The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

Ingrid-Maria Gregor, Chair, and Adam Bernstein, Chair and Deputy, of the 2014 IEEE-NSS (Nuclear Science Symposium Conference), DENY TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE by rejecting a workshop that would let scientists question each other in a public forum on how their project/idea/invention compares to other projects in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments. This is damaging taxpayers by covering up indisputable scientific knowledge  proving that a) $50 billion was wasted in the past 20 years, b) $30 billion will be wasted in the next 10 years and c) humanity will be denied benefits from advancements in science to protect the power and money interests of a few.

Dialogue
The proposed workshop is designed to implement a scientific procedure to make the scientific truth emerge by allowing senior scientists, which should include representatives from CMS, Atlas, LHCb and ALICE experiments, Crosetto, young scientists, PhD students, and anyone else who has ideas/projects/inventions challenging the mainstream approach described in CERN official documents, to present their approaches for 5 to 10 minutes and leave two hours for discussion among the scientists who may question each other in public.

The reasons given by I. Gregor’s and A. Bernstein’s for their rejection of transparency in science with the proposed workshop are (see the original text of Gregor and Bernstein rejection):

a) that in their opinion the results of the ATLAS and CMS experiments “are not inconclusive at all”,

b) that “There is no replacement of the trigger planned for the near future”,

c) that they do not see in the proposal “details of a specific approach, technology, or focus topic area”,

d) that in their opinion the proposal “is lacking the detailed description of the proposed technology to reduce costs”.

Crosetto, after receiving on May 10, 2014, I. Gregor’s and A. Bernstein’s rejection to his proposed workshop, rebutted their rejections point-by-point in a 26-page letter dated June 30, 2014. A copy of their correspondence over the past ten months was also sent to a number of prominent scientists, leaders in the field, funding agencies and philanthropists who support advancements in science, and to the media, in particular the 39 journalists who wrote favorable reviews of the movie “Particle Fever”. The recipients of Crosetto’s June 30 letter are included at the end of this document, while the original list of all correspondence is available in pdf version also available at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf.

Because of the great benefits to humanity from TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE when the scientific truth emerges, we can only hope that I. Gregor and A. Bernstein will reconsider the evidence described in Crosetto’s letter dated June 30, 2014, which supports his claim of the benefits to the advancement in science that would be gained by allowing scientists to question each other in a public forum in his proposed open, public workshop at the largest scientific conference in the world gathering about 2,500 scientists.

Should they continue to deny this unique opportunity for scientists to question each other in public at the largest scientific conference in the world, there can be no other alternative but for those who believe science should be based on the effort to understand the laws of nature and not to conceal, crush, and deny advancements, to report to all funding agencies, philanthropists and taxpayers who are funding these scientists, the misconceptions, wrongdoings, and deliberate actions designed to deceive and cheat the public by hiding scientific evidence, so they will become aware that the most important problems to address in science are corruption and noncompliance with the code of ethics for a scientist.

The following is a synthesis of Crosetto’s answer to Gregor and Bernstein’s four rejection points that are detailed in the following 26 pages.

a) It is not true that results from ATLAS and CMS experiment “are not inconclusive at all”. Indeed, it is confirmed that results are inconclusive by data and statements from the same scientists who claim the discovery of the HIGGS boson. The letter below provides the detailed evidence, a few are given here: 1) CMS and Atlas measured two different values for the same phenomenon in nature, CMS measured 125.3 GeV, ATLAS measured 126.5 GeV. Clearly one of the two measurements is wrong or both are wrong. 2) The LHC accelerator produced more than 1,000 trillion collisions, the Higgs boson is predicted to happen once in every 10 billion events, so 100,000 Higgs boson events were produced by LHC. Atlas and CMS claim to have captured 40 each out of 100,000. Can this be called “efficient” instrumentation costing billions of dollars? 3) Sridhara Dasu, a leader at CMS, states in slide 51 of his presentation to the scientists on January 9, 2013, that more data should be acquired in 2015-16 before confirming the nature of the new particle found, and he states that “If it is not the Standard Model like Higgs, it will be even more exciting!” 4) The statement made by theoretical physicist Savas Dimopoulos in the movie “Particle Fever” that he is waiting for more detailed measurements before making a stronger statement regarding the identity of the new boson, confirms there is a problem with the alleged discovery, 5) a similar statement is made  by Arkani-Hamed in the same movie who states: “The multiverse in one side and some beautiful symmetry on the other side. It’s cranking up the suspense as much as it can.” Clearly, also he is expecting more conclusive results that will end the “suspense.” Despite these scientists, even from CMS and Atlas experiments, stating the need for more data before conclusive results can be made, CERN Management such as S. Bertolucci, CERN Director of Research, told the public they have discovered the Higgs boson. Perhaps taxpayers should read Bertolucci’s explanation of the inconsistencies that Crosetto pointed out during a 90- minute meeting to realize that the issue is not science but the lack of honesty and integrity of scientists in whom the public place their trust.

b) It is not truthful the statement “There is no replacement of the trigger planned for the near future”. This statement is refuted by several CERN official documents and by public declarations at scientific conferences by leaders of CMS and Atlas experiments. Here are a few: 1) The front page of the CMS Technical Designed Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade published on August 1, 2013, ISBN 978-92-9083-390-1 CERN-LHCC-2013-011, states: “To meet these requirements the electronics for the calorimeter, muon and global trigger systems will be replaced.  The upgraded trigger system is planned to be available for CMS data taking from the start of the 2016 LHC run.” 2) Leaders of the main experiments at CERN stated at the 2013 IEEE-NSS conference that the Level-1 trigger will be replaced as reported in their slides presented at the conference. For example, during the NSS-N5-4 presentation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, Atlas L1 Trigger states in slide 16: “no change to the detector is needed. Full replacement of front-end and back-end electronics” was needed instead. This was not because of aging radiation limits. The limitations of the current Atlas trigger were admitted.

c) Crosetto’s workshop proposal states very clearly “details of a specific approach, technology, or focus topic area”. In fact, Crosetto’s proposed workshop states clearly that had the specific topic area, which would have allowed all scientists to question each other in public on their proposed solution, been adopted during the past 20 years, it would have saved $50 billion and would have been a powerful tool for finding conclusive results. If adopted now it would reduce the risk of wasting an additional $30 billion during the next 10 years when the LHC plan to upgrade their detectors. The following is the sentence reported in Crosetto’s proposal for a workshop that focuses on a very important topic area that would maximize the discovery of new particles and reduce HEP costs: “Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good events as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be changed at a later date after first data taking, with the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels with no boundaries, to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.” The project/idea/invention that is best answering this sentence and satisfying these requirements will maximize the power of a detector instrumentation to capture and accurately measure all characteristics of any new particle lowering at the same time the cost of the experiments to the minimum.

d) The rejection claim that it “is lacking the detailed description…” is false and pretentious. Compared to the descriptions of previous workshops, Crosetto’s workshop descriptions are far more detailed. For example, looking at the descriptions of the eight workshops from the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, the structure of the announcements in general consisted of three standard sentences similar for all workshops and four to six one-line bullet points. Specifically, three descriptions for workshops consisted of two paragraphs, while others adopted the standard three paragraphs with four bullet points and a fifth stating “Any other related topic”. Some had one or two sentences with a specific description related to the proposed workshop. In comparison, Crosetto’s description consisted of ten paragraphs which included three of the standard form, and four of the ten specifically addressing “The reason”, “The need”, “The scope” and “The benefits”.

Ingrid Gregor and Adam Bernstein in the last line of their rejection letter state: “…and you are of course welcome to submit an abstract to the NSS for an oral or poster presentation.”

Crosetto submitted the abstract.  However, for the same reason they denied the implementation of scientific procedures that would prove the correct understanding of the laws of nature, they also rejected Crosetto’s abstract using words having the standard political motivation and which have been repeated for many decades to those who are not accepted by the “Circle of Friends”: “As we had 802 abstracts submitted to the conference we were unable to accommodate all abstracts in our program”. Is this a scientific reason for rejecting a paper?

The following is an excerpt from Crosetto’s letter dated June 30, 2014 which provides more supporting evidence to his request for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE that would advance science for the benefit of humanity.

(Table of Content is at Page 31, the pdf version of this document at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf)

June 30, 2014

To: Ingrid-Maria Gregor Chair and Adam Bernstein Co-Chair of 2014 IEEE-NSS

This letter is to bring to your attention the importance of implementing public scientific procedures to make the scientific truth prevail regarding innovations in particle detection.  Without such transparency, there will continue to be negative repercussions in the advancement of science, not only for the discovery of new particles, but also in saving lives through early detection of cancer and other diseases when applied to medical imaging. This letter is being sent to a number of world leaders in the field of science and others who have publicly declared they care about making a better world for humanity, as well as to the media who have taken the responsibility to provide the public with information when it is in their best interest and benefit.

There is a need for a paradigm shift in the scientific culture. The enormous cost to taxpayers and society of over $50 billion and 20 years of work by over 10,000 professionals working on CERN’s largest, most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, and now a request for an additional $30 billion over the next 10 years, and the loss of over 100 million premature lives, many of which could have been saved with an effective early diagnosis achievable with the invention in particle detection described herein, calls for cooperation among all of us in discussing the technical issues in an open, public workshop.

Letter in response to Ingrid-Maria Gregor, Chair and Adam Bernstein, Co-Chair of the 2014 IEEE-NSS Conference (see Gregor-Bernstein original letter, below at the end of this letter), refusing the implementation of a public workshop for political reasons on November 9, 2014 to make the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail by the title: “How does your project/idea/invention compare in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” Specifying the procedure of the workshop as: “It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual…”

Dear Ingrid, Adam, organizers of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference and those who care to advance science for the benefit of humanity:

1. Political answer denying a scientific procedure which addresses important specific technical issues

Ingrid and Adam, you have given a political answer denying a scientific procedure which addresses important, specific technical issues that have cost taxpayers $50 billion, wasted 20 years of work by 10,000 scientists, and provided inconclusive results caused by using a poorly designed Level-1 Trigger.

The current Level-1 Trigger using the ‘threshold technique’ which is inadequate to fully satisfy specific requirements of experimental physicists to measure the characteristics of the expected particle by accurately measuring energy, charge, decay in other particles, etc.; instead they should have used “a programmable object pattern recognition techniqueinvented [[1]] 22 years ago (see 11 minutes video [[2]]) and designed specifically to solve this problem [[3]].

The Level-1 Trigger has the task to select one out of 10,000 best candidates that meet the characteristics of the expected new particle. Then one out of 1,000 of these best candidates are selected by other units before recording the event onto disks at a rate of 100 per second.

A faulty Level-1 Trigger recording one garbage event leaves the desired particle among the 9,999 rejected events. The desired particle is thrown away with the 9,999 rejected events by the inadequate Level-1 Trigger and cannot be brought back, and all other units of the detector instrumentation will analyze garbage data.

The invention I refer to breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications and was officially recognized valuable by a formal major scientific review held at FERMILab [[4]] in 1993 and by several other international reviews and peer-reviewed articles. Yet decision-makers like yourselves would rather crush innovations by prohibiting procedures which would make the scientific truth emerge rather than call into question mistakes made by Atlas and CMS (who are responsible for the billions of dollars and time wasted) because you deem this “crude.” (See below communication on April 30, 2014).

1.1 It is dishonest to conceal the truth from the public and deceive them by disguising evidence of failure as a celebration of discovery.

These are serious violations that go against the code of ethics [46] for scientists, damaging taxpayers by stealing their money, preventing them from receiving the benefits from the advancement of science, damaging the scientific field and their honest colleagues who will lose the trust of taxpayers all together unless they single out dishonest scientists and ask them to resign.

Scientists’ responsibility becomes much more serious when it can be proven, as in this case, that the damage from obstructing the truth and obstructing the advancement in science goes beyond their incompetence, because they were aware for years of a technical solution that could have saved millions of dollars and lives when used in medical applications, and yet deliberately chose to ignore the science, chose to let people die, preferring to implement a different agenda against science and against the truth, with catastrophic consequences.

