[Default] On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 23:54:56 -0500,Paul Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thank you Richard and Andrew, > >I agree with your comments below EXCEPT that you did not change the >Subject line. And therefore List readers who are fed up with the >oceanic acidity discussion are unlikely to have read your comments. By >the way, I did NOT read those messages. But I do read whatever Andrew >and Richard contribute to the Listserv. Nice one Paul, I'm always up for a discussion on general issues but wish to keep the stoves list on topic. In fact Richard was commenting on a point Paul Olivier made that designing for the have nots was easier for designing for the more affluent who already have access to better technology and it's a good point. The first model T ford was a crude device but took off because it was a game changer, look what sophistication is built into a car now before we are tempted to by one. Even the stove improvements we have seen since the inception of the list don't seem to gain rapid uptake. > >I am glad that affluent societies financially supported cell/mobile >phone development. A great example of trickle down technology coming >rather quickly. But it reached the poor societies because business >found that it could make money off of the needs of poor people to also >communicate. Yes and there are obvious reasons for this, the infrastructure was cheaper because the technology leapfrogged the need to a wired network but the driving force was opening up a larger market for the technology providers to profit from. I'm fascinated by the way some ideas and technology do take off, look at Microsoft's windows becoming so ubiquitous or even more recently Google or Face book, yet others which seem so desirable struggle. > And microchips etc are really inexpensive. We are >unlikely to see similar benefits relating to cookstoves. Any thoughts on why this should be? Richard Stanley and Cecil Cook have provided some insights into how the customers view new technology but I'm too far out of the loop to comprehend some of this. I've been struggling to keep up with my paid work so have not done things that I wanted to develop with stoves. My thoughts were on the need to address a fundamental drawback biomass stoves have when compared with gas stoves, the fact that a gas stove burns hotter and hence the delta T across the pot is so much greater. As burning wood cleanly inevitably requires excess air which drops the flame temperature it seems inevitable that we must provide more heat exchange area for the pot to compete, and as Crispin frequently points out avoid excess (dilution) air bypassing the flame to make this delta T even lower. AJH _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
