[Stoves] Fw: A few footnotes about the late great Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) - back to the future?

Sat Sep 10 18:11:19 CDT 2016

Dear Mr CPP and stovers of the world,

Unite stovers of the world, unite, we have nothing to loose but our
government and bureaucratic NGO and professional "chains and fetters"

I am not sure how you are managing to get away with what you are doing
Crispin. I want to ate your guts, genius and daring.

Perhaps you have unilaterally declared your independence (in South Africa
we talked about UDI-ing!) from the World Bank and if that is the route you
have taken then more power to you my old friend.

If your handlers in the WB know what you are up to and they are either:

(i.) deliberately ignoring your bottom up, producer and user sensitive,
culture and environment responsive approach to the design of improved
stoves in Tajikistan; or  (2.) your WB colleagues are actually giving you
the space and autonomy you require to function in Tajikistan as the
seasoned AT stove scientist bringing many years of experience in different
cultures and environments every time you are “*allowed*” to collaborate
closely with local stove makers, sellers and end users... then the WB is
 deliberately or accidentally permitting you to operate as a *de
facto* *participatory
stove designer, fabricator, and tester.*

If the WB has indeed bought into what you are doing in Tajikistan then your
colleagues in the bureaucratic labyrinth of the WB deserve to be singled
out IMO for commendation because they have understood the wisdom and the
dynamics of allowing to use your stove scientist to empower local producers
and end users rather than big players and interests operating at the
national levels of the economy. You are democratizing access to your
knowledge as a stove scientists when you ensure stove producers, sellers,
and end users get a chance to fairly participate in the development of
radically improved stoves which are custom designed, produced, and
fine-tuned for particular regions, cuisines, cultures, and socio-economic
niches.

You are ‘boutique-ing’ (differentiating) the small stove/fuel/producer
economy and by so doing you are following the path pioneered more than 30
years ago by the Congressional OTA. You are applying the multi-dimensional,
inter-disciplinary technology assessment methodologies that were first
constructed to help US congressmen and women measure the costs and benefits
of competing technologies and rationally plan the future applications and
public funding of technology so that the best short and long term interests
of the full spectrum of citizens are fairly and democratically served.

You are engaging in what we might termed *participatory trans-cultural
innovation *(PTC) or maybe *participatory meta-cultural innovation* (PMC)
of tools, machines and devices including stoves, cooking utensils, fuel
preparing processes, chimneys, food drying racks, and any work in  using
the heat from the direct combustion of fuels in villages, rural peri-urban
 areas, and peri-urban zones to create value and generate income in
situations.

Once again, bravo Mr CPP for involving your collaborators in Tajikistan in
what seems to be a replication of the processes by which the OTA attempted
to democratize the potential and down stream benefits of science and
technology by making sure that all major role players and stakeholders in
the local *face-to-face* stove user/fuel supplier/producer/vendor economy
have a fair chance to define and protect their special interests. The
methodologies pioneered by OTA enabled public sector agents - responsible
for representing the interests of all role players - to crudely measure the
strength of different parameters shaping the stove/fuel/producer system and
therefore to crudely predict the political economic and cultural and
environmental dynamics going forward 10 to 50 years in the future.