This case will fall under criminal investigation like the case of General Motors for the 13 people who died needlessly, or for the criminal investigation [[5]] of CPRIT (Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas) which forced all leaders, including two Nobel Laureates, to resign because they were using millions of taxpayer dollars, violating their own rules. In the following, I illustrate two examples of evidence of failure turned into a celebration of success. See also the list of statements [[6]] by other scientists who violated the ethics of science.

1.1.1.   Example No. 1:

Although the truth is concealed from the public, admission of failure can be extracted from scientific and technical documents. Many scientists (including those from the experiment claiming the discovery, e.g. Sridhara Dasu [[7]]) admit in technical documents that current detector instrumentations (CMS and Atlas) fail to provide detailed measurements and need to acquire more data in 2015-2016. Also, theoretical physicist, Savas Dimopoulos, states that he is waiting for more detailed measurements in order to make a stronger statement regarding the identity of the new boson.

The Technical Report for the Level-1 Trigger upgrade [[8]] on page 13, first paragraph of section 2.2.1, clearly states that the “trigger threshold” technique used in the current detector cannot provide those detailed measurements and it is therefore necessary to replace the Level-1 Trigger with the capability to execute “object identification algorithms“.

Clearly all of this (and many other technical arguments and documents) prove that CMS and Atlas detector instrumentations have been a failure as they have been unable to perform accurate measurements. There is also evidence that the capability to execute ‘programmable object identification algorithms’ at the high data rate of the Level-1 Trigger was invented 22 years ago.

The invention underwent a formal scientific review in 1993 at FERMIlab where it was recognized valuable by top scientists in the field, then was published in several articles [[9]] including a 45-page peer-reviewed article [[10]], and finally proven feasible and functional in hardware.

Even with all this supporting evidence it was ignored by decision makers in the field and on several occasions was even prevented from being presented at conferences or discussed publicly with those like you and other experts who made the decisions regarding the direction spending $50 billion should take which drove 10,000 people in the direction of wasting their time.

1.1.2. Example No. 2:

The evidence of failure of the 50 melted LHC magnets on September 19, 2008, was turned into a celebration of success on October 21, 2008, with the participation of delegates from 38 countries. What could be better evidence of failure than 50 melted magnets, the disappearance of 7 tons of liquid helium, the blown away doors of the LHC tunnel, millions of dollars in damage, and a 14-month delay, etc.?

Turning this into a champagne celebration of success on October 21, 2008, shared with delegates from 38 countries, is a violation of the most basic ethics of a scientist [46], as it is a denial of scientific evidence.

Clearly CERN Director General, Robert Aymar, has responsibilities that will appear in the history books when he is seen as not complying with the ethics of a scientist, not recognizing the failure, not calling off the celebration, but instead attempting to deceive the public by misrepresenting scientific evidence.

1.2. This request is not for a political workshop but for a legitimate discussion of technical, scientific issues for the advancement of science, in the interest of taxpayers, and to benefit humanity.

You and your colleagues have a responsibility to taxpayers to be competent and transparent.  You did not seek out and identify the most cost-effective scientific solutions, so you find yourselves at the same fork in the road as 20 years ago.

You have identified the same problem that needs to be solved – to build a detector instrumentation with a Level-1 Trigger capable of implementing “object pattern recognition algorithms” coping with high speed, high luminosity, and to resolve pile-up events. In your e-mail you did not explain the key features of your solution but did say you and your colleagues would use FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), which is very generic, like saying that you will solve a problem with a computer.

By approving the workshop, senior scientists, young scientists, PhD students, myself and those who built the old Level-1 Trigger or wrote the new TDR Level-1 Trigger upgrade, could contribute their ideas/projects. A public discussion should follow where authors can question each other on the merits of their science to clarify which system among all those presented is more advantageous.

An honest, open discussion among scientists who have a specific problem to solve can only help society achieve the goal of confirming the existence of new particles more economically and in a shorter time.

For example, I would like to hear from you and your colleagues how you intend to cope with higher luminosity, how you intend to resolve pileup issues, and how you intend to use FPGA. I am fully confident that the invention [1] from 22 years ago could resolve pileup issues by executing an “object pattern recognition algorithm” that would detect the change in slope of a signal, typical of a pileup showing two peaks nearby. The system could sustain higher luminosity and there is evidence that it has a higher performance and a lower cost than FPGAs. Why take the chance of making another poor choice that could once again lead to millions of wasted dollars and years of wasted work again?

By prohibiting the implementation of these scientific procedures I will feel obligated to disclose to the world the implications of crushing scientific procedures. If a proposed solution is found to be superior and more cost-effective than others, it should be funded to prove its feasibility in hardware before committing to a billion dollar project, not adopting another solution that did not go through this scientific procedure, only to find out later that it does not solve the problem.

A public discussion with experts could clarify which system among all those presented is more advantageous.

Following the same path as the past 22 years and repeating the same experience where decision makers in science refuse to provide scientific answers in public workshops will reap the same detrimental results of wasting time and money and will let many people die that could have been saved with innovations. Comparing proposed solutions in an open, public workshop will obligate all authors to comply with science in providing scientific answers that everyone can evaluate how solid those are.

1.3. Leaders in the field now ask taxpayers for $30 billion over the next 10 years

In your e-mail you have already stated that the budget for this upgrade has been approved. However, if these leaders refuse to implement, open, public, transparent scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the advancement of science and for the benefit of humanity prevail, honest scientists, taxpayers, and government representatives from different countries, should insist that CERN, research centers, universities and all entities among the 12,000 people working on this project receive no more funding. All funding should be stopped until the management and influential people responsible for ensuring the implementation of ethical science and scientists are replaced by honest ones with proven integrity and dedication to science and who will serve the interests of humanity.

There are many good and honest scientists out there who deserve to celebrate the success of their research. They should stand up for what is right, take positions of responsibility, and drive away the corruption and dishonesty. Scientists who feel their actions are not following ethical science should be honest enough to resign, thus saving investigators the effort of unveiling evidence that will force them to resign as in the case of the two Nobel Laureates at CPRIT [5].

1.3.1. The need for accountability

Here are some shocking figures beyond the failure of wasting money in building an inefficient Level-1 Trigger that provided inconclusive results while the technology to obtain conclusive results has been available for more than two decades. Should taxpayers and their Government Representatives trust the same scientists who deceived them and who are now asking over $30 billion for the LHC project upgrade for the next 10 years?

Sources are provided to check these figures: Dividing the total cost of CERN personnel for the year 2012 of $594.6 million by 2,512 of staff employees, we arrive at the average cost per CERN employee of $236,703 (which includes Applied Physicists, Craftsmen, Engineers, Technicians and Administrative Personnel etc.). (See figures from CERN annual report [[11]]. Although each CERN employee receives a smaller monthly amount, this is the cost to taxpayers which also includes employee healthcare benefits and retirement, etc.).

CERN personnel cost in 2012 was 55.1% of the total annual budget of $1.07 Billion. This represents an increase from the 38.6% CERN personnel cost of the total budget in 2003 where the average cost per employee was $178,300 as reported at page 13 of ref [[12]].

Add the cost for ten years to upgrade the LHC and its related detector instrumentation of (a) $18 billion – the cost of 12,080 employees working on the LHC projects who are paid by home universities, research institutes, and agencies, etc., of different countries at $150,000 average per year, (b) $10 billion – CERN’s annual operating cost of approximately $1 billion per year; (c) $2 billion – the estimated cost to upgrade the detector instrumentations, this totals $30 billion over the ten years.

Many taxpayers have difficulty paying their bills and are forced to make sacrifices. Although most of them do not understand the technical details of the Level-1 Trigger in a $50 billion project that has the task to select one “pearl” out of 10,000 particles from thousands of data arriving in parallel at a billion events per second, they can understand the honesty of a transparent public debate, where leaders in the field invite all experts in the field and do all they can to find a more cost-effective approach to obtain valuable unambiguous results so as not to repeat the same 20-year mistake.

2. A detailed response to Ingrid-Maria Gregor and Adam Bernstein

For each e-mail I received from you, Ingrid, I was particularly attentive to your words, concerns and requests. I addressed your issues with precise technical, scientific arguments, in keeping with the ethics of science and to render a service to humanity. However, it seems each time you have neither taken notice of my answers, nor were you really interested in addressing in depth, the argument you raised in order to focus on understanding the laws of nature, but rather used a political answer to open another issue as an excuse to deny the request of implementing an open, public, scientific procedure for the scientific truth to prevail.

By continuing in this manner, with you opening an argument and then seemingly not being interested to discuss your argument, instead jumping to a new argument, the time it takes to understand the laws of nature, the precise measurements of all characteristics of new particles such as the Higgs boson, will drag on for another 20 years with an enormous amount of money and time wasted. All the while, the solution that would have saved billions of dollars, in advancing science in the discovering of new particles and its derived applications including saving lives through an effective early cancer detection, was available 22 years ago.

2.1. Chronological list of walls you put up but fail to address

Below, I summarize the essence of your remarks and requests, followed by my answers, and I urge you to address each one of them and answer all additional questions, which are not intended for me but for the taxpayers, philanthropists, and all those who support research and trust scientists who comply with the code of ethics for scientists.  I am working on their behalf, identifying the inconsistencies that are obstructing the implementation of the workshop I have proposed which asks all senior scientists, who conceived the best ideas, those who spent most of the taxpayers money and young scientists and PhD students to work together to identify the most cost-effective solution that would solve the Level-1 Trigger problem and ultimately problems for humanity.

I present here chronologically our communication exchange. Because you hold a position of responsibility to address these issues, please address each issue in depth and let me know if my answer is satisfactory, rather than ignoring it and skipping to another issue, avoiding and denying the implementation of scientific procedures:

1. On April 17, 2014, Crosetto sent an e-mail to about 40 leaders in the field asking permission and guidance to organize workshops within the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference: “How does your project/idea/invention compare to other projects in advancing science in the discovery of new particles and in reducing cancer deaths, and how can it reduce costs in both applications?” (see below the e-mail dated April 17 which details the proposed workshop).

On April 29, 2014, Crosetto receives an answer from Adam Bernstein: “Based on the information below, the topic does appear to be potentially relevant for a cross-cutting workshop within NSS-MIC. My concern…” and a link to examples of announcements of workshops at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference that could help draft a formal request.

To overcome Adam’s concern, and in consideration of the response Crosetto received on April 25, 2014, from the Chairman of the MIC conference, Georges El Fakhri: “We are currently in the phase of considering workshops for MIC 2014 so it is a good time to discuss,” Crosetto suggested splitting it into two, half-day workshops, one for NSS and one for MIC, suggesting the following title for NSS: “How does your project/idea/invention compare to other projects in advancing science in the discovery of new particles and reducing the cost of HEP experiments?

2. On April 30, 2014, 09:59 am. NSS Chairman, Ingrid-Maria Gregor had a different opinion than her Deputy NSS Chairman, stating in a phone conversation that she had read Crosetto’s e-mail the night before and believes “this is not really in the scope of the conference“; she underlines that “this is an instrumentation conference. We are really looking into new technical developments, new results on how to solve technical problems. So it’s really a technical conference and attendees are more interested in -how can I make my detector better…”, and states four times that Crosetto’s description, instead of being relative to instrumentation, sounded “political“, like suggesting to ask “Where did Atlas make mistakes?” sounded to her a relatively “crude” statement. The reader of this document can verify below, by reading Crosetto’s e-mail dated April 17, 2014, that it was not political but technical, inviting experts to discuss about technical solutions. Nevertheless, Crosetto promised to provide references to publications he made that would demonstrate his work to be scientific and related to instrumentation. Unfortunately, in the following e-mail, Ingrid did not comment on Crosetto’s scientific work.

3. On May 2, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Crosetto provided Ingrid references to a 45-page peer-review article [10] describing the new concept for accurately capturing and measuring characteristics of any new particles which also included detailed implementation that he published in the prestigious, scientific journal, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Crosetto informed Ingrid that he proved his concept in hardware, building modular electronic boards [[13]] that would allow the building of programmable Level-1 (or Level-0) trigger systems for detectors of any size and complexity. Besides expecting Ingrid to comment on what she understood of Crosetto’s new concept on improving instrumentation for HEP and her evaluation of his article, Crosetto also asked Ingrid to comment on the sentence that is a stimulus to any researcher on improving instrumentation for HEP. However, no comments were received from Ingrid on Crosetto’s inventions for improving HEP instrumentation which were recognized valuable by a major scientific review held at Fermilab in 1993 and approved by the peer-review scientific journal.

