoming obsolete.

But the United States needed something new.

Instead of trying to outrun the air defenses, the new idea was to try to avoid them. If an airplane could pass through defended airspace undetected, it could get to places it would normally not be able to.

Although the idea of stealth had been tested in the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, the B-2 would be a much more ambitious design. Instead of being a small fighter aircraft with little payload capacity, the B-2 would be a long-range strategic bomber capable of intercontinental flight and still be virtually undetectable by radar or other means.

The design philosophy of the B-2 was based on three main objectives:

Radar avoidance, long-range flight, and significant payload capability without sacrificing stealth.

To meet all three of these objectives at once, the design team was forced to think in radical terms, and this led them back to the flying wing design that Northrop first proposed many years ago

The Flying Wing: Aerodynamics and Stealth in Harmony

The most defining feature of the B-2 is its flying wing design.

Unlike conventional aircraft that employ a fuselage and a tail assembly to provide stability to flight, the flying wing design utilizes the entire aircraft for flight. This eliminates vertical stabilizers and reduces the number of surfaces that can reflect radar energy.

From a stealth point of view, this is extremely useful. Radar signals hitting a traditional airplane tend to bounce off of its vertical surfaces, like its tail fins or its engines, sending strong reflections back towards their sources. The B-2, however, has smooth, gently curved surfaces designed to scatter radar signals away.

From the standpoint of aerodynamics, the design also enhances efficiency. This is due to the fact that the lift is generated along the entire length of the aircraft. This enables it to sustain long endurance even when flying at subsonic speeds.

However, the drawback is that the design affects the stability.

For aircraft that have a tail, the design enables them to enjoy the benefits of natural aerodynamic stability. However, when the tail is removed from the aircraft, the stability is affected. This is because the flying wing design is not forgiving.

Therefore, the B-2 relies on digital flight control systems to enhance its stability.

Aircraft with tails benefit from natural aerodynamic stabilization. Remove the tail and that stability disappears. A flying wing is inherently less forgiving, particularly during maneuvers or changing flight conditions.

The B-2 therefore relies heavily on digital flight control systems to remain stable.

Engines Hidden Within the Wing

Powering the B-2 is a quartet of General Electric F118-GE-100 turbofans, each delivering about 17,300 pounds of thrust.

These engines are designed to be buried deeply within the structure of the wings, as opposed to being mounted outside. This serves several purposes.

First, it hides the engine compressor faces from radar. The blades that spin inside the jet engine are highly reflective to the radar waves. This is the easiest part to detect inside a jet engine. The inclusion of the jet engines inside the serpentine ducts will ensure that the radar waves cannot directly detect the reflective parts.

Second, the engine placement helps reduce infrared visibility. The exhaust gases that come out of the engines do not simply shoot out the back of the plane like in most fighter jets. This would, of course, be far too obvious. Instead, the gases are carefully mixed with cooler air, before being gently expelled out of flattened nozzles along the top surface of the wing. This has the result that the heat is dissipated, rather than glowing like a bonfire in the night sky. And that, in turn, makes it rather more difficult for infrared sensors, the sort that love hot jet engines, to work out exactly where the plane is.

And, of course, there is no afterburner.

Most fighter jets have them. Light an afterburner, and the engine produces an enormous amount of thrust, along with a rather spectacular column of fire that is lovely at an airshow, but rather less lovely if your entire mission is to not be noticed.

This is because afterburners are essentially giant heat generators. They consume fuel at alarming rates, but produce an infrared signature that makes any missile rather too keen.

So the B-2 simply doesn’t bother.

Instead, it uses four General Electric F118 turbofans to quietly generate the subsonic propulsion necessary to move this massive flying wing across continents. They’re efficient, controlled, and most importantly, discreet.

Which, for an aircraft that relies on invisibility as its primary defense, is rather the point.

Computers That Keep It in the Air

Because of its lack of stabilizing surfaces, the B-2 uses an advanced fly-by-wire control system to maintain flight controllability.

In a nutshell, the aircraft is always being held in balance by the computers.

The flight control computers receive commands from the pilots and move the control surfaces located on the trailing edge of the wing. These control surfaces are called elevons and split rudders. They carry out the functions of the elevators, ailerons, and rudder of a traditional aircraft.

The control system of the B-2 has multiple redundant computers running simultaneously. The clever bit happens in the background, where a small army of computers is quietly having a very serious conversation with the laws of physics.

These systems analyzes the aircraft’s flight conditions thousands of times every single second adjusting control surfaces, correcting tiny imbalances, and keeping that enormous flying wing behaving like a polite airplane rather than a rebellious dinner tray in a hurricane.

Because without them, flying the Northrop B-2 Spirit would be well, extremely entertaining for about three seconds and then deeply unfortunate. A flying wing has very little natural stability, which means if you tried to control it entirely by hand, you’d spend most of your time fighting the aircraft rather than flying it.

So, the computers act like an invisible co-pilot. They quietly smooth out every twitch and wobble before the pilot even notices it happening.

It’s a lovely example of modern aviation, where aerodynamics, electronics, and software stop being separate things and instead merge into one seamless machine that simply works.

Performance in the Air
And then there’s the slightly surreal moment when you realize that this enormous thing stretching over 52 meters (172 feet) from tip to tip doesn’t thunder through the sky like a traditional bomber. Instead, the Northrop B-2 Spirit sort of glides.

Gracefully.

Which is faintly ridiculous when you remember that it weighs tens of tones and carries enough technology to make a supercomputer blush.

It isn’t particularly fast either. Top speed sits somewhere around Mach 0.95, comfortably subsonic. But that’s entirely the point. The B-2 doesn’t rely on brute force or dramatic speed for survival. It relies on not being noticed at all.

In cruise, it behaves less like a bomber and more like a vast, slightly sinister glider, its flying-wing shape spreading lift across the entire aircraft and allowing it to remain airborne for astonishing lengths of time. With aerial refueling, missions have stretched beyond 30 hours, quietly crossing oceans to strike targets on the opposite side of the planet.

