<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Nikhil,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your detailed answer!<br>
<br>
That's true, I am indeed painting with a broad brush. It's difficult
to generalize the "global stove sector": there are so many stoves,
so many fuels, so many locations and cooking practices. The words
"cheap" and "practical" encompass a lot of realities. Rather than
"cheap", I could have said "considered affordable by the target
populations".<br>
<br>
But I think we need to try to understand some trends, some
realities, across the stove sector, even if it means generalizing.<br>
<br>
Because we often hear: "oh, but one size does not fit all, and there
are so many realities and cooking habits". <br>
As if what was meant was: "don't bother, don't think further",
"don't try to find an answer", "all general reflection on that
matter is doomed to fail". End of conversation. <br>
No, such a reflection is not doomed to fail. There are differences
from one situation to another, there are also very strong
commonalities. Let's keep thinking.<br>
<br>
Mr Aleinikoff generalizes greatly, but at the same time, he is
right.<br>
<br>
I can confidently say that, nowadays, in the case of cooking
woodstoves for rural users: stoves that are deemed easy to use are
stoves that have a large opening, a large combustion chamber, allow
to put a lot of fuel and do little tending. The 3 stone fires among
others. That's why they are in use now. In Asia, in Africa and
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
I can confidently say that most of the time, such designs are likely
to make a lot of smoke. I think we have enough proof of that.<br>
<br>
There are of course variations, there are exceptions one could find
and bring up, but I believe that assessment to be mostly true. Now
from this assessment, I can say that also too often (I don't have
figures for that), lab stove designers will reduce usability to
increase cleanliness, and hinder chances of adoption.<br>
<br>
<b><i>Stoves or fuels in and of themselves are neither dirty nor
clean</i></b><br>
It's true that fuels, are eventually, fuels: they are meant to burn,
they can be burnt cleanly, with the right stove and conditions.<br>
<br>
But I think we can admit that some stoves are consistently clean:
the LPG stoves. Some stoves are consistently more dirty, the 3 stone
fire, unless really well operated by a very talented cook. But most
of the time, under normal conditions, we could admit that they emit
a lot of smoke. Take a super clean multi-fuel heating stove: you put
basically any fuel in it, coal, cow dung, even very wet, when you
light up the stove, in no time, a strong fire will roar. It's a
furnace, it can burn almost anything. Could we call that a "clean"
stove?<br>
<br>
Now, this clean stove is great, but it's likely very expensive for a
rural household in a tropical state of India, who doesn't need the
heating. The family will choose a "cheap" 50 INR ceramic stove. That
is "dirty".<br>
<br>
So broad brush painting and classification into "clean" and "dirty"
is unfortunate, but if I need to launch a product in India, I need
to understand large trends.<b><i><br>
<br>
when the market for stoves and fuels is properly identified - in</i></b><b><i>
terms of cooking habits and preferences, geographic factors, and
fuel and</i></b><b><i> stove costs - some stove designers have
indeed made some progress in</i></b><b><i> changing cooks'
behaviors.<br>
</i></b>I think often, the stove markets are quite well
identified. An NGO based in U.S. or in Europe, who makes a stove "to
help the population living in this village of *** in this Sahelian
country, because the deforestation rate is this much, and women need
to walk that distance" etc. Or an humanitarian agency designing a
stove for a specific ethnic group in a specific refugee camp. The
market is defined, identified. Possibly there was a market study
done. The problem is that the stove designer ignores certain
parameters. Or chooses to ignore them. "They will need to chop wood
to use our stove, but when they will see how clean and economic it
is, they will like it." Hence the failure. Because some
prerequisites haven't been taken in the original requirement list. <b><i><br>
<br>
"Cheap", "practical" and "very clean" are in the eyes of the
user; these perceptions can change and can be changed.</i></b><br>
They can change and can be changed, but to a certain extent. A 100
USD stove will always seem expensive for most of Africans,
regardless of the great marketing, or sensitization.<br>
Again, I think it is easier to change the product than the user. It
is our job to do so.<b><i><br>
<br>
(By comparison, a large number of products for solar LED
lanterns flooded the market very quickly, between 2009 and 2012,
when I stopped marveling at the design/marketing pushes.)</i></b><br>
I don't think solar LED were push marketed. I think there was a
strong demand from the users, once they were introduced to the
products. I know it for having marketed LED lanterns and stoves at
the same time in Benin. The lanterns were 3 times cheaper, and of a
higher perceived value: the customer would choose them over the
stoves everytime. This is also what thinks Tom Adamson, who is the
director of Micama Soley, in Haiti: he has sold more than 75 000
solar lanterns there (that was back in 2013). He didn't want to go
in the stove business because he felt it was a much more difficult
product to sell.<br>
<br>
<b><i>I</i></b><b><i>f you don't understand the cook, and don't
deliver a product that matches her desires and
aspirations for cooking experience, you can do as much "stove
science" as you want.</i></b><br>
I think we can understand what the cook wants. We are just not able
to design exactly what she wants, while still having a clean
product. The failure is not in the understanding, but in the
delivery. Hence the failure is in the stove science. And because we
cannot deliver, we decide to understand only partly. Cognitive
dissonance?<br>
I think this point is an extremely important point. It needs further
study. It is like the hairdresser who doesn't really know how to do
the haircut you want, does something different, and then tries to
convince you that it is what you wanted!<br>
<br>
We will understand fully the cook If we forget about our nice little
stove prototype that is sitting at the lab. Like you call it Nikhil,
the "miracle stove". If we start thinking about the miracle stove,
it is over, we will understand her partly. We will cherry pick her
answers, hear what we want to hear, and be comforted in our super
stove design.<br>
<br>
We should go to the user with a clean slate: and ask frankly what
she wants. We take all the requests, and we have the dream stove on
paper. Now what would happen if we had a magic wand? We would make
the stove appear: maybe it would be a fierce looking, big, silver,
shiny stove, clean (means not soot or ash), easy to turn the power
up or down, quick to cook, the user can put as much fuel as she
wants then proceed with her chores. Ah, and also no smoke (the cook
would put it on her list, it just wouldn't be on top).<br>
There, you have your dream product.<br>
Is it what you have prototyped at the lab? No, hum? Admit it. OK, so
then back to the lab and do more R&D!<br>
<br>
I think your 5 questions Nikhil are a great start! Stove developers
need to ask themselves, very frankly, these questions.
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Xavier<br>
</body>
</html>