4. On May 2, 2014, at 7:26 am, despite Crosetto having provided a new technique and technology which was recognized valuable by the scientific community and was demonstrated feasible and functional in hardware, Ingrid writes: “I have problem to derive a technique or technology you want to give special focus to,” which is clearly a political statement that is ignoring the evidence Crosetto provided. Was this not being familiar with the subject on her part by not understanding what her colleagues understood 20 years ago at the formal scientific review, and understood by peer-reviewers of the scientific journal, or was her political answer a deliberate obstruction to the implementation of a scientific procedure to make the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail? Nevertheless, also this time Crosetto took Ingrid’s words seriously and continued to address the new argument raised in her e-mail by asking a question related to her words. Ingrid’s new argument is twofold: (1) that He3 alternative detectors have passed from being a subject in the workshops for some years to now being a standard topic of the conference and (2) the standard topic of the conference of the nuclear power instrumentation is being moved to a special workshop.

On May 2, 2014, at 8:01 am, Crosetto asked once more to continue addressing the issue of paragraph No. 2 by providing comments on his 45-page peer-reviewed scientific article and on the sentence that is stimulating improvements in HEP instrumentation. However, once again it appears there is no real interest in the subject that Ingrid herself brought up, no interest in developing an argument following logical reasoning, referring to evidence, and to calculations. Her arguments/responses appear to be excuses, political statements denying the implementation of scientific procedures.

On May 2, 2014, at 9:29 am., Crosetto addressed the new argument raised by Ingrid at paragraph No. 4 (see details several pages down) asking if the reason they had moved the “nuclear power instrumentation” from a standard topic to a special focus workshop was because of the incident in Japan that required additional R&D to design safer Nuclear Power Plants. Although this was a legitimate logical question which Crosetto has posed to Ingrid and Adam several times, he has never received a response to this simple question. By the same token, it would make sense that after building detector instrumentations that fail to accurately measure all characteristics of new particles, to move this subject of discussing the strategy and key innovations for the Trigger and DAQ upgrade from the standard topic of the conference to the workshop.

5. On May 4, 2014, seven minutes before the deadline, D. Crosetto, U. Bellotti from BELLUM labs and later F. Marchetto from the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Italy, formally submitted the proposal: “How does your project/idea/invention compare in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” Specifying the procedure of the workshop as: “It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual…”

2.2. Refusal to implement scientific procedures

With no bearing on science, against the implementation of scientific procedures, in violation of the ethics of scientists [46], based on excuses and outright untruths which can be proven, the proposed workshop to implement scientific procedures to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted but used to advance science for the benefit of humanity, was rejected.

Why would IEEE-NSS scientists choose to impede the implementation of scientific procedures by not allowing senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students to present their projects, then have a discussion for two hours about what has been presented and ask questions of each other to see who has the best scientific evidence (calculations, logical reasoning, etc.) to support their claims?

First let’s analyze what is not true in Ingrid and Adam emails. Next, let’s analyze what was known that could have saved money and provided advancements in science and benefits to humanity with applications derived from inventions that were crushed and could have saved many lives. Next, we can analyze the problem that needs to be solved and address the evidence following ethical principles in science and not make scientific decisions based on politics. To conclude, specific questions will be asked to Ingrid and Adam whose response should be addressed to the public. If Ingrid or other scientists have an issue admitting mistakes when proven by scientific evidence, to the point that they do not even want to investigate, they should not continue with science.

Learning from mistakes proven by evidence is at the basis of scientific work.  As stated by Nobel Laureate, Rita Levi di Montalcini and many others, the most difficult moment of a scientist is when he/she has to admit to being wrong before the evidence.

While Ingrid and Adam, who hold a position of responsibility before humanity, take serious actions damaging society for not recognizing and admitting scientific evidence of advancements in science that could benefit humanity, there is a much greater responsibility when they deliberately obstruct the implementation of scientific procedures like the proposed workshop to make the scientific truth stand out through an open, public debate, because they are afraid of admitting mistakes had been made. If the former is incompetence, the latter is clearly dishonest toward taxpayers, deliberately concealing the truth rather than working in their best interest. Instead, Crosetto is defending the taxpayers interest and on their behalf provides his technical skills to implement scientific procedures through pertinent, professional legitimate scientific questions, logical reasoning, calculations and evidence that should be addressed by other scientists (including Ingrid and Adam) with the same scientific ethics. Ingrid’s and Adam’s answers should be addressed to the public and should provide figures, calculations, and logical reasoning countering Crosetto’s claims, or confirm the validity of his claim when they cannot invalidate its substance and not crush them with political answers.

3. Why deceive the taxpayers? Honesty from scientists to taxpayers is the first requisite for the money and trust they give

3.1. UNTRUTHS

3.1.1. Ingrid’s and Adam’s statement: “There is also no replacement of the trigger planned for the near future” is not true.

Here are the facts that the Level-1 trigger needs to be replaced:

a) The front page of the CMS Technical Designed Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade, published on August 1, 2013, ISBN 978-92-9083-390-1 CERN-LHCC-2013-011, states: “To meet these requirements the electronics for the calorimeter, muon and global trigger systems will be replaced. The upgraded trigger system is planned to be available for CMS data taking from the start of the 2016 LHC run.

b) Leaders of the main experiments at CERN stated at the 2013 IEEE-NSS conference that the Level-1 trigger (or Level-0 as referred to by some) will be replaced as reported in their slides presented at the conference. For example, during the NSS-N5-4 presentation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, Atlas L1 Trigger states in slide 16: “no change to the detector is needed. Full replacement of front-end and back-end electronics” was needed instead. This was not because of aging radiation limits. The limitation of the current Atlas trigger was admitted. The limitations of the LHCb trigger presented at the same conference could have been avoided if the original design based on the 3D-Flow system architecture and described in LHCb LOI in 2005 as well as in the LHCb Technical Report in 2008, and in the 45-page NIM article (LHCb base-line Level-0 Trigger [10]), had not been replaced by a lower performing trigger system. Now the LHCb level-1 trigger needs to be upgraded because it does not have full programmability at the raw data level. When questioned, the speaker, A. Puig, admitted that the capability of executing a complex algorithm at the L0-Trigger would have improved the low 50% efficiency of the Hadron’s trigger. (see slide 6 by Puig) [[14]]

3.1.2. Ingrid’s and Adam’s statement: “The results of the LHC experiments are not inconclusive at all, but in very good agreement taking into account available statistics” is not true.

Here are the facts as given by leaders of the same experiments who claimed the discovery of the new boson, and by theoretical physicists and leaders in the field who presented the results to the public in the movie “Particle Fever”.

a) Sridhara Dasu, a leader at CMS and among the authors of the CMS Technical Designed Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade, published on August 1, 2013, ISBN 978-92-9083-390-1, in the seminar on January 9, 2013, at Ref. [[15]], summarized on slide 51 “Not confirmed yet if the new boson couples to taus […] It will take ~50 fb–1 14 TeV to confirm SM Higgs to taus, 2015-2016? If it is not SM [Standard Model] like Higgs, it will be even more exciting!” Why didn’t Atlas and CMS scientists wait until 2016 to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson when the SM Higgs to taus could have been confirmed? Or, as anticipated by Dasu, to announce that it was not the Higgs boson but something more exciting! This would also help clarify the statement found on the Wikipedia website of the Higgs boson, “tentatively confirmed by CERN”.

b) CMS detector instrumentation invalidates the results of Atlas detector instrumentation in measuring a quantity (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a natural phenomenon when they recorded different measurements (boson energy: 125.3 GeV from CMS and 126.5 GeV from Atlas). The results should be consistent no matter which one does the measuring. Inconsistent measurements lead to inconclusive results. One of the two, or both, must be wrong.

c) CMS and Atlas detector instrumentation cannot claim (due to evident hardware limitations) the capability to perform accurate measurements of all particle characteristics to satisfy Table 2.1: Search for Standard Model higgs; Table 2.2: Search for SUSY higgs; Table 2.3: Search for SUSY partners; Table 2.4: Search for exotic particles; Table 2.5 Study of b-quark physics and Table 2.6: Study of the top quark listed in the CMS Level-1 Trigger, the Technical Design Report, CERN/LHCC 2000-038, CMS TDR 6.1, 15 December, 2000. This is proof they can only provide inconclusive results.

d) CMS and Atlas measuring the energy of the boson at about 126 GeV is not in agreement with theoretical studies and statistics which expected Higgs to be 115 GeV to fit the Supersymmetry theory or 140 GeV to fit the SM theory.

e) The statement from the theoretical physicist Savas Dimopoulos at minute 89:22 of the movie “Particle Fever” states: “It doesn’t refer to symmetry (115 GeV), it doesn’t refer to multiverse (140 GeV), but is right in the middle (about 126 GeV). The data is puzzling enough that it hasn’t excluded any of the theories that I was involved with, but hasn’t confirmed it either, but until we look at detailed properties of the Higgs …we will not be able to make a stronger statement”. Clearly he is expecting more detailed measurements from CMS and Atlas detector instrumentation that they were not able to provide, and for this reason we have inconclusive results.

f) The theoretical physicist, Arkani-Hamed, at minute 90:06 of the movie “Particle Fever” states: “The multiverse in one side and some beautiful symmetry on the other side. It’s cranking up the suspense as much as it can.” Clearly also he is expecting more conclusive results that will end the “suspense.

3.1.3. Ingrid’s and Adam’s statement that it is a non-specific call is not true

Ingrid and Adam’s statement: “Another benefit you mention is to reduce the upgrade costs of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, to increase their power and efficiency in discovering new particles. The main cost driver the LHC upgrade are the new tracking detectors, especially the active sensor material. Also, here the proposal is lacking the detailed description of the proposed technology to reduce costs, and in our judgment a broad and non-specific call to explore such improvements is insufficient basis for a workshopis not true that it is a non-specific call to improve techniques and technology for the Level-1 trigger and that the main cost drive is the active sensor material of the new tracking detector. Here are the facts:

a) Crosetto’s proposal is very specific in stating that in order to reduce cost and increase the power and efficiency of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, researchers should compare their project/idea/invention with other projects and defend their claims with scientific arguments that they have Designed a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good events as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be changed at a later date after first data taking, with the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels with no boundaries, to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.”

b) Billions of dollars were wasted during the past years because decision makers in the field did not sufficiently address the issues reported in the above sentence implementing instead a Level-1 trigger with enormous limitations, not having the capability to provide a detector instrumentation with the features of flexibility, efficiency and power listed above. This is also confirmed on page 3 of the CMS Technical Design Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade, published on August 1, 2013, ISBN 978-92-9083-390-1 (and by several other facts demonstrating the limited capability end flexibility of current Level-1 triggers systems and documents). E.g. page 3 of the above document admits the limits of current Level-1 trigger systems, stating: “… a large increase in flexibility beyond that provided by the current trigger system.

c) The cost of the active sensor material of new tracking detectors and of any component is negligible compared to the damage derived from an inefficient Level-1 trigger system that collects garbage data and thus wastes over $50 billion and years of work by thousands of people and the missed benefits from letting science advance with open, public, scientific procedures which can make the scientific truth prevail for the benefit of mankind.

4. What is the crucial, challenging problem to be solved in order to provide the most powerful detector instrumentation that can capture and identify any new particle including the Higgs boson?

From 1992 to 1994, four main detector instrumentations were proposed for the SSC in Texas and the LHC at CERN in Geneva: SDC Technical Design Report, SDC-92-201, SSCL-SR-1215, April 1, 1992 [[16]]; GEM Technical Design Report, GEM-TN-93-262 SSCL-SR-1219, April 30, 1993 [[17]]; Atlas Technical Proposal CERN/LHCC/94/43, LHCC/P2, December 15, 1994 [[18]]; CMS Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94/38 LHCC/P1, December 15, 1994 [[19]].