And when it maneuvers, it doesn’t yank itself around like a fighter jet. Instead, it changes course smoothly and purposefully like a shadow deciding to move somewhere else

Strategic Impact
Since the B-2 first entered service in the late 1990s, the bomber has played a significant role in several military engagements, including the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Its ability to strike from bases in the US, cross the seas, strike accurately, and return home has made the B-2 a highly versatile strategic bomber.

Perhaps the greatest service of the B-2 has been conceptual, however, and not operational. It has demonstrated that stealth technology can be effectively implemented in large aircraft without compromising range and payload. It has demonstrated that the key to surviving in the air in the face of enemy air defenses is not speed and armor but stealth. It has been the conceptual foundation of many other modern aircraft and drones that continue to test the limits of stealth aerodynamics.

When Engineering Listened to Nature

At the end of it all, the B-2 Spirit represents a fascinating marriage of both biology and engineering.

Predatory birds such as the peregrine falcon have evolved to be aerodynamically efficient because it has enabled them to hunt effectively.

Engineering principles based on similar aerodynamic principles have led engineers to believe that similar shapes could be used to ensure an aircraft travels efficiently while reflecting radar waves and evading detection.

As a result, the B-2 looks very organic from a ground perspective. It does not have an aggressive or mechanical look. Instead, it travels effortlessly across the sky like a dark silhouette. It is smooth, controlled, and graceful.

The B-2 is not just a bomber. The B-2 represents a fascinating case of what happens when technology takes a step back to observe nature and borrow its solutions.
And when that happens, the result isn’t just effective engineering.

It’s something that almost looks like evolution.

By Nithin V
Member
ASME-VIT

HOW CIRCULAR DESIGN SHAPED AVIATION

Before the introduction of jets, which brought new standards for both speed and altitude, aviation depended on engines that achieved power through their balanced design instead of their streamlined shape. The radial engine served as the fundamental engine system for early aviation because its circular cylinder design provided engineers with better performance efficiency through its dependable operation, effective cooling system, and its capacity to produce maximum torque.

The first years of powered flight presented aircraft designers with major engineering challenges. The engines needed to be lightweight, which could deliver strong performance while performing under different atmospheric conditions, and simple enough to maintain in remote airfields. The radial engine solved multiple design problems through its unique and distinctive circular configuration, which featured cylinders that extended from a central crankshaft in a pattern that resembled wheel spokes. The design provided direct airflow access to each cylinder, which enabled the system to achieve effective air cooling without using complicated liquid-cooling technologies. The military and commercial aviation industries adopted radial engines as the primary power source for their aircraft models throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Development for radial engines began during the early 1900s when aviation engineers tested different engine designs to achieve better aircraft performance. The first airplane engines were adapted from automotive engine designs, but these engines could not handle the extreme requirements of an aircraft engine. The engineers discovered that aircraft needed dedicated, specialized power systems that prioritized reliability and weight efficiency. World War I marked the beginning of radial engines becoming prominent in aviation. The engine design provided better power output for its weight than other engine designs at that time. Radial engines achieved higher power capabilities during the 1920s and 1930s because of improvements in metalworking techniques, lubrication systems, and fuel distribution methods. By the time of World War II, radial engines had become the dominant propulsion system for many military aircraft, including fighters, bombers, and transport planes. However, the rapid development of jet propulsion gradually reduced the role of piston-powered aircraft in high-performance aviation.

Radial engines operate using the four-stroke internal combustion engine cycle: intake, compression, power, and exhaust. The design features circular cylinder arrangements, which differ from the straight and V engine layouts used by inline and V-type engines. One piston connects directly to the crankshaft through a master rod, while the others attach through articulating rods, which convert reciprocating piston motion into rotational motion that propels the propeller. Radial engines are air-cooled. The design of each cylinder includes cooling fins, which expand surface area to enable heat to exit through the airflow during flight, thus eliminating the need for radiators and liquid coolant systems.

Despite their eventual decline in aviation, radial engines possessed several advantages that contributed to their historical importance. Their greatest strength was reliability and a high power-to-weight ratio. The air-cooled design eliminated many components that could fail in liquid-cooled engines, making radial engines dependable in extreme conditions. Failure of a single cylinder did not cause the entire engine to stop functioning, making them highly tolerant to mechanical damage.

Radial engines have become outdated for modern aircraft, yet they remain useful in specific industrial and stationary applications. Power generation units use radial engines, which have undergone modifications to radial engines where durability and simplicity of mechanical systems are valued. The ability to operate with minimal maintenance makes these engines valuable for use in remote areas.

Ultimately, the radial engine is more than an old aviation engine. It shows how good design can overcome challenges with clever mechanical principles. The legacy of the radial engine continues to influence the history and culture of aviation engineering even in an age dominated by jet propulsion engines.

By Viraj Pulate
Member
ASME-VIT

The concept of 4D printing was officially introduced to the world in February 2013 by Skylar Tibbits, Founder and Co-Director of the Self-Assembly Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), during his landmark TED Conference Presentation in Long Beach, California.

In his demonstration, Tibbits submerged a flat, 3D printed strand into water and showed it autonomously folding into a pre-programmed shape — without any electronic components, motors, or human assistance. This moment captured global attention and formally launched 4D printing as a recognised discipline of research and innovation.

While stimuli-responsive materials such as shape-memory polymers had been studied in materials science for decades prior, Tibbits was the first to unite them with additive manufacturing and frame the discipline under the term “4D Printing” — with time as the transformative fourth dimension. That conceptual framing marked the true birth of the field.

Let’s dive deep to know more

4D Printing is an advanced form of additive manufacturing in which objects are fabricated using smart, stimuli-responsive materials that enable the printed structure to autonomously change its shape, dimension, orientation, or functional properties over time, in response to a predefined external stimulus or stimuli.

A 4D printed material is a product constructed through standard 3D printing techniques, but built using smart materials that allow the finished product to change its dimensions, orientation, or shape in response to external stimuli such as pressure, moisture, temperature, light, or magnetic fields. The fourth dimension, in this context, is time: the axis along which transformation occurs.

[Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4D_printing for moments and facts]

4D printing builds directly upon 3D printing infrastructure and processes. The key differentiator lies not in how the object is printed, but in what it is printed with. Instead of conventional static polymers or metals, 4D printing utilises smart materials — substances engineered at a molecular level to respond predictably to specific environmental triggers.

Common stimuli include heat, moisture, light, pressure, pH levels, and magnetic fields. When exposed to these triggers, the printed object undergoes a pre-programmed physical transformation — folding, expanding, contracting, or reconfiguring — encoded into its geometry and material composition during the design phase.

The most commonly used smart materials include Shape-Memory Polymers (SMPs), which return to a memorised form upon heating; hydrogels, which swell or contract in the presence of water; and multi-material composites that combine different expansion rates to produce controlled bending or folding. Sophisticated computational modelling and simulation tools are essential to predict and engineer these transformations accurately before a single layer is printed.

The common interests where 4D printing drags vast scale audience are due to these

• Personalised Medical Implants

4D printed implants adapt their shape in response to conditions inside the patient’s body — temperature, pH, or pressure — enabling implants that fit precisely, reduce rejection risks, and evolve with the patient over time.

• Self-Repairing Structures

Infrastructure built with 4D printing can autonomously detect and repair minor damage such as cracks in pipelines or structural elements, reducing manual maintenance costs and significantly improving safety and longevity.

• Reduced Mechanical Complexity

Smart materials that move on their own eliminate the need for motors and complex actuators, resulting in lighter, simpler, and more reliable systems — especially valuable in aerospace, robotics, and wearable technology.

As we know from Thermodynamics, there is no perfect process or machine, accustomed to it, 4D printing too comes up with certain disadvantages, and they are

• High Material Cost

Shape-memory polymers and stimuli-responsive composites are significantly more expensive than conventional 3D printing materials, making large-scale commercial production economically challenging at this stage.

• Complex Design Requirements

Designing a 4D printed object demands highly specialised computational modelling to predict material behaviour over time. Even minor inaccuracies in geometry or composition can lead to unintended transformations.

• Limited Material Range

The variety of smart materials currently available for 4D printing is narrow, restricting design flexibility and limiting the range of applications that can be practically pursued with today’s technology.

Creating a “living” object requires a digital ecosystem that can predict the future. To move from a static blueprint to an adaptive structure, designers rely on a specialised suite of tools:

• CAD-nano: Programs DNA at the nanoscale to dictate autonomous self-assembly.
• Cyborg (Autodesk): Simulates complex, self-evolving behaviours for macro-scale projects.
• ABAQUS (Dassault Systèmes): Uses advanced finite element analysis to predict how shape-memory polymers respond to stress.
• Materialise Magics: The essential command centre for multi-material build preparation and pre-processing.

Beyond the commercial and technical challenges, 4D printing poses a unique set of risks that require careful consideration, especially as the technology becomes more available.

• Risks of Biological Mutation
• In the event of an uncontrolled transformation The 4D printed component may change too soon or otherwise. If there is an uncontrolled transformation of the 4D Printed Component (Due to unforeseen environmental conditions, i.e., Temperature changes or Moisture), it may present a Fatal Risk if the 4D Printed Component is utilised in safety-sensitive areas, such as Aerospace or Medical Implant Structures.
• Risks of Dual-Use and Weaponisation. As such, the Self-Assembly capabilities of 4D printing raise significant concerns about the possibility of Dual-Use. There are Certainly Designs for autonomous shape change that could be modified to have a Secret or Unknown Purpose, such as modifying structures to change shape after they have been placed in a certain environmental condition. 4D Printing will now be included in the broader discussion concerning technology regulation and international arms control.
• Environmental Contamination, because many of the smart materials that are used for 4D printed parts are synthetic polymers or composites, it is possible that they will not break down naturally over time. If smart materials are disposed of incorrectly, they might introduce toxic chemicals into the soil or water supply. We still do not know what the long-term environmental impact will be from all the waste generated by mass-producing smart materials.

Applications of 4D Printing

4D Printing, seen as a “Glow up” to 3D printed products, reaches its true potential when it’s out of laboratory curiosity and into real-world solutions. Let’s see some of them where this type of evolution is standing better than its precursors.

4D printing stands at the intersection of imagination and engineering — a technology that transforms static objects into dynamic, responsive systems. From its inception in 2013 to its growing presence in medical, aerospace, and infrastructure research today, the field has matured rapidly and continues to accelerate.

The challenges are real — high costs, design complexity, regulatory gaps, and genuine hazards must all be addressed with seriousness and rigour. Yet the potential rewards are equally substantial.

The fourth dimension of manufacturing has arrived. The question is not whether it will transform industries — but how prepared we are to lead that transformation.

By
Janardan Latchumanan
Member
ASME-VIT

The Flywheel’s First Appearance

Long before James Watt realized the flywheel’s true potential, the ancient Chinese and Mesopotamian civilizations were already making use of heavy rotating disks as a source of consistent mechanical energy for tasks such as pottery.

In an industrial context, the first ever documented usage of the flywheel concept dates back to 1783, when the steam engine was the latest breakthrough in mechanical engineering. Steam engines were known to produce massive power in just a single stroke, followed by no power for the rest of the cycle. To smooth out this spike in power output, a flywheel was introduced into the system. This allowed the flywheel to store rotational kinetic energy (like a literal battery) from the crankshaft and deploy it during the rest of the engine cycle. The results? Smoother power outputs allow factories to finally stop replacing lines, belts, and shafts on a weekly basis.

The flywheel sat at the heart of the First Industrial Revolution. It stabilized the early engines and powered the first generation of multi-machine factories.

From Industry to the First IC Engine

After enjoying immense success in the industrial sector, engineers began exploring ways to integrate flywheels into the day-to-day lives of the masses. This was kick-started by the rise of the first IC engines a hundred years later in 1860, when Étienne Lenoir introduced a coal gas-based engine that eliminated the need for a working fluid.

