Author Topic: What Is Low Tech? (Read 477 times)

finnsawyer · « **on:** February 26, 2006, 05:16:29 PM »

I've been trying to figure what is low tech. A wedge? An axe? Is an axe low tech compared to a chain saw? Well, I suppose so. However, I have been doing some logging and I carry an axe and two wedges with me. They help to keep the chain saw from getting pinched in the cut. So, I don't think they're low tech either. At least not operationally. Neither are the wind mills built by people using this site. What we really get is a marriage between so-called low tech and high tech. And I think that's great. We should always build on the old and find new uses for old techniques. Therefore my answer to the poll is that we need both. Both have a role in developing new things.

K3CZ · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:25:25 AM »

Fin:

You are echoing the opinion that I have espoused in my 55 yrs of engineering experience; ie, the most effective solution to technical problems is a savvy blending of the best of the old, with the most effective of the new. I (along with many others) like to call it "Appropriate Technology". In the case of information technology, the most appropriate tool may be a pencil and a piece of paper, and some "common sense".

In the case of our axial windmill generators, the whole concept did not become really practical until the development of the very hi-tech ND 40 magnet, even tho the rest of the components have been available for 50 yrs or more.

Beautifully executed project of yours; my own first 300 watt mill has been struggling to progress for nearly 2 yrs now!

Best; VAN K3CZ

terry5732 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2006, 06:06:34 PM »

I was thinking "low tech" was like getting the right layering of acid and alkali components on your sandwich and getting electrocuted through your fillings when you bite it.

Funny the government would throw so much money at fusion research and at the same time deny patents that defy Newton's entropy idea.

There are a myriad of currents (similar to wind and water and light) waiting to be tapped rather than looking for something that has to be created.

What seems the easiest is get electricity directly from the hoards flowing everywhere by the simple addition of a valve similar to a diode but working at smaller levels. Like a continuous output crystal radio capturing a multitude of wavelengths and frequencies.

nothing to lose · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2006, 11:19:25 PM »

I think the use is not the point of high tech or low tech it is more the design and work building it, how it works etc..

For instance,

Heat steel chunk over red hot coals hit with hammer, low tech and makes a nice wedge.

Build a 2 cycle engine to hold in hands and turn a chain, carburator and point ignition, medium tech chain saw?

Same saw with feul injection and electronic solidstate ignition, High tech?

Use wood fire to make steam power to run a generator, low tech.

Use nucleur reactor to do same job, high tech.

Use 2 cans and string to talk to neighbor 100' away, low tech.

Use cell phone to call friend in same store 1 aisle away, stupid but still High tech.

A wedge and an axe are both low tech, but still do a great job when needed and will at times work far better than a high tech chainsaw. Can't blow a piston on an AXE!

We need both. A microwave is high tech and good for re-heating stuff, but I still preffer my steaks over a low tech open fire

finnsawyer · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2006, 08:32:23 AM »

Let's not forget the semi-conductor diode as being a critical component for the development of the PM alternator as well as the auto alternator. It replaced and surpassed the selenium rectifier and vacuum tube rectifier, which I guess NTL would call low tech simply because they are "old" technology. But there is really nothing "low tech" about vacuum tube technology. The lowly lever could be called the lowest of "low tech", but it finds its way into all kinds of modern "high tech" machines, even in space. In application it becomes "high tech". So "high tech" becomes, in the ideal, (whatever that is), as the most effective use of all available technologies to get the job done. In short, there is no such thing as "low tech". There is only technology. Use it and enjoy it!

nothing to lose · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2006, 02:37:41 PM »

"which I guess NTL would call low tech simply because they are "old" technology. "

I don't think I implied any such thing. I consider low tech to be uncomplicated simple things most morons with a 1st grade eduction (maybe less) could still build themselfs, and also alot of other things even more advanced than that but still simple and basic.

There is nothing high tech about tying a couple cans together and pulling a string tight for a tin can "phone". You don't have to understand why it works and very small chance of failure when building it yourself at home, no fancy tools or machinary needed, no oil is used to make it. Don't have any string, use an animal tendon, don't have a can, use a chunk of wood carved out in center or a paper cone. Anything that will reflect and amplify vibration, but you don't even need to know that, just use a few things till it works. Try building a cell phone that way

The TV is still high tech, even if it is an old 1950 vacume tube set Black and White and mono sound.

A modern TV, solid state, surround sound, color, remote control, etc... is maybe more high tech.

Drawing stick figures on the corners of a book of paper and fliping the pages fast is low tech.

All 3 show a moving picture.

Burning a stick till chared or using berry juice as ink, and drawing a picture on a rock is low tech. A digital camera, computer, and photo printer would be hightech.

Writing a letter on a rock with a stick and berry juice is low tech, typing and printing it with your computer is high tech, both work just as well to leave yourself a note to remember to buy bread today.