4.1. Specifications of the four detector instrumentations to look for the existence of the Higgs boson

The challenging problem that needed to be solved was similar for all four as well as for future experiments, all costing billions of dollars. The following are references to what each experiment was looking for and the environment under which it was expected to operate:

1. SDC physics requirements at the SSC in Texas are described from page 3-1 to 3-74 and from Table 3-1 to 3-24 of reference [16], while the Trigger performance requirements specify that it must capture, identify and accurately measure the characteristics of new desired particles arriving at 60 Mhz in bunches spaced 16 ns (as described from page 8-1 to page 8-105, summarized in Figure 8-3 at page 8-6 and its event flow on Figure 8-45 at page 8-77 of [16]) with multiple collisions per bunch starting from a luminosity of 10˄33 cm˄-2 s˄-1 to 10˄34 cm˄-2 s˄-1 (as described at page 8-1 of ref. [16]).

2. GEM physics requirements at the SSC in Texas are described from page 2-1 to 2-60 and in Table 1-1 at page 1-2 and from Table 2-1 to 2-17 of reference [17], while the Trigger performance requirements specify that it must capture, identify and accurately measure the characteristics of new desired particles arriving at 60 Mhz in bunches spaced 16 ns (as described from page 7-1 to page 7-85, summarized in Table 7-2 at page 7-2 of [17]) with multiple collisions per bunch starting from a luminosity of 10˄33 cm˄-2 s˄-1 (as described at page 7-1 of [17]), to 10˄41 cm˄-2 (as described at page 1-16 of ref. [17]).

3. Atlas physics requirements at the LHC at CERN in Geneva are described from page 1 to 12 and from page 213 to 267 of reference [18], while the Trigger performance requirements specify that it must capture, identify and accurately measure the characteristics of new desired particles arriving at 40 Mhz in bunches spaced 25 ns (as described from page 139 to page 171, summarized in Figure 5-1 at page 139 of [18]) with multiple collisions per bunch starting from a luminosity of 10˄33 cm˄-2 s˄-1 (as described at page 213 of [18]), to 10˄34 cm˄-2 (as described at page 139 of ref. [18], with a luminosity in excess of 2 x 10˄34 cm˄-2 s˄-1 after the upgrade in 2015). Also see the Atlas Level-1 Trigger Technical Design Report, August 20, 1998, Atlas-TDR-12 [[20]].

4. CMS physics requirements at the LHC at CERN in Geneva are described on page 4 and from page 178 to 206 of reference [19], while the Trigger performance requirements specify that it must capture, identify and accurately measure the characteristics of new desired particles arriving at 40 Mhz in bunches spaced 25 ns (as described from page 124 to page 149, summarized in Figure 9-1 on page 124 of [19]) with multiple collisions per bunch starting from a luminosity of 10˄34 cm˄-2 s˄-1 (as described on page 124 of [19]), that will be increased in excess of 2 x 10˄34 cm˄-2 s˄-1 after the upgrade in 2015). On page 124 is specified that the input data rate of 10˄9 interaction per second must be reduced by a factor of at least 10˄7 to 100 Hz. See also the CMS Technical Design Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade, CERN-LHCC-2013-011 [8]

4.2. Requirements vs. the reality of their achievements 20 years later

These were the theoretical requirements known since 1992-1994, which are still valid, and which scientists agreed to tackle for decades to come. This was and still is the most advanced frontier of physics on which the scientific world is focusing for improving the understanding of the laws of nature, for improving the understanding of what happened during the fraction of a second closest to zero time, improving the understanding of where the universe and the matter is coming from and how it evolved from there. We are lucky to understand something about the latter because the first is perhaps too difficult for us to have a full scientific understanding without some faith. In order to tackle these problems, two things were necessary that are typically developed by two different groups of scientists that is explained here in simple terms to make it more understandable to laymen as to why it cost billions of dollars.

4.3. Theorists vs. experimentalists

There are two types of physicists: The theorists who construct theories that try to explain everything we see in nature and the experimentalists who build big machines (Particle Accelerators + Detectors), run the experiments, analyze data and try to discover particles that would confirm or deny the theories set forth by the theorists. Without the theorists, experimentalists are in the dark, and without the experimentalists we will never know the truth because the ‘judge for the truth’ in science is not the opinion of an individual but ‘the result of an experiment.’

4.4. How the experiment works: ‘Smashing hammer’ and ‘Detector searching for the pearl in the debris’

It was necessary to have a ‘big hammer’ (called ‘Particle Accelerator Collider’) that would break the matter and generate much debris, (called ‘fundamental particles’) and detector instrumentations that would analyze the debris in search of the new unknown particle which is the last piece of the puzzle that would confirm one of the theories (Supersymmetry or Standard Model) made by the theoretical physicists. In our specific case, in search of the Higgs boson, theorized by Mr. Francois Englert and Mr. Peter Higgs in 1964 that would contribute to our understanding of the origin of the mass of subatomic particles.

4.4.1. SSC and LHC Accelerators vs SDC, GEM, Atlas and CMS detectors

At the beginning of the nineties the scientific community was in competition to build two such ‘big hammers’ costing billions of dollars: one called the ‘Superconducting Super Collider’ (SSC) was to be built in Waxahachie, Texas, with a ring 84 km in circumference, aiming to smash protons at a power of 20 TeV + 20 TeV, which was twice the power of the second hammer called ‘Large Hadron Collider’ (LHC) with a ring 27 km in circumference, aiming to reach a power of 10 TeV + 10 TeV being built at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.

Each Particle Accelerator hosted billion dollar detector instrumentations on the circumference of their rings, each tasked to observe the debris (particles) generated from the smashing of protons by the Accelerators and to identify the unknown particles.  In particular, they were seeking the Higgs boson for which the theorists predicted certain characteristics of energy, charge, spin, and decay in other particles, etc. The SSC had two detector instrumentations on its ring: SDC and GEM, while the LHC had Atlas and CMS detectors tasked to capture the Higgs boson, and Alice and LHCb detectors for fulfilling other tasks in the study of the matter.

The task of the Particle Accelerators (SSC and LHC) is to generate the Higgs boson (and other new particles), while the task of the Detector Instrumentation (SDC, GEM, Atlas and CMS) is to capture the Higgs boson (or other new particles). The bigger the hammer (power of the Accelerator), the more fragments (events) will be generated increasing the probability to generate Higgs.

It is estimated (see the picture of CERN slide and video at page 26 of this document) that there is one Higgs boson every 10 billion collisions generated, thus an Accelerator generating one billion collisions per second (however, this is the theoretical specification in the TDR mentioned above, in reality this target has not been reached yet) has the probability of generating one Higgs every 10 seconds.

Instead, according to Joe Incandela, Spokesman of the CERN-CMS collaboration, in the movie shown on American Airlines flights he stated that there is one Higgs boson every trillion events generated, thus an accelerator generating one billion events per second has the probability of generating one Higgs every 16 minutes.

LHC now wants to increase it’s energy from 3.5 TeV to 6.5 TeV starting from 2015 to have a bigger smash and create more fragments (events) and more Higgs boson. However, by doing so, the task of the Detector Instrumentations becomes more demanding in having the capability to identify the ‘pear’ in many more fragments, more confusion, and more noise. We will see later what determines the limit in increasing the power of the Accelerator that will lower the overall performance of the detector instrumentation instead of providing an advantage and what is required to cope with a bigger hammer.

4.4.2. An analogy explaining the task of the detector

The four detector instrumentations (SCD, GEM, Atlas and CMS) whose references to the TDRs are listed above, have in common the same challenging requirements in capturing the Higgs boson (or other new particles). The required performance can be explained in simple terms using the following analogy. It is like having a movie camera that must recognize a ‘pearl’ meeting specific criteria of shape, color, and brightness, etc., among one billion objects picked up by the camera lens every second, some at the same time.

On average, there is one ‘pearl’ out of every 10 billion objects (according to CERN document and one out of a trillion according to Incandela), which would take about 10 seconds (16 minutes according to Incandela) before it appears in front of the camera lens. How do you make sure that your camera is capturing the frame with the ‘pearl’?

Obviously it is impossible to store on disk or memory the data of all objects because it would fill all the hard drives on this planet in one day.

4.4.3. The most challenging detector unit: ‘THE LEVEL-1 TRIGGER DECISION UNIT’

The problem can be solved by designing the most challenging part of the system which is a very fast ‘Decision Unit’ that analyzes the objects as they appear in front of the camera lens which decides to either reject them or store in memory a few for further analysis because they look like they could fully meet the ‘pearl’ criteria. The objects stored in memory undergo a further level of acceptance or rejection and are then stored on disks, about 100 per second. This “Decision Unit” in High Energy Physics (HEP) experiments is called the “Level-1 Trigger” (some experiments call it Level-0).

This is the theory reported in TDR books and in many documents since 1992-1994 and thousands of people have worked toward meeting these requirements. Now, let’s see the reality of what has happened these past 20 years:

In 1993, after spending $3 billion, building part of the SSC tunnel, advancing the design of the SDC and GEM detector instrumentations by over 3,300 scientists and engineers who moved to Texas from all over the world, including several from CERN, FERMILab, etc., the Supercollider Project in Texas with its two Detector Instrumentations SDC and GEM were cancelled by the U.S. Congress leaving the LHC Collider Accelerator with its four detector Instrumentations: Atlas, CMS, Alice and LHCb, with no other competitor in the world.

The construction of the LHC and its detector instrumentations continued for 20 years involving 1,000 to 2,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and craftsmen, etc. to build the “hammer” (LHC Accelerator) and 8,000 to 10,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and craftsmen, etc. involved in the construction of the detector instrumentation and to search for the ‘pearl’ in the debris created by the smashing by the ‘hammer’.

4.4.4. Reality on the construction and start of operation of the LHC accelerator

On September 10, 2008, the LHC accelerator was turned on for the first time; however, because sensors that measure resistance at interconnecting points and temperature protections were not in place, apparently due to pressure from the CERN General Director, Robert Aymar, who wanted to inaugurate the start of LHC under his term ending December 2008, nine days after the start of its activity, several LHC magnets melted causing millions of dollars of damage and a 14-month delay.

The LHC began operation again in June 2010, producing events at a slower rate with only 13 bunches per beam, and increasing by August to 50 bunches per beam as reported in CERN official documents [[21]].

By September and October it had increased to 368 bunches per beam, and then 400 bunches per beam with a bunch spacing of 150 ns (corresponding to 45 m).  By year’s end the bunch spacing was 75 ns and 50 ns.

At the beginning of 2011, it first reached 1,092 bunches per beam and at the end of the year, 1380 bunches per beam. In 2012, the LHC team reached 2,748 bunches per beam in a test without collisions and conducted a physics test with bunches spaced 25 ns at a collision energy of 8 TeV but using only 396 bunches per beam.

Gradually the LHC collider accelerator reached the first target of producing 1 million events per second to be increased in the future. At the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Korea, the keynote speaker, Lyndon Evans, who since 1993 has led the team that designed, built and commissioned the LHC, summarized that during all runs in 2010, 2012 and 2012, the LHC generated approximately one thousand trillion events. This was also confirmed by Joe Incandela, the Spokesman of CMS collaboration and by CERN slide and movie at page 26 of this document.

4.4.4.1. Science should acknowledge ‘EVIDENCE’: The LHC team should have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2010 after solving the problems and building the most powerful particle accelerator in the world

Science should acknowledge the evidence. Just as the celebration of success on October 21, 2008, for the failure of the LHC the month before made no sense, it made even less sense that after the LHC team admitted their error and let the world know in a transparent way what caused the failure and fixed them, even working diligently minimize the risk of possible future failure, the Nobel prize was not assigned to the LHC team, even though they had EVIDENCE of success.  Yet, paradoxically, the CMS and Atlas experiments which DID NOT have evidence of having built a detector instrumentation with the capability to trap, and accurately measure the characteristics of new particles to confirm or reject their existence were mentioned in the Noble Prize award.

The LHC team made an open investigation and found an abnormal resistance in interconnections between superconducting magnets due to bad welding, installed precise resistance measurements in 24,000 electrical connections between and inside the magnets, and installed many other protection devices. They inspected 4,800 meters of beam pipe, centimeter by centimeter, making many verifications that allowed the LHC accelerator to be turned on again, and then on September 30, 2009, it surpassed the power of the Tevatron Accelerator at FERMILab with 1.18 TeV.  In March 2010 they successfully achieved a 3.5 TeV beam with collisions so that the detector instrumentations could acquire data from the smashing of particles.