However, with the new coal engine not having a compression stroke and a highly variable combustion stroke, he needed a device to stabilize it and remain compact enough to allow integration into smaller-scale systems.

To achieve this, a large yet manageable cast-iron flywheel with spokes was used. The spoke design was an ingenious innovation, allowing most of the flywheel’s mass to be concentrated near the rim, thereby maximizing energy storage capabilities. However, his engine was highly impractical and did poorly when fitted into his Hippomobile — a vehicle so slow that walking was said to be more efficient!

Lenoir’s design was soon surpassed by Karl Benz’s automobile, which employed the Otto cycle. To adapt to higher engine speeds, flywheels were made shorter and made to rotate faster so that they can tame the higher engine RPMs, often exceeding 400.

Of course, the design evolution wasn’t the only quirky part about these first-gen flywheels — the way they were assembled was also rather fascinating!

Wait… Where’s the Starter Motor?

Flywheels used in the first IC engines that came out had one distinct feature: they were mostly mounted vertically and perpendicular instead of in-line with the crankshaft. While this may seem counterintuitive today, 19th-century engineers had practical reasons for this approach.

Reasons for this configuration included:

• Manual engine starting: The early IC engines did not have starter motors (they were invented about 40 years later), so vertical flywheels allowed operators to crank the engine manually.
• Simpler Manufacturing: Precision machining was limited and expensive, so vertical assembly was the most efficient, as it simplified casting and assembly, making it the most economical solution.
• Packaging constraints: Early IC engines were typically single-cylinder and could not accommodate large flywheels inline, resulting in exposed, externally mounted flywheels.

However, this design came with drawbacks. The most significant one being the fact that a perpendicularly mounted flywheel produced gyroscopic effects, which severely limited the ability of the vehicles to turn. While it wasn’t a big deal back then, it became more evident as the engines grew faster.

Carrying Momentum (literally) Into Space

By the mid-20th century, flywheels found a new home — the aerospace industry.

Remember the gyroscopic effects of the flywheel, which we so hated in the previous section? Now suddenly we’re trying to maximize the gyroscopic effects of the flywheel to serve as direction stabilizers for satellites in orbit! This shows that while some uses of the flywheel may not be the best on the ground, it can completely flip the script in the sky. These flywheel systems were dubbed “Reaction Wheels.”

One of the most famous applications is found in the Hubble Space Telescope. Its reaction wheel assembly plays a crucial role in stabilizing the telescope, enabling it to capture images from the far reaches of the universe. This stabilizer system is one of the main reasons Hubble could capture the light coming from the edge of the cosmos!

Apart from just acting as a source of stability, flywheels were also used in space as “mechanical batteries”, storing energy through angular momentum. In the vacuum space, they could spin for extended periods with minimal losses. However, their complexity in design led to their replacement with Li-ion or plutonium-based thermoelectric generators.

All this was made possible by the timely inventions of magnetic bearings and composite rotors, which minimized energy losses due to friction and other forces acting on the wheel.

Coming Back Stronger

In the great breakthrough that followed in materials science during the space exploration era of humanity, flywheels found themselves being made out of the latest addition to the material choice pool — composites.

These composites, often made of carbon and its allotropes, allowed flywheels to reach RPMs that were previously thought to be unachievable with conventional steel or iron versions. These flywheels could also store a lot more energy as they had a much higher strength-to-weight ratio than previous models.

Now armed with composite flywheel designs, scientists and engineers set out to realize a long-overlooked feature — Flywheel Energy Storage Systems (FESS)

Composite flywheels enabled FESS to compete with conventional batteries due to several key advantages:

• Safer failure modes: Flywheels made out of iron and metal couldn’t withstand the intense centrifugal forces coming out at high RPM’s and often became spinning frag grenades at their failure points. This was changed when composite flywheels made of carbon fiber unraveled under high load, preventing major damage to surrounding components.
• Higher energy density: For each kg of weight, composite flywheels were able to store much more energy as compared to steel or iron flywheels. This was the main factor that made them competitive when pitched against electrical batteries.
• Lower mechanical losses: Composite flywheels, coupled with magnetic bearings and vacuum housings, now work at efficiencies well over 80%. This meant they could be kept spinning at an appreciable speed for longer periods of time and, hence, discharged much more slowly than some of the electrical batteries used in that era.

By Rohan
Member
ASME-VIT

The fundamental conflict lies in a stubborn geometric mismatch. We need a vehicle’s wheels to spin smoothly, yet we insist on powering them by firing an aluminium piston head down a straight tube. The engine is constantly at war with its own architecture, forced to act as a heavy, parasitic middleman that essentially bullies linear momentum into a circular path. This enforced translation doesn’t just waste energy; it actively punishes the engine block, generating the inherent vibrations(knocking) and fatigue stresses that we spend entirely too much time trying to dampen. It is a system built on battling its own kinematics, which leads to an essential set of questions: if the end goal is circular motion, why are we generating linear thrust? Why bother doing this pointless linear-rotational conversion if we can directly produce torque?

Now imagine this, an engine with no reversing, no reciprocating mass fighting against momentum. Just a pure, continuous, buttery-smooth rotation. This is where the rotary vane engine enters the story.

At its mechanical core, the architecture is refreshingly minimalist. It consists of a solid cylindrical rotor spinning inside an eccentric housing (elliptical in this case). Instead of a chaotic assembly of connecting rods and wrist pins, it uses a handful of simple rectangular vanes tucked into radial slots on the rotor. Driven by compact high-stiffness springs and centrifugal force, these vanes slide in and out as the rotor turns, acting like steel fingers constantly reaching out to trace the smooth walls of the chamber.

Because the housing is oval but the rotor is round, the volume between them continuously expands and contracts as it spins. As the vanes sweep through this varying gap, they naturally draw in, compress, ignite, and exhaust the air-fuel mixture. There are no complex valves to time, and absolutely no heavy metal components forced to abruptly stop and reverse direction. It achieves the entire thermodynamic cycle through continuous, fluid rotation. It promises the power of a V8 in a package the size of a shoebox. To understand the dream of the rotary vane, we have to compare it against the reality of the slider-crank mechanism, the tangled mess of rods and bearings that powers the world today.