Actaully in this case low tech is better! To type and print the note you need to turn on the PC and wait for it to load software, open a program, type the note "Buy Bread Today", wait for it to print, wait for computer to shut down. Far easier and faster to just open a bottle of stored berry juice dip a stick, write note on rock, close bottle, and no electric was needed to do it so you can still leave the note to yourself durring a power failure

How high tech is it to smash a berry and break a stick? Of course why bother when we have pencils pens and paper.

Of course I would consider some paper and sticks and a piece of string to be low tech to build a kite also, a helicoptor flying at the same height might be a bit more high tech. Both use areodynamics to fly, but to build the kite you don't even need to know that. Both could hold a high tech video camera and take video from the sky.

Use a wireless transmitter camera the size of your thumb on the kite, might be good for about 300' for the signal, video probably crap though, I saw it recently at a chain store for $74. Don't know if it's any good at all, but still hightech. I have actually thought about doing this later, either video from a kite or video from a radio controled airplane.

wooferhound · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2006, 04:08:53 PM »

A T-Shirt that I see frequently behind the stage at public events, says . . .

Backstage

where High Tech

and Low Life

Collide

finnsawyer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2006, 08:50:54 AM »

You mentioned using a forge as low tech. How about if one were to start with iron bearing sand and charcoal, and then produce a beautiful Samurai sword? Well, that's exactly how it's done. Low tech, indeed. Your examples really beg the question. Even the tin can phone requires technology to make the string and the cans. Set a "moron" out in the environment and tell him to make one out of available materials. Well, he better figure out some technology, which means he's not a moron. I stand by my conclusion that there is no point in trying to make a distinction between "low" and "high" technology. It's all in the use.

SmoggyTurnip · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2006, 11:50:52 AM »

Technology is information. When you connect 2 cans together with string it is not the cans and string that represent the technology it is the information, or know how, bluebrints etc. The lowness or highness of technology is a measure or the accessability of that info. Nuculear power is high tech even though it is old because the blueprints are hard to get. A lever is low tech cause the blueprints are available to everyone with a physics book.

ghurd · « **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2006, 12:54:07 PM »

How about this.

"Low Tech" is something you can do.

"High Tech" is something you can't do.

High tech...

I can't get a round piece made octogonal. Or Al welded. Or grass to grow on the west side of my house.

Or re-thread a nut from a bicycle hub.

Low tech...

I can make pure hydrogen from solar with crap in my basement in about 10 minutes.

Gotta clean out the basement.

G-

dinges · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2006, 12:59:59 PM »

Fully agreed. I had more or less the same answer typed out, but hit delete instead of post. Doesn't seem a very relevant or interesting discussion to me.

Technology is not a goal. It is a means, a tool, for achieving a goal.

Personally I don't care whether the technology is high or low tech (though a slight preference for low-tech), as long as the job gets done properly and reliably.

My idea was about the same as yours: low tech is technology I understand. High tech is that which I don't.

One man's low tech is another man's high tech.

Personally, the world surrounding me is way too high tech

Peter.

ghurd · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2006, 01:21:53 PM »

I was going to go for the understanding part too, but I can do a lot of stuff I don't really understand.

Why does the gas cap need turned tight past 3 clicks? Isn't one click enough? I click it 3 times anyway.

That damn bike nut is still a sore spot. How hard could it be?

Hard enough to be impossible.

G-

Phil Timmons · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2006, 07:11:43 PM »

Reason the whole jargon makes no real sense is because the Low and High Tech nonsense are Marketing Terms. Marketing as in Business Folks. As in Public Relations. As in B.S.

Not susposed to make sense, just exist to justify selling the "Next Big Thing." Only folks I have heard use them much are clueless politicians when discussing job growth (or more likely job loss) as jobs are outsourced overseas.

General usage -- We need to go "High Tech." Or we are creating "High Tech" jobs.

General meaning -- total nonsense.

nothing to lose · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2006, 10:02:40 PM »

Well yes you are correct perhaps, but in that sence of what you are saying then there is no such thing as "high tech" or "low tech", it is just all one big clump of equal tech

It does not matter and certainly not worth effort to argue over, but to me there is a world of diffence between a Cell Phone and Cans with string. I geuss it is just an opion thing based on how you look at it. Children for many years have made can/string phones from trash without knowing how or why they work, just that they do work, not many have built their own cell phones yet

Kwazai · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2006, 06:05:45 AM »

hi-tech---very expensive, very complicated, brakes often, requires lots of maintenance.

lo-tech--dirt cheap, dirt simple, rarely breaks,little to no maintenance.

fyi

Mike

dinges · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2006, 07:46:47 AM »

If you do things that you don't really know why,

then according to me, you're not mastering the technology; you are its servant/slave.