The LHC team, after demonstrating they built the most powerful accelerator in the world successfully running at 3.5 TeV should have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2010.

When CMS and Atlas build equivalent detector instrumentations capable to demonstrate with EVIDENCE the existence or non-existence of any new particle theorized by the theorists (including the Higgs boson), or discover new particles because the detector instrumentations have the capability of trapping and accurately measuring them, they should be nominated for a Nobel Prize.

However, at this time, only the LHC can prove they built an instrument capable of generating colliding beams at 3.5 TeV. The CMS and Atlas detectors cannot prove to have similar capabilities in capturing new particles. Logically awards should be assigned based on EVIDENCE.

4.4.5. Requirements of the challenging Level-1 Trigger

The Level-1 Trigger is the first decision unit that has the task to select among the 1,000,000,000 events per second produced by the LHC collider accelerator (calculated as 40,000,000 bunches per second multiplied by 25 collisions per bunch) the best 100,000 event candidates per second that will be passed on to the Level-2 and Level-3 Triggers that will further reduce them to about 100 events per second and records them on disk. This means that the task of the Level-1 Trigger is to select one event from every 10,000 events. These theoretical requirements have been known since 1992-1994 from the Technical Design Report of the four large High Energy Physics experiments SDC, GEM, Atlas and CMS, when they were first conceived. These documents also foresee an increase of these requirements when the four detectors need to be upgraded.

If the Level-1 trigger is not effective, as it has demonstrated to be because the selection of the best candidate events that should satisfy the criteria for confirming the discovery of the new particle is based on “thresholds” rather than making a thorough “object patterns recognition”, all other units will analyze garbage and all $50 billion and 20 years of work are wasted. It is therefore essential that maximum effort, public discussion and comparison of all ideas that can make the Level-1 trigger more efficient are supported and implemented by leaders responsible for the spending of the billions of dollars in order to reduce the risk of the damage to all of us who have funded the project and to those who are involved in building it.

4.4.6. Inventor’s expertise

Because of Crosetto’s expertise in leading edge technology for instrumentation and in Digital Signal Processing (DSP), “after careful selection” (as stated on CERN’s website), he was offered the prestigious position among the very few offered each year by CERN of “Paid Scientific Associate” which he accepted in 1988 and which was extended six months after the regular appointment period. He worked in two divisions at CERN, designing a new instrumentation to accurately measure and focus the beam (Q-measurements) [[22]] for CERN-SPS (Super Proton Synchrotron) Accelerator Division and designing a new parallel-processing system for trigger and data acquisition (DAQ) for detectors for the Data Handling Division (DD) [[23]].

He was then invited to lecture [[24]] at the CERN School of Computing on applications that made use of DSP in instrumentation for HEP. For his renowned experience in designing Triggers for HEP experiments such as the Level-2 Trigger [[25]] for DELPHI experiment at CERN-LEP accelerator, as well as from his presentation at the European Committee for Future Accelerators – ECFA, Large Hadron Collider Workshop in Aachen on October 4-9, 1990 [[26]], [[27]], Crosetto was invited to the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas with the assignment to solve the most challenging problem in High Energy Physics: to design the Level-1 Trigger for the GEM experiment.

The job was to design a “Decision Unit” (Trigger) that at the beginning, would select, one out of 10,000 objects “the pearl” arriving at 1 billion objects per second, however, the Trigger should also work for future more stringent requirements when it would have been necessary to select one out of 100,000 objects arriving at 10 billion objects per second or at an even higher rate.

4.4.7. How the inventor conceived the idea for an efficient, cost-effective Level-1 Trigger

This was the most challenging job that one could expect for the most powerful accelerator ever designed on earth, the 20 TeV + 20 TeV SSC.  Even more so because the leaders of the GEM experiment made Crosetto aware (as they reported on page 1-16 of the GEM-TDR-TN-93-262) that the GEM Level-1 Trigger not only needed to cope with a luminosity of 10˄34 cm˄-2, but as high as 10˄41 cm˄-2. None of the other experiments had this ambition to build detector instrumentation with such high capabilities.

Although Crosetto did not believe it was possible to reach the luminosity of 10˄41 cm˄-2 (at least for his generation), he took seriously the assignment and requirements from his leaders and was committed to designing a Level-1 Trigger that would solve the problem if in future an accelerator could generate particles at that rate and a detector instrumentation could cope with sensors at that rate. Crosetto realistically envisioned that eventually the current design of the entire GEM detector would need to be replaced with faster sensors, otherwise, instead of seeing distinct signals that could be associated to each particle there would be only one big signal as a result of many pileups.

As an analogy, one could think of taking pictures of dry asphalt when it starts raining and imagine asphalt that is absorbing the raindrops and changes to a dry color very rapidly. With slow raindrops, we can take pictures of the asphalt and distinguish each individual raindrop (distinguishing the shape of one spot, like one object, from another), however, as the rain increases to pouring rain, at some point the individual droplets are no longer distinguishable as it is going to form a lake, or a river. This is what will happen when the power of the hammer (SSC or LHC accelerators) reaches a certain threshold. Sensors of the detectors at some point will not be fast enough to reset themselves to be ready to accept new data, thus the entire detector would need to be replaced with faster sensors.

Instead of following the main stream of all designers of Level-1 Triggers in the world, Crosetto took a different, innovative approach. Designers of the Level-1 Trigger of other experiments were struggling to find the fastest, most advanced, leading edge technology (GaAs, ECL, sub-nanometer CMOS, etc.) that was also called “Exotic” or “Bleeding Edge” for the high cost, special tools, for its development, and high power consumption that required special cooling systems, etc.

However, despite all efforts, this approach would only allow for the possibility of building a hardwired, non-flexible “threshold technique” at high risk to miss the “pearl”, the Higgs, or the new particle satisfying specific requirements by the experimental physicists.
In fact, the TDR for the upgrade of the Level-1 Trigger [8] for CMS experiment recognized this limit of the “threshold technique” that did not allow the capture of data to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson, and is now planning to change the Level-1 Trigger to implement “object pattern recognition algorithms.”

In less than one year from Crosetto’s arrival in July 1991 at the Supercollider, he invented the 3D-Flow parallel-processing system architecture [1] (see also video at [2]) that combined with other inventions in the detector assembly, detector segmentation, coupling the signals from the detector sensors to the electronics, etc., satisfied and even exceeded all requirements.

Crosetto announced his discovery to his GEM group leader Jim Siegrist, telling him clearly that the solution he found not only fully satisfied the requirements of the experimental physicists of GEM experiment, but those of the competitor SDC experiment at the SSC, and also solves any problem of experiments across the ocean at CERN and any future experiments with more stringent requirements. Crosetto asked Siegrist’s permission to proceed with his work as a true scientist who prioritizes the interests of advancement in science rather than self-interest of allowing just the GEM experiment to triumph.

Siegrist gave the OK to make all information open to the public, although it would give advantages to the competitors. A similar decision placing the advancement of science first, in compliance with the ethics of a scientist to benefit humanity, came from the Director of the Supercollider in the U.S. who a year later requested a major scientific review of Crosetto’s invention by world experts from universities, research centers (including CERN). CERN leaders, on the other hand, together with leaders from US and other countries (not all of them, but those who were more influential), in subsequent years did not give priority to science but rather had a self-interest agenda that crushed innovations that could have already greatly benefitted humanity.

From the moment Siegrist authorized Crosetto to proceed with his work, it was clear that although he was assigned to the GEM experiment, he was not strictly working for the GEM experiment anymore, but working to solve a problem that would allow everyone to progress, not only in the field of particle physics, but in many other sectors, such as in medical imaging to build tools effective for early cancer detection. He was working for the world, for the advancement in science and to benefit humanity.

4.4.8. Presentations at conferences and publications by the inventor of one of the key features of his invention

In fact, Crosetto received full support from the Supercollider which sent him to present his work at three international conferences [[28]], [[29]], [[30]] (one in Europe and two in the U.S.) all within a month, and published his invention in prestigious scientific journals [[31]], [[32]], [[33]].  The proof that Crosetto’s invention was universal, benefitting many applications in many fields is shown by the many letters of recognition he received from scientists and leaders of several experiments who were in competition, and from prestigious universities (e.g. from division leaders, group leaders from experiments Atlas and CMS at CERN, from CDF and D0 Experiments at FERMILab, from STAR experiment at BNL, etc. from leaders of major research laboratories). See excerpts from these letters at www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/167.pdf).

Crosetto’s invention covered several areas within the detector assembly, segmentation, electronics, optimizing a 3-D parallel-processing structure in a 2-D hardware implementation on printed circuit boards, signal distribution to hundreds of thousands of units with a guarantee of less than 40 picoseconds skew among any two units, coupling the electronics with the detector and real-time algorithms.

One of the key features of his invention is the capability to break the speed barrier of the fastest technology with a parallel-processing architecture that can make use of standard low cost technology. This would allow a great advantage in efficiently capturing more of those 100,000 best candidate events which now Atlas and CMS missed, capturing only about 100 of them.

4.4.8.1.  Analogy to explain the invention

On one page [1], Crosetto explained the concept to scientists and he explained it to laymen [[34]] using an analogy that was implemented on several occasions by high school students as shown at the minute 7:58 of the video [2] and also at the square of a town to people who were at an event.

First he defined the problem that needed to be solved to the students: an envelope was arriving every 6 seconds. Inside the envelope was a problem needing to be solved that would take 30 seconds to calculate an answer of “yes” or “no”. All envelopes should be analyzed for 30 seconds. Students answered that it was impossible. Either they were trashing 4 envelopes out of 5 or spending only 6 seconds per envelope.

Crosetto explained the concept of the invention and together with the students implemented the solution to the problem. Five groups of students analyzing the contents of the envelope, each for 30 seconds were placed in five classes along a corridor. A student stood at each door handling the flow of the traffic of the envelopes. One student at the beginning of the corridor was passing an envelope every 6 seconds to the student at the door of the first class.

The student at the door of the first class takes the first envelope and passes it to the group of students in his class. Next he passes four envelopes, one every 6 seconds to the class to his right. Every student at the door of each class performs the same operation of giving one envelope to his class and passing four envelopes to the class to their right.

At the sixth envelope the student at the door of the first class will pass it to the group of students of his class. He will take from them the results of the previous envelope given to them 30 seconds before and passes it to the right, down the corridor to the student at the door of the second class.

By doing these operations synchronously the envelopes with data to be processed and those with results will flow along the corridor and only the ones with results will reach the end of the corridor where a student will open them, checking if the content is a “yes” and save those as good candidates and trash the ones with a “no”.

This mechanism is unique, different from the classical pipeline that everyone is familiar with in assembly lines of building cars, televisions and , computers, etc., where at each station a piece is added to the product that will turn out to be finished at the end of the assembly line. In this 3D-Flow system the problem inside the envelope must begin and finish in a single classroom.

The envelope with results passing along the corridor is not entering into other classes to perform additional operations like in the classical assembly line. The analogy would reflect more precisely the real problem to be solved in identifying new particles among data arriving at a very high speed by imagining  that this corridor is in a large building with other corridors at the upper floor, lower floor, and at the same floor in front and in the back of the class where each class is receiving data from the class in front, in the back  and at the upper floor and the lower floor.

4.4.8.2. The invention which breaks the speed barrier when executing ‘programmable object pattern recognition algorithms’

Rather than making things complicated in the analogy, the reason for Crosetto inventing the 3D-Flow architecture is to break the speed barrier in sustaining the high input data rate in doing “object pattern recognition” that requires exchange of information with neighboring detector elements in a matrix 3 x 3, 4 x 4, 5 x 5, etc.

Current, inefficient Level-1 Trigger with “threshold technique” implemented at Atlas and CMS does not require this neighboring data exchange. Each data of a detector element (or a group of detector elements) is compared with a “threshold“, which is limited in recognizing the good candidate satisfying all requirements of an experimental physicist for the discovery of a new particle.