To quantitatively assess the benefits of the rotary vane architecture, I performed a simulation comparing a standard four-cylinder reciprocating engine against a four-vane rotary engine. Both systems were modelled at a steady-state cruising speed of 3000 RPM(50Hz). The results, visualized in the graph below, highlight the fundamental difference in how these two machines deliver energy.

The Reciprocating Engine (Blue Trace): The blue trace represents the instantaneous torque output of a standard internal combustion engine. From a signal processing perspective, this waveform is compromised. The torque output oscillates aggressively, spiking to 70 Nm during the power stroke and crashing down to 30 Nm shortly after. In engineering terms, this is a system with poor “torque quality.” It is a machine that is constantly fighting its own firing order. To mask this, we are forced to attach a heavy flywheel to the crankshaft. This acts as a low-pass filter, storing kinetic energy to smooth out the gaps, but at the cost of adding parasitic weight and dulling the engine’s throttle response.

The Rotary Vane Engine (Orange Trace): Contrast this with the orange trace, representing the 4-vane RVE. The torque stays disciplined, oscillating tightly between 45 Nm and 55 Nm. The “valleys” in torque production are shallow because the power pulses overlap, and the frequency of the ripple is doubled to 200 Hz. This behaviour validates the design’s kinematic purity. Because the pulses are rapid and the amplitude of the fluctuation is low, the change in angular momentum is minimal between firing events.

The physics here is undeniable. The RVE does not require a massive flywheel to maintain rotational stability because it generates its own continuity. While the piston engine requires a heavy mass to keep it moving between fires, the rotary vane simply carries its own momentum. It is the mechanical difference between driving a nail with a hammer, relying on a discrete, shocking impact, and driving a screw with a power drill, where the force is applied in one smooth, continuous stream.

If the torque curve makes the intellectual case for the rotary vane engine, the physical packaging makes the practical one. When we audit the anatomy of a standard four-stroke engine, we find that it is, largely, a waste of space and a celebration of unnecessary complexity.

Volumetric Efficiency: A standard engine block is surprisingly empty. It is a heavy iron fortress designed to contain a very small volume of actual combustion. You have connecting rods flailing about, crankshaft counterweights spinning in oil, and pistons traversing empty cylinders. The “working volume” where the power is actually made is a fraction of the engine’s total size. The rotary vane engine flips this ratio. Because the rotor and vanes occupy nearly the entire internal housing, there is almost no “dead space.” It is a dense, purpose-built brick of power generation. It offers the theoretical output of a V8 in a package the size of a carry-on suitcase.

Mechanical Reduction: The most fragile part of a modern engine is the cylinder head, a chaotic assembly of camshafts, lifters, rockers, retainers, and valve springs. These components exist solely to open and close holes, yet they account for a massive percentage of an engine’s friction and failure points. The rotary vane engine deletes this entire subsystem. There are no valves to float at high RPM, no timing chains to stretch, and no camshafts to grind down. Breathing is handled by simple ports cut into the housing, uncovered by the passing vane. It adheres to the golden rule of engineering: the part that cannot fail is the part you did not install.

The difference in philosophy is stark. The reciprocating engine handles energy conversion like a carpenter’s handsaw, spending essentially half its life on the return stroke, dragging the mechanism back to the start just to prepare for the next useful cut. It is a cycle of effort followed by a cycle of wasted recovery. The rotary vane engine operates like a circular saw, which is continuous, unidirectional, and wastes zero time on the “reset.”

“Well, if it is so much better than a crankshaft engine”, you might say, “why is it not found anywhere in the market? Surely the car manufacturers aren’t heedless enough not to know about this allegedly better engine design.”

And you would be right. The fact that such an engine is nowhere to be seen on the current market indeed implies the existence of some fatal flaw. Or flaws rather. Physics, unfortunately, is a cruel auditor. While the kinematics of the rotary vane are elegant on paper, the tribology, the science of friction and wear, is a disaster in practice. The very design features that eliminate the crankshaft are the same ones that doom the RVE. I have identified the 4 biggest problems with the RVE, these being:

1. Sealing
2. Friction
3. Uneven heating of the vanes
4. Lubrication

1. The Sealing Nightmare: The piston engine has one massive advantage: the piston ring. It is a perfect circle expanding against a perfect cylinder. It is a self-reinforcing seal that gets tighter as pressure builds. The rotary vane relies on a “line contact”, the thin tip of a rectangular vane scraping against an oval housing. Maintaining a high-pressure gas seal with a sliding line contact is, mechanically, Sisyphean. It is like trying to squeegee a curved windshield with a straight wooden ruler; you might clear most of the water, but you will never get it perfectly dry. In an engine, that “water” is exploding gas, and every leak is lost power.

2. The Centrifugal Trap: In a standard engine, the friction remains relatively linear. In a rotary vane engine, friction is exponential. The vanes are pushed out against the housing walls by centrifugal force. This creates a “catch-22”: to make more power, you need more RPM, but more RPM flings the vanes harder against the wall, creating massive drag and heat. The engine literally fights its own speed. At high revolutions, the vanes stop acting like seals and start acting like brakes, grinding against the housing until chatter marks destroy the surface.

3. Thermal Schizophrenia: A piston engine is thermally symmetrical; the combustion happens in the same cylinder that handles the cool intake air, so the metal temperature averages out. The rotary vane engine has a “hot side” (combustion) and a “cool side” (intake). One half of the engine block is trying to expand like a balloon in an oven, while the other half stays rigid. This uneven thermal expansion warps the oval housing, ruining those already-fragile tolerances. The engine eventually twists itself out of spec, and the blow-by begins.

4. The “Total-Loss” Problem: How do you lubricate a surface that is on fire? Unlike a piston engine, which circulates oil in a closed loop, the rotary vane engine operates as an open system. To keep the vanes from welding themselves to the housing, oil must be injected directly into the working chamber. It performs its lubricating duty for a fraction of a second before being swept out the exhaust port. This turns the engine into a mobile oil-disposal unit, requiring you to refill the oil reservoir almost as often as the gas tank.