Like most users are slave to technology; when it works, we're happy, but when it stops, panic strikes. How many people you know can repair their tv when it breaks down, their car, build a house, repair it, install an electrical plug, etc.etc.

It's much more fun to be master than slave (to me); also less frustrating when things break down. But it's definitely much easier to go to the repairman when something breaks down, or buy a new replacement...

It feels much better to be master of technology and know exactly what, WHY and how you should be doing something.

This is getting a bit philosophical, I agree, but then, that's the kind of response one should expect when asking for the difference between high & low tech.

But now I've got this question in my head too: why 3 clicks instead of one. Next times I refuel this thing will be on my mind. You are evil!

Peter.

dinges · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2006, 07:52:43 AM »

Was thinking that too for a while.

Though the term is (ab)used a lot in marketing (of both companies and government, BTW), that doesn't necessarily mean it becomes meaningless or 'B.S.'

If that would be the case, any concept that would be picked up by them would, after a while, become non-sense.

I fully agree with your other comment, that using the word 'high tech' implies 'good', or at least, better than low-tech. The implicit assumption being, the higher a technology is, the better it will fulfill its task. This last conclusion is the real B.S. part, IMO.

Peter.

finnsawyer · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2006, 08:40:44 AM »

You can also become a slave to your abilities rather than a master of your environment. You end up doing things that become drudgery because you can, rather than doing the fun things, like what goes on here. The more you master things the harder it becomes to strike a balance, especially when you factor in the need to make a living.

ghurd · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2006, 11:31:20 AM »

That took me a long time to learn!

I spent a week painting a place, so had to hire an electrician and a couple helpers for a day.

Turns out, I could have done the wiring in a day and hired a painter to paint for 2 days.

It would have been cheaper, and took me 4 days less work.

G-

finnsawyer · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2006, 09:04:05 AM »

I've been building a house, which is a big undertaking. While I have hired out some of the work, most I've done myself, including the siding, wiring, and the plastic drains. In fact, the lumber for the floors and walls came from hemlock logs (8,000 bd ft) that I sawed into lumber myself. None of these jobs took only a day. As I mentioned somewhere else, I've been doing some logging (that making a living thing). That's now done, so it's back to the house when it warms up a bit. It's time to finish the insulation. Oh yeah, it was also fun when I had to go back after the electrical inspector was here and do some rewiring for the bedroom circuits. It seems the great State of Michigan now requires 'arc fault interrupters' on the bedroom circuits. Lets see, three rooms at $45 an interrupter comes to $135. One wonders if enough of those type fires occur to justify that cost.

erichtopp · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2006, 05:50:24 PM »

Low Tech is Smart Tech. It's much more reliable and cheaper. K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid.

ghurd · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:10:39 PM »

"Did you get gas yet?

Did you count the 'clicks'?

Will you go out now, remove the cap

and retighten it while counting the clicks?"

ghurd asked with an evil look.

Followed with an even more evil laugh that caused goosebumps to everyone for miles around. (miles are like kilometers, but bigger)

Do you speed skaters get goosebumps?

G-

dinges · « **Reply #22 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:28:43 PM »

Bastard!

ghurd · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2006, 07:38:37 PM »

A stressfull time, building a home.

Think about this.

If you make $10/hr sawing, and the drywall finisher makes $20/hr, but the drywall finisher can do it over twice as fast as you...

Not knocking your skill as a drywall finisher, but I would have been better off working at McD's for 100 hours to pay the drywall finisher for his 10 hours.

It would have taken less time for me, and I'd have money left over too.

ghurd, the worlds worst drywall finisher.

ghurd · « **Reply #24 on:** March 07, 2006, 07:43:58 PM »

Go Orange!

finnsawyer · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2006, 09:18:51 AM »

I should have replied to this sooner. I'm probably the world's second worst drywall finisher then. I will NOT finish the drywall for the house. I will, however, install it. The big problem with this doing it yourself is that you never see the money you saved. When I did the siding, I probably saved $1800. Big deal. The bills still needed to be paid. And it wasn't really much fun handling twelve foot pieces of siding on a ladder on a two story house in February. Well, there was no mortgage payment. Still, it's not the same as working for the man and getting a paycheck. I really do prefer those activities that bring in money.

Since this will probably be my last comment on this thread, I would like to thank all those who responded. Some interesting and insightful comments.

ffoegw · « **Reply #26 on:** March 16, 2006, 11:19:40 AM »

I think you're right fin,

The reason my mini vawt was built is due to my considering how sail boats move against the wind and wondering why I couldn't find anyone using the same principles to generate electricity.

If low tech really means its an older technology and high tech means its newer the sail boat meets wind turbine makes a case for what you have stated above.

regards

Geoff

News:

Author Topic: What Is Low Tech? (Read 477 times)