In addition, Crosetto’s invention can satisfy more stringent requirements when the input data rate is increasing (higher luminosity of LHC) or there is an increase in complexity of the algorithm to execute a thorough pattern recognition algorithm (to efficiently reject more noise added by the increased luminosity) by adding more classes at the end of the corridor in the analogy (more layers of the 3D-Flow parallel-processing system allowing the use of standard and more cost-effective technology).

The report [4] of the major review of Crosetto’s invention held at FERMILab on December 14, 1993, recognized it as a “unique concept” and that “experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible”.   It was also recognized as an invention by the head of the Computing Division at FERMILab who wrote in a letter [[35]]: “at present the 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments.”

4.4.8.3. Adoption of the invention in experiments by thousands of scientists

Crosetto’s invention was adopted by thousands of scientists at the GEM experiments of the SSC (see from page 7-10 to 7-14 of [17]). In 1995, after funding for the SSC was cut, Crosetto’s invention was adopted by scientists at the LHCb experiment as reported in the LHCb LOI (Letter of Intent) [[36]] and in the LHCb Technical Proposal in 1998 [[37]].  However, once again funding was cut to all American scientists working on the LHCb regardless the value of the scientific program.

Crosetto, complying with the ethic of a scientist informed the scientific community about the advantages of his invention and benefits to society in advancing science in the discovery of new particles by publishing a 45-page scientific article [10] in a prestigious peer-review scientific journal. He then offered CERN free licensing of his patents to use his inventions for research purposes. Later, he applied his technology to medical imaging to save lives through early cancer detection.

The article describes the overall concept, which includes innovations in the field of detector assembly, segmentation, electronics, coupling the detectors to the electronics, data flow, real-time algorithms, and even down to details of the circuits, which are technology-independent and can migrate any time to future more cost-effective technologies. The article also describes the software tools that allow the development of applications for High Energy Physics experiments such as Medical Imaging, simulate the entire system of thousands of 3D-Flow processors, and to debug everything from the higher level of a C++ simulator to the lower level of the circuit expressed in VHDL language, and how to monitor the system during runtime to find faulty components or connections.

4.4.8.4. The inventor moves from High Energy Physics to Medical Imaging applications

Because of the two past experiences of funding cuts to experiments in High Energy Physics not related to scientific reasons, beginning in 2000, Crosetto decided to switch full-time to Medical Imaging Applications, where his invention could have already had a huge impact by significantly reducing the number of premature cancer deaths and costs using his 3D-CBS technology [[38]] which enables an effective early detection. It is hundreds of times more efficient than the current 5,000 PET, which are not suitable for early detection because of their low efficiency, high radiation dose, and high examination cost.

4.4.8.5. Feasibility and functionality of the invention proven for the first time in hardware

Crosetto spent the first months of the year 2000 at the library of Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, where he was also consulting at the Radiology department in improving the efficiency of their PET for small animals. At the library, he read hundreds of articles, called on the phone several authors, including Gordon Brownell, the leader of the group at MGH who invented PET over 60 years ago and studied in depth the state of the art of Medical Imaging. Then he wrote a technical scientific book [38], which he distributed 200 copies, free of charge, to the leaders attending the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France, where he also presented two articles [[39]], [[40]].

The following year Chris Parkman from the CERN Information Technology Division was Chairman of the Industrial Exhibition at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California, and he offered Crosetto a free booth at the exhibition where he could display the proof of concept of his invention in hardware. He kindly offered a booth next to the coffee-bar so that attendees had more of an opportunity to see this important development.

In particular, it was hoped that two leaders in the field of medical imaging applications, Bill Moses and Steve DeRenzo, would notice Crosetto’s invention proven in hardware because the previous year DeRenzo wrote a very negative review of Crosetto’s book claiming that the only way to improve the PET (Positron Emission Tomography) was, in his opinion, to improve the efficiency of the crystal and not the electronics.

DeRenzo’s hypothesis was proven wrong shortly thereafter by the large improvements of the electronics made by many scientists and also by major industries in the field, for example Siemens, who announced on their website in 2007 that “improvement of the electronics increased the efficiency of their PET by 70%”.

He first demonstrated the functionality of his invention at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California, in 2001 on two prototype boards with four 3D-Flow processors each (The feasibility and functionality of Crosetto’s invention at the booth of the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego was proven by showing signal timings on the oscilloscope on two prototype boards with four 3D-Flow processors each. The attendees were invited to choose patterns by commuting switches. Cluster found were displayed on LED and timing of the signals on the oscilloscope.

Moses and DeRenzo passed by Crosetto’s booth but never stopped to learn about the innovation. Parkman spread the word about Crosetto’s booth and Anthony Lavietes, General Chairman of the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, who is also the General Chairman of this 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference, stopped by the booth with some colleagues mentioning that Parkman had suggested he visit. He appreciated Crosetto’s work and raised no scientific objections.

4.4.8.6. Industrial implementation of the invention on two modular boards demonstrating feasibility and functionality to build Level-1 Trigger systems for HEP experiments of any size and for medical imaging devices effective for early detection of many diseases

Crosetto then used his own money to demonstrate the feasibility and functionality of his invention in modular, industrial hardware by building two modular electronic boards [[41]] suitable to implement 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size for HEP or Medical Imaging Applications. He then presented these two industrialized modular boards of the 3D-Flow system with sixty-eight 3D-Flow processors per board at the same IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Portland, Oregon.

Ralph James, Associate Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory and General Chairman of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland, Oregon, wrote Crosetto an encouraging email to continue his work, accepted his three articles at the conference, and waved the entire conference fee so he could attend and present his modular electronic boards suitable to build a system of any size Level-1 Trigger in High Energy Physics applications and the 3D-CBS system, hundreds of times more efficient than current PET.

5. Although the truth is concealed from the public, admission of failure can be extracted from scientific and technical documents.

Admission of the failure of the current Level-1 Trigger that was not adequate to identify the 100,000 good candidate events satisfying the requirements of experimental physicists can be extracted on page 13 of the CMS Technical Design Report of the Level-1 Trigger upgrade [8], stating: “2012 trigger thresholds cannot be maintained with the current system at high LHC energy and luminosity.”

Although in 2015 the LHC luminosity will reach a power of 6.5 TeV, this is still far below the 10 TeV power described in the original Atlas and CMS documents in 1994. The truth is that Atlas and CMS did not build an efficient Level-1 Trigger as required in the specifications in 1994 and for all the following years and it was not adequate for 10 TeV, for 6.5 TeV, or for 3.5 TeV. It still was not adequate even when the LHC team ran a beam with fewer collisions to facilitate their job to identify events with no pile-ups (as reported on page 25 of CERN 2012 annual report [[42]]) that would satisfy the requirements by the experimental physicists for the new particle they were seeking.

On the same page of the above mentioned document [8] it is also stated that: “We have identified a number of opportunities for improvements with emphasis on object identification algorithms and mitigating the effects of pile-up.” It is proven in hardware to be feasible and functional [1] (see video [2]) that 22 years ago the solution was invented to execute “programmable object identification algorithms” that could have avoided wasting $50 billion and 20 years to arrive at this statement admitting it was the implementation of the Level-1 Trigger that should have been adopted.

The document lists a number of specific tasks that the invention from 22 years prior could have solved and that still today has advantages compared to the FPGA proposed solution in the same document.

The document [8] lists the limits of the current Level-1 Trigger and what it takes to improve it. Among them are: “In the current Level-1 system, there is no isolation requirements on muons. … adding muon isolation to level-1 trigger in order to reduce the rate of muon”; “…Identifying isolated e/ϒ is essential for the future physics program. … Adapting the isolation algorithm … will be an important handle for reducing rates…”;  and more on current limitations: “In the current Level-1 trigger the identification of tau leptons suffers from low efficiency and a high fake rate. Improvement to the tau identification algorithm could recapture the lost efficiency…

The possibility of implementing these features at the Level-1 Trigger and many others were all possible with the invention available for all this time [1], which was ignored because decision makers in the field continued to prohibit public workshops where senior scientists, young scientists, PhD students, those who spent the money for the old Level-1 Trigger, and those who are responsible for spending money for the upgrade cannot question each other.

Every scientist should have the ethical responsibility to respond publicly to the questions supporting scientific evidence about the advantages of his system compared to others. Scientific merits from different authors should be identified based on the scientific solidity of the responses each author provides.

Avoiding this public scrutiny, projects that later show to be a failure in achieving the goals or that are more costly and with lower performance, receive funding regardless of their scientific merits, while those superior and more cost effective go unfunded with great damage to society who is prevented from receiving the benefits from innovations.

6. Dishonesty that calls for resignation and even criminal investigation when people holding positions of responsibility know the truth and choose to conceal it, or even worse obstruct it.

This is not a political issue as claimed by Ingrid-Maria Gregor, but a case of HUGE DISHONESTY among scientists who are deceiving the public, and damaging them by preventing advancements in science that would save billions of dollars and millions of lives; because they were aware of the damage their actions would cause and still chose this path, similar cases have led to a criminal investigations (e.g. General Motors and CPRIT [5]). It is not a matter of revenge, or jealousy or request of personal reward to be applauded and recognized. Instead, it is to eliminate dishonesty and corruption that is damaging humanity and a violation of the code of ethics for scientists [46].

6.1. Honest scientists who attempted to make the scientific truth prevail found themselves powerless

For more than 15 years, Crosetto followed the advice of friends and honest scientists to present the advantages of his technology and innovations at conferences, in scientific journals, and to the public rather than investigate the real causes as to why there has not been a significant reduction in premature deaths and cost of the most deadly and costly calamity in the world.

However, over time, Crosetto experienced actions from dishonest and corrupt scientists who replaced the honest ones by imposing their agenda, not only violating the ethic of science [46] but damaging society.

Several senior scientists attempted to stand up for what is right by supporting Crosetto’s request for a scientific dialogue with the decision makers who were crushing scientific procedures to protect their interest in implementing their own agenda, instead of the interest of science and humanity. However, facts show that they were powerless [[43]] because the dishonest scientists were in a more prestigious position of power to enforce their rules.

Crosetto was told that the dishonest scientists gain power from the credibility they receive from publicity deceiving the public. For example the CELEBRATIONS OF SUCCESS they received at CERN on October 21, 2008, for melting 50 magnets on September 19, 2008, that I have already spoken of in much detail. It is time that the media [[44]] and honest scientists report the truth about scientific, undeniable facts.

During the past years, facts show on several occasions that these dishonest, corrupt scientists prevented Crosetto from presenting scientific, technical advancements to Conferences and prohibit the implementation of scientific procedures to discuss specific technical issues. They did this using political arguments like in this case. In the best interest of everyone, in the interest of an uncorrupt transparent science, for the benefit of humanity, not only honest scientists, all of us need to stand up, single out dishonest scientists, voice dishonest, unethical actions of those who hold positions of responsibility, who make the public believe they are complying with the ethic of science and are instead, deceiving them for implementing an agenda that is not in the best interest of science and of the taxpayers. This is the only way advancements in science can be guaranteed.

Media [44] should report and inform the public about undeniable facts of dishonest, corrupted scientists who are not following scientific procedures, who are not transparent to the public, who are deliberately concealing and deceiving the public. Every fact that demonstrates, like in the case of General Motors that their leaders were aware of mistakes that were damaging the public and they chose to continue to damage the public must be publicized . If the media can give attention to 13 people who died from lies about a GM faulty switch, they should give even more attention to lies by dishonest scientists who conceal faulty technology and crushed innovations that would have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars.

Analyzing facts, documents, and the recording of events, it is clear that Crosetto’s motivation has always been to advance science for the benefit of mankind and not to go after dishonest and corrupt scientists.

One example is the meeting he had with Wesley Smith, responsible for all these years for the Trigger at CMS, in his office at CERN on August 28, 2008. Wesley Smith was the only scientist who wrote a statement to Crosetto in 1993 when he was a leader at the SDC experiment at SSC, not appreciating his invention, stating that High Energy Physics experiments do not need a programmable Level-1 Trigger.

Despite Smith’s adverse comment, from time to time over the years he communicated with Smith on technical subjects. During this meeting that was recorded, Wesley Smith recanted all claims he had made opposing Crosetto’s approaches. He had no other choice because documents and circuits had proved Crosetto’s statements and approach had been correct all along.