So, is the rotary vane engine a failure? If you judge it strictly by the cars in the parking lot outside, then yes. It is a tribological nightmare that, historically, ate its own seals and drank its own oil. But in engineering, “failure” is often just a timing issue.

The piston engine didn’t win because it was the superior design; it won because it was the design that could survive the metallurgy of the 20th century. It was a blunt instrument robust enough to handle crude manufacturing and dirty fuels. The rotary vane was simply too elegant for the materials of its time. It demanded a level of friction management that 1950s physics couldn’t provide.

Today, the calculus is changing.

The potential of the rotary vane architecture remains staggering. Its power density is unrivaled, offering the output of a heavy multi-cylinder engine in a package small enough to fit in a backpack. In an era where weight is the enemy of efficiency, that is a characteristic you cannot ignore.

With the advent of advanced ceramics, diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings, and self-lubricating composites, the “fatal flaws” of friction and sealing are shifting from physical impossibilities to solvable engineering challenges. We are already seeing the concept reborn in high-tech applications like military drones and EV range extenders, machines where compactness is god and the inherent imbalance of a piston engine is unacceptable.

So, we return to the questions that started this analysis: Why bother with that pointless linear-rotational conversion? Why subject a heavy chunk of aluminum to a cruel, dead-stop existence just to turn a wheel? For a century, the answer was grimly pragmatic: because we had to. We accepted the kinematic compromises of the crankshaft because we lacked the metallurgy to survive the elegance of the rotary vane.

But as the automotive world pivots toward hybrid powertrains and drone technologies where compact, continuous power is paramount, we are finally in a position to answer those questions properly. The rotary vane engine remains a dense, highly efficient machine that directly produces the rotational torque we require, entirely free of reciprocating mass. The sliding vane didn’t fail. It just had to wait a hundred years for materials science to finally catch up to its geometry, allowing us to stop frantically hauling metal back to dead center, and let it spin.

By Hem Sotta
ASME-VIT
Member

As we face big changes in transportation, it’s impossible to overlook how important the internal combustion engine has been throughout history. For more than a hundred years, it stood for engineering, but now people are saying it’s time to let it go. As climate targets get tougher and governments start pushing for alternatives, the automotive world is shifting quickly.

In this evolution, two technologies often come up in the discussion: Electric Vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen-powered vehicles. The question people keep asking is simple: what technology will actually overtake petrol and diesel? And maybe that’s the question we should ask! Electric vehicles are definitely in the lead right now. Let’s start by talking about EVs.

From an engineering point of view, they’re straightforward. There’s no burning of fuel, no exhaust systems to worry about, fewer moving pieces, and way less mechanical wear and tear. The U.S. Department of Energy says that EVs can turn around 77–90% of their energy into motion, which is pretty impressive. The world building around EVs is gaining momentum. Charging stations are popping up all over the place. Battery prices are going down slowly but surely. EV sales have been going up every year. Tesla and BYD are at the forefront of battery technology, while a lot of traditional car makers are focusing their investments on EV platforms. Electric Vehicles just make sense for commuting and getting around the city. They work well, are quite, and are getting cheaper day by day.

However, every coin has two sides. Making batteries relies a lot on mining lithium and cobalt. Charging them takes a while, and the batteries can be pretty bulky. They usually don’t perform well over time. Electric vehicles have the edge right now, but they have their own flaws. On the other hand, hydrogen vehicles don’t get enough credit. They might not be the first thing people think of when it comes to clean transportation, but they have a lot to offer. Hydrogen vehicles are often viewed as just an alternative, but they really deserve more attention. Hydrogen vehicles mainly exist in two forms: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs), which convert hydrogen into electricity to power electric motors, and Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines (H₂-ICE), which burn hydrogen directly as fuel.

Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines (H₂-ICE) run by burning hydrogen directly. One of hydrogen’s main advantages is its energy density. It packs more energy per kilogram than current battery systems, which could make it a good fit for heavy-duty transport like trucks, buses, ships, and maybe even planes. Refuelling hydrogen vehicles only takes a few minutes, which solves one of the biggest problems faced with electric vehicles. Toyota, for example, is putting a lot of effort into hydrogen fuel cell technology, especially when it comes to commercial use and long-distance trucks.

There are some hurdles to consider. Producing hydrogen, especially green hydrogen, takes a lot of energy. Compressing, transporting, and storing all use up energy, which can really cut down the overall efficiency, often bringing it down to around 25–35%. So, hydrogen might not be the most efficient option right now, but we have to remember that engineering isn’t only about efficiency but also about impact. When you look at well-to-wheel efficiency, electric vehicles come out ahead for passenger cars because they use less energy overall, and the process is cleaner. For long-haul trucks or industrial transport, the weight of batteries can be a real problem, so hydrogen’s higher energy density gives a good alternative, asking, “Which one is better?” Maybe a better question is, “Better for what?” Electric vehicles are definitely the best choice for getting around the city. For transport, hydrogen might have the edge. In aviation and shipping, hydrogen has a lot of potential. Electric vehicles are already working well for everyday driving. The future looks like it will mix both technologies instead of one coming out on top.

India is putting money into building up electric vehicle infrastructure. Charging networks are growing all the time, making it easier for people to keep their electric vehicles powered up on the go. More people are starting to choose electric vehicles these days. At the same time, the National Green Hydrogen Mission shows that hydrogen is definitely on the radar. It shows the country understands that long-term industrial decarbonization might need more than simply moving to batteries. This shows that even policymakers aren’t sticking to just one approach.

