<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear Appropriate technology stovers<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>A field-based office of technology assessment<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=541 height=470 style='width:5.6333in;height:4.9in' id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image003.jpg@01D20BB4.CBBCC2D0"><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>On the left is the KG4B. It is a coal burning crossdraft stove with space heating and cooking functions.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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). <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.’<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Here is a photo of both stoves running at full power, coal stove on the left, dung stove on the right.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=367 height=707 style='width:3.825in;height:7.3666in' id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image004.jpg@01D20BB4.CBBCC2D0"><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><div id="_originalContent"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Greetings, <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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? <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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". <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There are some 500 down loadable TA's in the OTA data base. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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! <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Slow and steady wins most marathons!! <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Forgive the deja vu. I've gotten old along the way. Slow and steady also leads to the grave!<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0 width="100%" style='width:100.0%;background:white;border-spacing:0px'><tr><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;font-size:initial;text-align:initial'><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div id="_originalContent"><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Where is the OTA? Same place the rest of the government went when the Tea Party dismantled it. - Dan <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>