THINKING ABOUT LENR AND THE DIKW SCALE.

A fundamental concept: Data-Information-Knowledge- Wisdom- it is usually called a pyramid –see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_Pyramid :

a lot of philosophy is grafted on it so it can be made quite subtle. I have used it for years in a pragmatic form, based on the principle: everything (science, technology, project, human etc)

must climb as high as possible on the DIKW scale. Even higher than possible- the genius of Arthur C. Clarke has added P from Prediction to the DIKW scale, as the peak of intellectual creativity and activity... A generous supporter of Cold Fusion who knew it’s not cold and it’s not fusion. He was aware of my predictions- CF will prevail as catalysis using the “technology-first” strategy – however this was then just wishful speculation. And only an unprofessional prophet gives too many details.

LENR has many problems with the DIKWP scale, it’s climbing is risky and with the speed of a snail on emery paper- so many obstacles are on the way.

DATA  

Data are obtained by measurement. LENR obtains its data with effort and sacrifices, the efforts consume resources; focusing too much on obtaining the data leads to the sacrifices of their processing in superior cognitive entities. More simply LENR workers are so busy with measurement that they cannot improve the data. Mother Nature gives barely audible answers to our scientific questions.

When I still thought that it is possible to improve the data in electrolytic PdD cells, I called this “measurement first!” practice and orientation: “metrologomania” thinking it is erroneous strategy. Now I believe it is the unique possible way to go- technologically- nowhere and scientifically in small circles always back to the starting point. In wet cells- deep degassing is impossible- so Energetics’ legendary cathode 64 will remain for ever the Everest of electrolytic cold fusion performance.

For the commercial high intensity LENR+ generators measurement, processing of data, control and automation will be a vital and – let’s say- splendid task of engineering

INFORMATION

It is uneasy to structure bad data; the usual practice in research is to try to compensate the quality with quantity.

It is an urban legend that I met at many teams: if you make

many measurements the average value MUST be the real correct one. It is a pathologic variant of the Wisdom of Crowds In LENR the number of experiments is further increased due to the bad reproducibility; beyond the best and most sensitive methods of measurement a great number of experiments show the absence of excess heat. This is the 1000th time that I say this is due to incontrollable gas poisoning of the active sites; why should I be more convincing now than before?

KNOWLEDGE

In 25+ years a lot of knowledge i.e. actionable information has been accumulated for LENR. So many good books had been published about it, many hundreds of papers- vast knowledge!

May I take this opportunity to tell you that I am just reading

Jean Paul Biberian’s book (in electronic form, the only readable for me): “Cold Fusion in all its forms”- simply enchanting- a book with spirit, very personal and cultural

a masterpiece of good scientific writing. Obviously I will make a presentation of it in my blog when it is read and reread.

Back to knowledge in DIKWP and back to the ‘70ties- I have then stated for my laboratory the principle of “total documentation” that is if your are doing research for X, you must try to know everything about X- papers, books, patents,

reports, abstracts, grey literature plus implicit, tacit knowledge by collaboration relations with peer researcher from anywhere. X for me happened to be polyvinyl chloride – a very good choice because it was a product of strategic importance

when PVC has a cold, all economy sneezes- therefore we were relatively free to communicate, to ask preprints  and even to visit PVC factories I knew “everything” about the product.

Now Ed Storms says something similar about LENR- he has written two great books and has done many experiments. But it is a difference, there was nothing mysterious or hidden with PVC – product and process are well cognoscible, manageable,

and the way to continuous progress is visible. We had many nasty problems but they were not intractable as reproducibility

Possibly it is not more sufficient to know everything about LENR, the many fragments of knowledge are not additive, and we have to take seriously the poet’s perfidious questions:

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?”  (T.S. Eliot)

Is the LENR we have not the LENR we need and can use?

This morning I have read about “pet theories” (in the context of mathematical education) and this has lead me to think about

the dog fight organized with LENR theories that are all unable

to give meaning and sense to LENR knowledge. And suddenly I

asked myself what has happened with the once very vocal and imperialist theory of Widom and Larsen that has completely mesmerized my former good friend Steve Krivit? What has this fine non-nuclear theory produced, what development problems has it solved? Is there a technology coming? BTW I have defended it here against the collective attack of a pack of nuclear LENR theories.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/03/why-so-much-hostility-against-widom.html

WISDOM

In the practice of research and development wisdom is the ability to build a synthesis, to create a great vision both holistic and holographic of a scientific-technological field.

I think – based on a long experience- that Management is the fastest and most creative human activity. We knew about the “knowledge worker” introduced by Peter Drucker. Recently

it was stated that the best of these people should become “insight workers”  

Insight is equal to “deep understanding” and in LENR we are still so much on the surface. Our first “insight worker” is hiding somewhere, possibly.

PREDICTION

LENR will prevail and conquer the world but then it will be not more known as LENR.

Tomorrow I will write about what says DIKW about Rossi’s

Second Independent Report. I hope it will not happen to be published tomorrow because then you could see immediately how flawed and naïve my analysis is.

Peter