Crosetto then made it very clear to Smith that he wanted to apply the benefits of his technological advancements to save lives through early cancer detection and to reduce health care costs, and that he should not fear competition from him in aspiring for a position of responsibility in HEP. Because

Smith had a position of responsibility as an expert in particle detection, Crosetto was expecting him to tell the truth regarding the most efficient way to detect photons in Medical Imaging Applications that would enable an effective early cancer detection and reduce the radiation dose to the patient as well as the examination cost. Crosetto requested a meeting among the experts in particle detection at CERN where technical issues would be discussed openly and the scientific truth would emerge through dialogue and evidence.

6.2. Unveiling the limitations of Atlas and CMS is like lifting the hood of a Ferrari or Lamborghini and realizing the engine has flaws limiting the power to that of a 500 FIAT

The Atlas or CMS detector may be as impressive on the outside as the body of a Ferrari or a Laborghini, but looking at the inner workings would be like lifting the hood and realizing that there are flaws in the engine that are limiting the power to that of a 1970, 500 FIAT. They have acquired about 100 events which are the best candidates to satisfy only some of the characteristics of the expected boson, out of the 100,000 bosons generated by the LHC accelerator.

The same thing happened with the LHC accelerator on September 10, 2008. Everything appeared shiny and impressive; however, when put to work and reaching 0.45 TeV of the 10 TeV as was expected from its 1994 design, nine days later, with beam power at zero, it melted 50 magnets. What they did then was like lifting the hood and opening it to the world for an investigation to determine the cause of failure by  inspecting every single welding between and within magnets, component, and identifying those that caused the failure, until it worked. They then inspected all parts that could possibly cause failure in the future by re-welding parts, measuring resistances, etc.

At CMS and Atlas it seems they have a different attitude. They do not want to lift the hood; they do not want to open to the world for an investigation so taxpayers won’t have to pay for their mistakes a second time. Some of their mistakes can be confirmed even without lifting the hood, by just looking at the description of their documents that are admitting the need to replace the Level-1 Trigger based on the “threshold technique” with one based on the “object pattern recognition technique.”

However, they are destined to make the same mistake they made before when they ignored for 22 years the invention [1] of a ‘programmable pattern recognition algorithm technique’ that is technology-independent (which means it can migrate to future technologies being targeted at any time to the most cost-effective technology).  They have stated they plan to use FPGA without being open to compare the performance and cost of their FPGA system with other systems that could be superior, by allowing a public workshop on November 9, 2014, where Crosetto and other senior, young scientists and PhD students can present their ideas.

The scientific culture of an organization funded by taxpayers who does not want to lift the hood and discuss openly how to eliminate the flaws needs to be changed because it damages everyone, including those honest scientists who build a section of the Atlas and CMS detectors that is really working like a Ferrari or a Lamborghini but cannot be appreciated because the overall performance of CMS and Atlas has the power of a 500 FIAT caused by flaws of the Level-1 Trigger system.

6.3. Science should acknowledge the ‘EVIDENCE’: Finding a solution to the inefficiency of CMS and Atlas in identifying new particles should put them in the position to receive the Nobel Prize, not before

The current evidence from CERN documents states that 1,000 trillion events were produced, and one out of 10 billion events had a new particle that could be a boson (see pictures below extracted from CERN website). The division of these two numbers gives 100,000 possible new boson particles. CMS and Atlas have found about 100, which do not satisfy all requirements of the expected new Higgs boson particle.

These results are evidence that the CMS and Atlas detectors, in particular the Level-1 Trigger, are flawed. All other units will process garbage events if Level-1 Trigger does not capture in the first place good event candidates to satisfy all requirements of the new particle.

If there are different opinions as to whether CMS and Atlas acquired data containing a sufficient number of valid events satisfying all requirements to declare the discovery of a Higgs boson, it would be sufficient to investigate the circuits and the design of the current Level-1 Trigger to provide evidence that this unit does not have the capability to trap, capture, and accurately measure sufficient characteristics of the new expected particle.

It is imperative to open the hood, to open an investigation into the Level-1 Trigger, to be open to contribution from all experts in this field in a public workshop in order to fix the evident flaws (although Atlas and CMS do not want to admit there are flaws) when they stated that the Level-1 Trigger needed to be replaced. Proposed solutions should be compared in a public discussion in order to identify the one that offers the best evidence that the detector instrumentation will have the capability of capturing new particles. This evidence, together with a high statistics of acquired data, will put Atlas and CMS in a position to receive a Nobel Prize, not before.

7. A paradigm shift is necessary in the scientific culture

Like Einstein, Hawking, and many other scientists who have admitted when they made a mistake and moved on toward the frontier of new discoveries and better understanding of the laws of nature, so scientists working at the Atlas and CMS collaboration should investigate themselves by checking their calculations, their work, admitting to mistakes, being open to investigation and discussions with others, and not crushing innovative ideas, because we are all moving toward the understanding of the laws of nature.

The answers from Ingrid and Adam on May 10, 2014, the communication with Ingrid on April 30, 2014, (see below in this document), the facts reported in this document, the references to the statements made by CERN Director General [6] and by several other leaders in science holding positions of responsibility are contrary to those mentioned above by Einstein, Hawking and other scientists.  Therefore, it is necessary to call for a paradigm change in the scientific culture and bring back the values of ethical scientists [46].

8. Questions for Ingrid and Adam and for those who care about advancing in science for the benefit of mankind:

1. Ingrid and Adam, in all honesty, would you advise a young scientist to follow your teachings and ethics (please could you provide the reference to the ethic you follow?)

a. to crush public scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail because it is too “crude” to question Atlas and CMS about possible mistakes in order to correct them in the future, saving taxpayers money and allowing advancement in science.

b. to crush innovations that could provide many benefits to humanity by ignoring them.

Or would it be better to follow Einstein’s and Hawking’s teachings to admit their mistakes as soon as they realize them and pursue the scientific truth?

a. when Einstein, after believing in the early 1900s that the Universe was not expanding, he realized his mistake a few years later describing the gaffe as the biggest blunder of his career.

b. when Hawking, at a meeting of the Royal Society interrupted a lecture by renowned astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle to let him know that he had made a mistake. When asked how he knew there had been an error, Hawking replied: “Because I’ve worked them out in my mind.”

c. when Hawking shocked physicists by admitting that black holes emit radiation (known today as Hawking radiation) which corrected his previous calculations that everything swallowed up by a black hole must be lost forever.

2. Ingrid and Adam, in all honesty, knowing that the key unit in a HEP experiment, the Level-1 Trigger, is responsible for making in fraction of a second the first decision to accept a good event, the best candidate for discovering a new particle (e.g. the Higgs boson) and reject 9,999 events, why would you and your colleagues choose to implement a “threshold technique” proven to select a lot of garbage, wasting billions of dollars on all other units, without the capability to measure all characteristics of the unknown particle, when you and your colleagues were familiar with the “programmable object pattern recognition algorithm technique”, invented 22 years ago by Crosetto, that thoroughly analyzes each event, satisfies all requirements of experimental physicists, and recognized valuable by a major international review held in 1993 at FERMILab? Only now, when faced with failure, you are deciding to replace the “threshold technique” Level-1 Trigger with an “object pattern recognition technique”.  Why after this failure caused by repeatedly prohibiting the implementation of an open, public, scientific procedure, where authors can question each other on the merits of their science, prove publicly, their competence, honesty and compliance with the ethics of a scientist, so that it will become clear which system among all those presented is more advantageous, are you repeating now the same error by prohibiting such a public scientific procedure? By not complying with the ethics of science, dishonest scientists conceal the scientific truth to funding agencies, taxpayers and philanthropists. Instead of honestly competing on scientific merits, they are leveraging on their power, money and connections to gain credibility to crush innovations that would benefit humanity.

3. Ingrid and Adam, is it fair to taxpayers that they have wasted $50 billion and 20 years? Are you willing to tell them the facts? According to CERN’s 2012 annual report, the LHC Accelerator team “halved the spacing between bunches from 50 to 25 nanoseconds (ns), with fewer protons per bunch. This set-up is of more interest to experiments as it reduces the pile-up events.”  [42]. Despite this reduced production of collisions, even below the specification reported in the original 1992-1994 TDRs listed above, the Level-1 Trigger of Atlas and CMS detector instrumentations could not identify the particles satisfying all requirements set by physicists because they were based on the “threshold technique.” According to the data published by CERN (see the figures below [[45]]) the LHC has produced 1,000 trillion events with approximately one out of 10 billion containing the new particles (Higgs boson? This number provided by CERN is not in agreement with the one provided in a movie by Joe Incandela, Spokesman of CMS collaboration). Level-1 Trigger should have identified approximately 100,000 new particles (boson like), but because of its inefficiency it identified only 100 with inaccurate measurements (Atlas measured 126.5 GeV, whereas  CMS measured 125.3 GeV, when they should have had the same measurements).

 Blog6Pic1

Blog6Pic2

 

Isn’t it fair to tell the truth that the current Level-1 Trigger needs to be replaced because it is flawed, not even working for a low production of events by the LHC accelerator, while the Level-1 Trigger with the capability to execute programmable “object pattern recognition algorithms,” breaking the speed barrier would working efficiently for the 2015, 2018 and for future upgrades, was invented 22 years before, was ignored?

4. Ingrid and Adam, in all honesty, because the discovery of the Higgs boson (or of any new particle) is not the opinion of a person but the result of experimental data, it boils down to the credibility of the people who presented the data.

Based on the irrefutable facts reported below, how would you value the credibility of those who pushed for the title of the “Discovery” and those who claim that we need more data? Which of them is complying with the code of ethics of a scientist? [[46]]

Experimental physics is not speculation like it is in investments, or playing Russian roulette for a scientist who puts his lifetime reputation at risk for a moment of glory, hoping that future data will prove him right, it is just telling the truth and honestly presenting evidence supported by data. Here are some facts that will help you understand who is telling the truth:

There are many scientists (D. Kaplan, S. Dimopoulos, N. Hamed, the Deputy Director of BNL, etc.), also among leaders of the CERN experiments (S. Dasu…,) who say that a definitive answer to the discovery of the Higgs boson might require another few years after the restart of the LHC collider in 2015. This is a legitimate, honest, ethical concern with science because having found only 100 candidates of a new particle out of 100,000 expected bosons generated by LHC is very poor. In the 1980-90s these results would barely justify writing a preprint article that would follow a full formal article claiming the discovery of a new particle only when thousands of data were confirming it; now it appears science does not have the same rigor it used to have.

Instead CERN management is pushing to confirm it immediately. Let’s see the credibility to meet the formal level of proof required to announce a confirmed discovery. On document at [[47]] it states that “two teams [Atlas and CMS] had been working ‘blinded’ from each other from around late 2011 or early 2012, meaning they did not discuss their results with each other, providing additional certainty that any common finding was genuine validation practice. This level of evidence, confirmed independently by two separate teams of experiments meets the formal level of proof required to announce a confirmed discovery” The same document one page before states: “On November 28, 2011, at an internal meeting of the two team leaders and the director general of CERN, the latest analysis were discussed…”.

On July 4, 2012, at the announcement of the discovery, Atlas presented a different value of the energy of 126.5 GeV, which did not support CMS measurement of 125.3 GeV, they claimed a Sigma of 5 to support the announcement of the discovery.

However, CERN lost its credibility in measuring the Sigma when it announced a Sigma of 6 proving the neutrino travelling faster than light. This was false because the neutrino does not travel faster than the speed of light. CERN lost credibility in explaining the reason for the error claiming that it was caused by a false connection of one optical fiber and a clock running too fast. This was not the truth. The conceptual design and their set up to compare neutrino speed with light using a distance of 730 km was flawed and could only give inconclusive results. The measurement would have cost much less having all parameters under control if conducted within a distance of 3 to 5 km, swapping the timers measuring the two speeds to eliminate all possible errors, not only those of the false connection and of the clock running faster. The experimental set-up was open to many uncontrollable errors.

