3 ms·

I think it would scale fairly well, just buy a second set of pots. The thing I think lost in the discussion is that the solution is not a great one in the gene

by ms4720 15y ago

I think it would scale fairly well, just buy a second set of pots. The thing I think lost in the discussion is that the solution is not a great one in the general case and thats a given, so what. What it is is a way for lots of very poor people to have a better quality of life. Also they can do it on there own. This just might spark other very good local applications of existing knowledge to existing problems. There is plenty of knowledge out there that would improve the local living conditions, especially if that knowledge is in the hands of people who really know what the local problems are. Hopefully this will lead to other people boot strapping/rediscovering/stealing simple solution to local problems. To the people who are saying that this would not work in a rain forest, or high humidity in general. A heavy winter coat is useless in the amazon, but I am rather glad to have it in NYC during the winter.

hoprocker 15y ago
> I think it would scale fairly well, just buy a second set of pots. He's saying that you couldn't scale the individual size of the pots that much. The ratio of surface-to-volume changes dramatically as the pots get larger (squared-polynomial for surface vs cubed-polynomial for volume). Realistically, unless you are storing something which generates its own heat, the only thing affected would be the amount of time to lower the internal temperature to equilibrium, at which point the added thermal inertia of everything in the pot would help keep things at temperature. With a system like this, what you're fighting is the thermal exchange with the surrounding air, which is of the same magnitude as the vapor exchange (both are a squared-polynomial). (Anybody with a less hand-wavy understanding of thermodynamics, feel free to step in!)
- ms4720 15y ago
  I knew that, I was trying to say "So What" in a more polite way. My point was this is better then what was available before. It is a real improvement in the peoples lives who use it: more fresh food consumed, food costs go down and probably less food poisoning by trying to stretch one more day from what we have bought for dinner. It is cheap enough to be purchased and simple enough to be maintained by untrained people. This is a solid step in the better direction.

by ms4720 15y ago

hoprocker 15y ago

> I think it would scale fairly well, just buy a second set of pots. He's saying that you couldn't scale the individual size of the pots that much. The ratio of surface-to-volume changes dramatically as the pots get larger (squared-polynomial for surface vs cubed-polynomial for volume). Realistically, unless you are storing something which generates its own heat, the only thing affected would be the amount of time to lower the internal temperature to equilibrium, at which point the added thermal inertia of everything in the pot would help keep things at temperature. With a system like this, what you're fighting is the thermal exchange with the surrounding air, which is of the same magnitude as the vapor exchange (both are a squared-polynomial). (Anybody with a less hand-wavy understanding of thermodynamics, feel free to step in!)

ms4720 15y ago
I knew that, I was trying to say "So What" in a more polite way. My point was this is better then what was available before. It is a real improvement in the peoples lives who use it: more fresh food consumed, food costs go down and probably less food poisoning by trying to stretch one more day from what we have bought for dinner. It is cheap enough to be purchased and simple enough to be maintained by untrained people. This is a solid step in the better direction.