[Stoves] Steps in the R&D of improved stove technologies

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

Where does this come from?

By now, there is more than 50 years of work on "technology development" in
both business schools and engineering schools. I remember Ray Vernon's work
at the Harvard Business School in the 1960s, linked to international
competitiveness and "product cycle" theory.

"Technology policy" and "science policy" also started as disciplines around
then, and then became rather too complex to have such reductionist list you
have put out. There are fundamental questions about meaning of presumably
simple terms like "product" and "market", and a context of history,
politics, psychology.

Let me just say that we don't even have an agreement on what constitutes a
stove, what purposes it serves, and what is meant by "improvement", other
than the engineering silliness about "thermal efficiency".

Please, please, get over this. It has no general relevance.

It may, if you deign to explain a context.

Every "step" model has certain seductive appeal. Leave it to models on
catwalks. I could take every single sentence of this and work through a few
technological innovations I have watched rather closely - FGD, solar PV for
home and grid markets, and some appliances, like LED lanterns and
lightbulbs. (Electronic controls and data response are another set
altogether. Sometimes, as with electric motors and turbines, the primary
technology that makes the radical difference is lost sight of, and B-school
marketing types revel in the novelty of a product as marketed, not the
science behind it.)

Nikhil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*



On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:28 PM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Friends
>
> This is an interesting list of "stages" that a new technology goes
> through. You could use it to track the progress of your own efforts.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> ++++++
>
> Should R&D Funding be provided? If so, under what conditions?
>
> Technologies close to market require different support mechanisms (e.g.
> tax breaks) from those far from reaching the market. Also, technologies
> which offer little prospect of becoming commercial within say a generation
> (i.e. 25 years) must offer some revolutionary potential, not just
> incremental, to justify early stage R&D funding.
>
> If a technology will commercial viability by 2020, that implies it
> requires no further public support for R&D as prototypes exist or will do
> so shortly. Bringing such technologies to market may require much
> engineering work, but this is an investment decision, not an R&D funding
> decision.
>
> Stages
>
>   1.  technology concept formulated [such as a new combustor with reduced
> cost and equal performance]
>   2.  experimental proof of concept
>   3.  technology validated in lab
>   4.  technology validated in relevant environment (relevant domestic or
> commercial environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
>   5.  technology demonstrated in relevant environment (relevant domestic
> or commercial environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
>   6.  system prototype demonstration in operational environment
>   7.  system complete and qualified/approved for public sale
>   8.  system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing
> in the case of key enabling technologies, or in space)
>
> Commercial viability depends on public acceptance and uptake under local
> market conditions.
>
> ______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190823/748f298c/attachment.html>