As engineers, this ongoing debate should push us forward, not scare us. Electric vehicles need progress in several areas; for example, battery management involves keeping an eye on how batteries are used and charged to make sure they last as long as possible and work safely. It means balancing charging rates, monitoring battery health, and avoiding situations that might cause damage or reduce the battery’s lifespan. Good battery management helps ensure devices run smoothly without unexpected power issues. The advancement of EVs depends heavily on lightweight structural design to offset battery weight, efficient motor systems to maximize energy conversion, and robust battery thermal management to ensure safety and longevity. In contrast, hydrogen technology demands safe high-pressure storage systems, fuel cell optimization for better conversion efficiency, and material innovations capable of handling hydrogen embrittlement and extreme operating pressures.

The real risk isn’t in picking the technology but in not being ready to adjust when things change. Who ends up winning? Over the next 10 to 15 years, Electric Vehicles will keep taking the lead in how people get around. When it comes to heavy transport and industrial energy systems, the hydrogen engines just can’t be ignored. Engineering problems usually don’t have just one solution. Hydrogen and Electric Vehicles aren’t enemies; they’re just different tools to meet different needs. In the future, both technologies will probably be used in the areas where they work best. Maybe the real question isn’t “Who wins?” Instead, let’s focus on who will be ready to take on both Electric Vehicles and hydrogen. In my opinion, the future won’t be built by those who pick sides. It will belong to engineers who understand the technical principles behind both Electric Vehicles and hydrogen systems and can design, optimise, and implement them effectively.

References :

1. U.S. Department of Energy — Alternative Fuels Data Centre (AFDC)
   https://afdc.energy.gov
2. U.S. Department of Energy — Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office
   https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells
3. International Energy Agency (IEA) — Global EV Outlook
   https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook
4. International Energy Agency (IEA) — Global Hydrogen Review
   https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review
5. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India — National Green Hydrogen Mission
   https://mnre.gov.in
6. “Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles” — Applied Energy
7. “Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles” — Journal of Power Sources

By Agnijo Das
ASME-VIT
Member

On paper, the India AI Impact Summit 2026 appeared to be a perfect win for the Global South. It took place at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi from February 16 to 20, with the ambitious theme “Sarvajana Hitaya, Sarvajana Sukhaya” — Welfare for All, Happiness for All.

The schedule was highly promising. It began with an AI Impact Expo on the first day, leading into major corporate investment news on day two. Day three brought heated discussions on data governance. As prominent tech figures like Sam Altman and Demis Hassabis addressed the crowd on day four, paving the way for day five’s focus on global governance frameworks, the event was anticipated to run without a hitch.

But as soon as attendees stepped onto the expo floor, that perfect plan fell apart. Instead of a futuristic wonderland, they encountered a hectic reality — state projects clashing, countries vying for influence, and logistics that felt straight out of a disaster movie.

While the headlines continued to celebrate sleek news, they were much more disparate. This summit demonstrated that the future of AI is not just about code; it is also about the human element. It involves metal, wires, cooling systems, thermodynamics, and robotics. It’s about the essential components needed to make AI work in the real world.

The following report provides a firsthand account of what happened during the summit, surpassing the details provided by the official press releases.

Internet India Shifts to BharatGen — Over 300 pavilions that were unveiled throughout the week, one thing was apparent: India is no longer an AI consumer; it is now an AI producer. This was explained in the debates on Data for Development. It has a strong focus on creating models that capture the efforts of the Indian languages and culture, and utilizes the local data to drive local growth, rather than just providing data to the world’s technology giants. Start-ups presented multilingual versions used by Indian end users, and it is an apparent indication of a break with the English-focused worldview in Silicon Valley. Provide data to the world’s technology giants. Start-ups presented multilingual versions used by Indian end users, and it is an apparent indication of a break with the English-focused worldview in Silicon Valley.

Sovereign AI: A Hardware Challenge — By midweek, everything was no longer about software; it was about hardware. A national strategy, as termed by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, largely relied on processors, infrastructure, and energy grids. Then, the true scale of this ambition hit everyone: Adani threw down a staggering $100 billion commitment for renewable-powered AI data centers by 2035, while AMD linked up with TCS to build out rack-scale hardware. However, this is not merely a contest on finances but a major challenge in engineering. The problem of installing tens of thousands of GPUs in buildings during the hot Indian summer cannot be solved only with the help of advanced algorithms. It involves serious mechanical engineering, such as liquid cooling, effective HVAC systems, structural design, and a potentially solid power supply.

The Galgotias Robodog Incident — There are more than 600 start-ups and other institutions that wanted to be noticed, and shortcuts were bound to happen, and one of them became particularly dramatic. Galgotias University was known to have proudly shown off a robotic dog named Orion that they said was the result of a massive 350 crore AI project. However, this was not the case. Cunning engineers in the crowd and online quickly pointed out that the robot was a Chinese Unitree Go2, which was sold off the shelf. The consequences were swift and chaotic. The university was ousted from the exposition, and authority over the pavilion at the university was restricted. In addition to the obvious humiliation, this event acted as a wake-up call to the industry: adding software to another company and its hardware is not innovation. True robotics involves working with mechanical joints, arrays of sensors, and original engineering as opposed to a closed API of some other product.

The Moment of Digital Sovereignty, the most critical of the summit, was in Plenary Hall A on Day 4, during which Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron shared the stage. Macron was concise. He repeated the call of the Indian leaders to become digitally independent and gave the quote of the week, “I would not like to have a market where models are sold to foreign companies and the information of their people is abused.” This feeling is the foundation of the 1.1 billion-rupee state-supported venture-capital fund of deep-technology and advanced manufacturing in India. The use of foreign AI models is comparable to giving up independent trade routes. In order to achieve true digital sovereignty, the infrastructure should be built on its own.

If relying on foreign, closed AI models is akin to surrendering trade routes, the alternative heavily debated in the corridors of Bharat Mandapam was the push for ‘Open Weights’ and open-source ecosystems. For the Global South, building an economy on top of black-box models from Silicon Valley or Shenzhen is not just a data privacy risk; it is an economic bottleneck that forces local developers to pay perpetual rent to foreign monopolies. The summit made it clear that true sovereignty means possessing the blueprint, not just the API key. By championing open-weight architectures, Indian startups and engineers are empowered to tinker beneath the hood, optimizing models for specific local hardware and stripping away the bloat of Western-centric data. It is a necessary rebellion against the walled gardens of the tech giants.