Cecil Cook

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> *Dear Appropriate technology stovers*
>
>
>
> *A field-based office of technology assessment*
>
>
>
> *One of the strange things about improved stoves is the broad expectation
> that a really good stove will cost more. This is not supported by other
> technological advances so why should it be true of stoves? It should be
> possible to re-jig the materials into a form that functions in a new
> manner, offering something heretofore unattainable. There are many modern
> examples, cars being one. They are lighter and in terms of man-hours worked
> to get one, they are dropping in price. Computers are another.*
>
>
>
> *Today we took three stoves to the bazaar where there are many welding
> shops that produce stoves, particularly low pressure boilers. The response
> to the three was very positive. We received a number of offers to pay for
> the drawings. Fourteen workshops signed up to receive (free) drawings so
> they can make their own inspired by the design (still technically called
> the GTZ 7.6 but locally named the KG4B, B referring to the fact it has a
> cooking function.*
>
>
>
> *On the left is the KG4B. It is a coal burning crossdraft stove with space
> heating and cooking functions.*
>
> *In the centre is the dung burning KG1B which is the short version for
> pushing hot gases into a heating wall of length of chimney in other rooms.
> It delivers 55% of the heat into the room, the rest is sent to the chimney.*
>
> *On the right is the longer version of the same stove with a 115mm longer
> combustion chamber that holds more fuel. The grate is on top. The model is
> a KG2B. It has a large heat exchanger on the near end. It also has a flame
> tube, and a sunken draft tube inside the heat exchanger that pulls the hot
> gases from low in the box. There is a large 60 x 60 mm bleeder hole at the
> very top of that pipe, just under the top deck. This is to prevent CO
> escaping from the stove at low power and it speed the ignition. The flame
> tube serves the function of burning the CO and smoke that would otherwise
> leave the simple (primitive) combustion chamber. The inside is brick-lined
> heavy with 230x115x67 refractory bricks.*
>
>
>
> *We asked the producers that the small stove would sell for. They looked
> at the smokeless or virtually smokeless dung fire and listened to it roar
> and decided $50 was reasonable. I expressed surprise at such a high price
> and they replied, “But it is worth it!” I expect it will be $30 in
> Tajikistan, but who knows?*
>
>
>
> *So the new technology is more expensive than ‘it should be’ but they
> figured the operation is so advanced they can charge 60% more than the
> ‘real price’. That may sort itself out after a while, meaning the stove’s
> cost of production and fair markup are actually below the current model
> price, but it has so much more function and convenience, they are going to
> charge more.*
>
>
>
> *The KG4B they decided should sell for $100 without the cast iron top –
> they will prefer to make one from mild steel. I feel that is under-priced
> but that was the consensus.  It is likely to hit the market as $150 in my
> view, if it is really well made and has some water heating function (low
> pressure boiler). *
>
>
>
> *All things considered, these stove far out-perform the current models on
> certain metrics but cost about the same. The producers attributed this to
> two factors: the design is very different but the materials involved are
> the same, and the lighting of the dung stove is novel in their view. It is
> operated as an end-lit cross-draft fire starting under the middle of the
> pot. *
>
>
>
> *So what would an office of technology provide as an assessment? This
> qualifies as delivering more for the same, rather than less, which is OK,
> right?  They are definitely appropriate technologies because they can be
> made locally and offer a reduction in drudgery, which used to be viewed as
> less collection of fuel, but also means less time and attention to operate
> the stove. *
>
>
>
> *For full power and minimum power burns the KH4B runs unattended for 7
> hours on high and 15 hours on low. This was felt by the producers to be so
> significant a change in the operation that the current ubiquitous model,
> available in multiple sizes, ‘will be dead within three years.’*
>
>
>
> *So far we have enrolled 23 producers who want to make the set of new
> stoves and they will add the burner concept to all their present models,
> they said.*
>
>
>
> *Here is a photo of both stoves running at full power, coal stove on the
> left, dung stove on the right.*
>
>
>
> *High res pictures are available on request. The drawings will be posted
> in the library on my website under Stoves/Kyrgyzstan sometime in the coming
> week.*
>
>
>
> *Similar drawings are already available from the Tajikistan folder, the
> difference being a few new ideas and size alterations to fit the local
> refractory bricks which vary regionally. The 13 we used in the KG1B were
> purchased second hand at the bazaar for $0.42 each. The KG2B requires 16,
> the KG4B requires 21. The brick life is essentially indefinite. When the
> stove dies the bricks are moved to the new one.*
>
>
>
> *Regards*
>
> *Crispin*
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> These days the  Congressional Office of Technology Assessment exists only
> in the realm of memory and a searchable data base at a website in
> Princeton. ‎It was terminated in the mid 1990s by the Senate and the House
> long before the T Party during B Clinton's second term and may have been
> collateral damage caused by Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. See what
> Grand Pa Google and Wikipedia have to say?
>
>
>
> I worked briefly for OTA briefly in the late 1970's and early 80's on a
> comprehensive look at the potential contribution of appropriate technology
> - as defined by Schumacher in his big book - Small Is Beautiful. He
> convincingly argued that the design and fabrication of technos should be
> decentralized and de-scaled to the point where Communitas could
> democratically humanize technology.... thereby ensuring that TECHNOS serves
> rather than dominates humanity. The "TA" that resulted was entitled
> something like "technology for local development".
>
>
>
> There are some 500 down loadable TA's in the OTA data base.
>
>
>
> The point I was trying to make is that big or little science and it's
> methods and models can divide and antagonize or it can be used to gradually
> build an inclusive  common ground that is dynamic enough to unify and
> create useful new science and technologies that create new and fairly
> distributed wealth that is environmentally neutral and net positive for our
> species!
>
>
>
> Slow and steady wins most marathons!!
>
>
>
> I suppose the appropriate technology movement of the 1970's tried to
> administer a  stiff dose of modesty about the role of science and technos
> in perfecting human affairs. It was a methodology for reducing  the
> bureaucratic abuse of science by governmental bodies at all levels of
> organization. AT was simply about getting plain old fashioned hubris out of
> government by lowering the fantasy factor; remember Bucky Fuller talking
> endlessly about "doing more with less". Good engineering practice but not
> much comfort when there is not enough to eat.
>
>
>
> Forgive the deja vu. I've gotten old along the way. Slow and steady also
> leads to the grave!
>
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>
>
>
>
>
> Where is the OTA?   Same place the rest of the government went when the
> Tea Party dismantled it. - Dan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160910/63ff34a7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 43292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160910/63ff34a7/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33258 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160910/63ff34a7/attachment-0001.jpg>