Future Directions — At the end of the summit on February 20, with the ODET side events of the United Nations and discussions of the theme of ‘Reimagining Education,’ the actual lessons began to emerge. Green AI has become more than a buzzword; it is now an engineering requirement. Power and cooling are the most outstanding challenges in the pursuit to achieve smarter machines. Trillion-parameter models will not run without proper energy and cooling systems to keep them alive, to achieve smarter machines. Trillion parameter models will not run without proper energy and cooling systems to keep them alive.

To understand the true cost of these trillion-parameter models, we must look at them through the lens of political ecology. The “cloud” is not an ethereal space; it is heavily tethered to the ground, consuming massive tracts of land, gigawatts of electricity, and millions of litres of local water for HVAC and liquid cooling systems. When corporations build massive AI data centers in the Global South, it raises a critical question: who bears the ecological burden of the heat exhausted by these GPUs? True “Sarvajana Hitaya” (Welfare for All) cannot be achieved if the environmental cost of training these models — the strain on local grids and the depletion of local watersheds — is disproportionately dumped on local communities while the digital dividends flow elsewhere. Green AI is no longer just a corporate sustainability buzzword; it is a profound engineering and geopolitical necessity.

The most viable projects were not those of the well-established technology giants but those of young people’s pavilions. The YUVAi Global Youth Challenge and the AI by HER initiatives represented working prototypes of smart farming and early-warning systems. Echoing the ‘People, Planet, and Progress’ ethos of the 2026 India AI Impact Summit, these attempts prove that India’s demographic dividend of young engineers uniquely understands how to merge software and hardware for grassroots impact.

The India AI Impact Summit 2026 made one undeniable point: the Global South is here. However, when the goal is to shape the future of AI and not just take it in, the actual frontier does not exist in the cloud but in copper, silicon, and steel.

By Krishna Kunwar
ASME-VIT
Member

In recent times, the idea of a digital twin has gained considerable popularity in numerous industries, becoming a fundamental aspect of Industry 4.0. Essentially, a digital twin is a constantly updated virtual model of a physical asset, system, or process that relies on real-time data, simulation models, and analytics. This impactful tool allows organizations to oversee, forecast, and enhance their actual performance, resulting in quantifiable reductions in maintenance costs, shorter design cycles, and improved operational efficiencies.

The notion of the digital twin developed as a progressive evolution rather than a single invention. Two main threads define its beginnings: Conceptual Origin: In the early 2000s, Michael Grieves proposed the concept of an “information twin” as part of product lifecycle management (PLM). His contributions are frequently cited as the foundational basis for the digital twin concept. Operational Emphasis and NASA’s Use: NASA and aerospace professionals have long employed digital replicas for spacecraft and mission assistance. In recent years, figures like John Vickers have emphasized the importance of digital twins for virtual testing and managing complex systems.

The transition from PLM foundations to real-time, data-driven solutions has been supported by the declining costs and enhanced capabilities of sensors, connectivity, and computational power.

Digital twins arise as a means to address practical, high-value challenges that conventional methods struggled to solve effectively.

Key factors driving their necessity include:

Real-time Insight: They offer a replica of the physical asset’s current condition without requiring an on-site presence.

Predictive Maintenance: Utilizing analytics and physics/machine learning models enables forecasting failures before they occur, significantly decreasing downtime and repair expenses.

Accelerated Design & Reduced Risk: Designs can be tested in a virtual setting using realistic data, which lowers prototyping costs.

Optimization & Scenario Planning: Organizations can explore different operational scenarios without risking actual production. These drivers translate directly to financial benefits: reduced unplanned downtime, increased throughput, extended asset life, and lowered energy consumption.

The implementation of digital twins originated in heavy industries and has since grown significantly in various sectors. Key industries and organizations employing digital twins include aerospace and defence, where organisations like NASA are early adopters utilizing digital twins for virtual testing to manage the complexity and high costs associated with failures. In industrial heavy equipment and power generation, companies such as GE (through GE Digital) use digital twins for turbines and jet engines, emphasizing predictive maintenance and enhancing efficiency. The manufacturing sector is the most active in applying digital twins, with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and factories developing twins for production lines, robots, and intricate assemblies. In the automotive and electric vehicle (EV) sector, OEMs and suppliers are creating digital twins for powertrains and battery systems to streamline research and development and allow for real-time optimization while driving. Additionally, major technology firms like Siemens, Dassault, PTC, Microsoft, and IBM provide platforms and frameworks specifically designed for digital twins. It’s important to note that the challenge of integration is a larger hurdle than the lack of use cases, enabling both large multinational corporations and medium-sized manufacturers to adopt these technologies successfully.

Digital twins play a crucial role in manufacturing by enabling predictive maintenance, identifying root causes, optimizing processes, and facilitating virtual commissioning, which leads to a reduction in unplanned downtimes and enhances overall cycle times. In the energy and utilities sector, they are utilized to enhance the performance of wind turbines and power plants, as well as to improve the health of grid assets. In the automotive and electric vehicles industry, digital twins are vital for the design of batteries, monitoring operational health, and improving the efficiency and diagnostics of motors and powertrains, with research indicating their critical importance in the manufacturing and lifecycle management of electric vehicle batteries. In aerospace, digital twins are used for monitoring engine health and conducting virtual tests on flight systems, focusing on increasing availability and minimizing maintenance risks. Finally, in healthcare and medical devices, although still emerging, digital twins hold great promise for personalized medicine by creating patient-specific models that aid in planning and monitoring device performance.

Analysts foresee an exhilarating surge in the digital twin market. Industry reports highlight that the rise of digital twins will bring remarkable enhancements in operational efficiency across various sectors, underscoring their essential role in the future of digital transformation.

As industries wholeheartedly adopt digital twins, their ability to transform processes, elevate decision-making, and foster innovation establishes them as crucial assets in today’s swiftly changing technological landscape. The journey of digital twins has only just begun, and their influence is poised to grow even more profoundly in the years ahead.