Here is the evidence that the false connection and the clock running too fast were not the only two errors. CERN lost its credibility also when they published on CERN’s Bulletin[48] 41 & 42, that they supported their claim that the neutrino might have been faster than light because their measurements had “outstanding accuracy”. Instead it was hundreds of times less[49] accurate than Crosetto’s electronics [[50]] built five years earlier (Slide 49 presented by the OPERA experiment at CERN auditorium on September 23, 2011 showed errors of thousands of picoseconds while Crosetto’s electronics can limit errors to a maximum of 40 picoseconds because in his design he used traces of equal length and programmable delay lines with 10 picoseconds resolution). On February 28, 2012, in a meeting with the CERN Director General, Crosetto handed him the reference to the schematics [50] of his electronics, hundreds of time more accurate than what was used in the CERN experiments. On March 30, 2012 both leaders of the OPERA experiment (Ereditato and Autiero) resigned.

Despite many scientists claiming that more data were necessary to claim the discovery of the Higgs, CERN management’s desire to claim it was so strong that when, in February 2013, the deputy chair of physics at Brookhaven National Laboratory stated “that a ‘definitive’ answer might require ‘another few years’ after the collider’s 2015 restart” (reported also in the document at [47]) it was immediately followed by CERN Research Director, Sergio Bertolucci in early March, 2013 stating that confirming spin-0 was the major remaining requirement to determine whether the particle is at least some kind of Higgs boson.

In less than two weeks, on March 14, 2013, without acquiring any additional data because the LHC was turned off for two years, CMS and Atlas confirmed “no spin and positive parity” which “strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson.”

It would appear that results and discoveries are orchestrated by CERN management ahead of time at the table, completely detached from reality and from experimental results. E.g. (a) 50 magnets melt on September 19, 2008, after running (for a short time, nine days earlier) a beam that did not exceed 0.45 TeV, half the power of the beam running at the Tevatron at FERMILab in the U.S. Even so, CERN management went ahead with their champagne celebration (of a failure – because FERMILab still had the record of the most powerful Accelerator in the world) with delegates from 38 countries, TV, journalists… to celebrate “success” (???), (b) Level-1 Trigger of major experiments fail to capture 100,000 good events out of 1,000 trillion produced by the LHC accelerator that were satisfying the criteria established by the experimental physicist. Their flawed Level-1 Trigger captured only about 100 events measuring a different value of the energy (126.5 GeV Atlas and 125.3 GeV CMS) and very few decays in agreements with the expected particles.

Many scientists suggested waiting to acquire more data in order to make a firmer statement about what kind of particles they are, but CERN management, as in the previous case, disregarded reality, disregarded evidence and scientific ethics and continued their agenda.

The following will clarify the type of violation to the code of ethics [46] for a scientist we are dealing with. On January 2011, cancer patient Lillo Mulone wrote to CERN Research Director, Sergio Bertolucci, asking him to meet with researcher Dario Crosetto to evaluate the efficiency of his technology for particle detection for saving lives with an effective early cancer detection.  A few years prior, Mulone had written a letter to CERN management, accompanied by thousands of signatures requesting a review of Crosetto’s technology, however, he never received a reply. Nor CERN responded to the 7,000 signatories of a petition requesting the same thing. The 7,000 signatures were hand-delivered on February 4, 2010, at meeting between a delegation from the “Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths” and CERN management (CERN Director General and Director of Research). The delegation went to CERN on February 2-4 to present an article [[51]] of 15 co-authors and about 1,000 cosigners at the CERN workshop “Physics for Health”. Without following a scientific procedure a committee at the CERN workshop “Physics for Health”, led by CERN Director of Research Sergio Bertolucci assigned the first prize to the Axial-PET project [[52]].

Mulone was very pleased that after so many attempts from many people Bertolucci this time accepted his request. Crosetto was glad to render a service to Mulone and to the 7,000 people who signed the petition, and drove from Turin, Italy, to Geneva with a cardio surgeon from Pavia to meet during one hour and half with the CERN Director of Research on January 12, 2011.

Crosetto then made a very precise report to Mulone who decided to make it public by sending it to important people in communication and with great influence in the world so that the truth could help overcome dishonesty and corruption and benefit future cancer patients. Mulone succumbed to cancer and Crosetto promised [[53]] him to do all what he could to receive scientific, pertinent answers from decision makers in the field to address the issue of particle detection and all related technologies for early cancer detection, which is providing the highest return in lives saved [[54]] that is largely recognized and proven successful by experimental data.

Therefore, the copy that you will find at the following links is not the first time is has been made public as it was already disclosed earlier by Mulone (see the transcript in English [6] and the original audio [[55]]). This report is very revealing in explaining the orchestration that has been going on at CERN for many years. You will hear words directly from the mouth of the CERN Research Director, and it is shocking how much they are in conflict with the role that everyone believes CERN should have and what an ethical scientist should comply with.

Bertolucci did not argue against Crosetto’s claims of the advantages of his invention.  Because it was proven to be feasible and functional in hardware, he could not say it was flawed. Instead, the argument between Crosetto and Bertolucci was about the role of CERN.

Bertolucci’s words are very clear that CERN’s role is to develop leading edge technology, testing the most advance components and technology as if CERN would be the testing lab of a major manufacturing company.

Crosetto’s view was that CERN’s role is to find the most effective solution to build instrumentation, the most powerful and most economical to trap, capture, and accurately measure any new particle that experimental physicists seek. An instrumentation that should have the capability to satisfy the implementation of any algorithm the experimental physicist desire to execute to filter and accurately measure the characteristics of the expected particle.

Crosetto argued that one cannot expect to take the most advanced and expensive components, and by putting them together always getting a better performance in solving a task. He demonstrated the opposite with his invention which uses a clever synergy among economical components and built a Level-1 Trigger that is more efficient than expensive and fast GaAs, ECL, etc., components. In fact after his invention, the use of those components in the Level-1 Trigger became obsolete.

However, most revealing are Bertolucci’s own words on how he approaches his role at CERN; from them, one can understand why he chose to be on the committee that awarded first prize to the undeserving Axial-PET project. In other words, he assigned the first prize to himself because during the meeting with Crosetto he disclosed that Axial-PET was his project and Christian Joram was taking orders and receiving funding from him.

The reason he did this is to gain credibility for the Axial-PET project, regardless of its scientific merit, and to deceive the public, taxpayers, philanthropists and non-profit organizations like the Association Madam Curie who trust the scientific judgment of Bertolucci and of his CERN committee to give money to the project Axial-PET.

However, Crosetto presented Bertolucci with a poster he had used at a conference as well as an article which explained and proved  that the Axial-PET project which claimed to use the most advanced leading edge technology was less efficient and more costly than current PET, while Crosetto’s 3D-CBS using more economical crystals, detector assembly, etc. was hundreds of times more efficient and more economical than current PET.

The other disturbing aspect regarding Bertolucci’s words was his repeated use (33 times) of the word “f*_c_k” to make his point, which is not appropriate language for a person of his position when expressing scientific concepts in a meeting. Ingrid and Adam, I hope that you will consider it important to inform your colleagues by approving the sending of this document to the over 12,000 people working on the CERN project, so they may be informed as to what really happened, and listen directly to the words of their leader so they may judge for themselves if they agree to his strategy and feel represented as scientists who have obligations toward society.

5. Ingrid and Adam, in all honesty, wouldn’t you teach young scientists that in science is essential to value merits and make decisions based on evidence of calculations, demonstrations, and experimental results rather than orchestrating actions or planning the future ignoring those? Wouldn’t you agree and suggest to young scientists that the celebration of the failure of the LHC on October 21, 2008, should have been cancelled by the CERN Director General? More appropriate, would have been a celebration after November 30, 2009, when the LHC reached the power of 1.18 TeV, celebrating LHC becoming the most powerful accelerator in the world, surpassing 0.98 TeV attained by FERMILab in the U.S.

On March 30, 2010, when LHC circulated beams at 3.5 TeV, their leaders Lynn Evan, Steve Meyer, etc. could have been nominated for the Nobel Prize because they built the most powerful accelerator in the world, had diligently learned from and overcome mistakes with a working device. Wouldn’t you also teach young scientists that it is a dishonor and detrimental to science to act without considering evidence or to celebrate a “success” as happened on July 4, 2012, when Atlas and CMS claimed to have discovered the Higgs boson when instead it needed more evidence? Or the failure of CMS and Atlas to admit their Level-1 Trigger was flawed missing 100,000 good events matching the characteristics defined by the experimental physicists.

Also in this case, if Atlas and CMS had proven they could build an instrument capable to execute a Level-1 Trigger algorithm, effective at trapping, capturing the data, accurately measure them and identifying the particles satisfying the characteristics dictated by the experimental physicists, for the solution adopted with greatest scientific merit they should be nominated for a Nobel Prize. In this way, you will teach young scientists that there is no conspiracy, no-pre arranged orchestrated announcement of a discovery detached from evidence, no hard feelings or favoritism, but just a respect for the code of ethics of science, for the evidence.

6. Ingrid and Adam, I would like to ask once more for you to correct your perception and approve the proposed workshop; please do not provide a political answer because the statements in the proposal are for a technical discussion to prevent a failure for the future $30 billion and 10 years work as happened in the past with the $50 billion and 20 years work. I am very interested to hear how you and your colleagues plan to solve the problem of higher luminosity and pile-up issues, and how you intend to use FPGA. I have ideas I would like to present and discuss with you, and I am sure there are many other senior scientists, young scientists, and PhD students who would like to share and discuss their ideas.

Looking forward for your reply,

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 4:53 PM
To: ‘ingrid’
Cc: ‘Bernstein, Adam’; ‘bellotti@labellum.net‘; unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: Submission of a half-day NSS workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014

Dear Ingrid,

Per our agreement to submit by May 4, 2014 our proposal for a workshop at the  2014 IEEE-NSS conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014, I am sending the following proposal (also attached in pdf) hoping you will find it valuable for advancing in science and reducing costs.

Please let us know if we need to adjust the text to some specific format/length, etc.

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto and Umberto Bellotti

PS. We are waiting to receive the answer from other people to be included among the Chairs

 

˄˄˄˄˄˄˄ start of the proposal of the workshop ˄˄˄˄˄˄˄˄˄

How does your project/idea/invention compares in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 8:00- 12:30
Location: TBD
Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs. (Bellotti@labellum.net)
Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths (UnitedToEndCancer@att.net)

Two decades ago, the technological advantages of Crosetto’s invention of the 3D-Flow system in the advancement of science and in the discovery of new particles were recognized at a major international scientific review requested by the director of the Supercollider and held at the Fermi National Laboratory.

Today the sentence Crosetto used to conceive his invention in 1992 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to address and find the best synergy between detector and electronics for creating a powerful instrument in High Energy Physics with the capability to trap (capture the good signals, process and measure all characteristics of the particle that one would like to find) any new particle that is expected to have some characteristics complying with a specific real-time algorithm designed by a physicist.

Here is that sentence: “Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good event as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be changed at a later date after first data taking, with the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels with no boundaries, to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.”

The 3D-Flow system architecture and its related innovations in the detector assembly, segmentation and coupling of the detector will cause a paradigm shift in the instrumentation of particle physics (particle tracking, calorimetry, imaging detectors, Trackers, Time-of-Flight), medical imaging (CT, PET, SPECT), space research, molecular physics, and true 3D imaging.

The reason for this workshop is to understand why after 20 years of work and billions of dollars spent the result is having built instrumentations which, measuring the same physical quantities (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a given phenomenon in nature, yet provide two different values, and in another experiment measure the speed of particles (e.g. neutrino speed) with an apparatus setup that from its conception can provide only inconclusive results because it is open to too many uncontrollable errors.

The need for this workshop is to ask every researcher to establish a link between their proposed research and the ultimate objective to build instrumentation capable of discovering new particles and reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. It is necessary to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking to fully understand the synergies of Crosetto’s inventions in the field of detector, detector segmentation and assembly, electronics, algorithm development, the coupling of the electronics with the detector etc., as compared with other systems.

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art of the technological developments in the various fields of application for particle detection, to analyze the limits of current systems which led to inconclusive results and to the need to replace the current first-level triggers and other components. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved money and increased the efficiency of the experiments. Leaders from major HEP experiments, such as CMS, Atlas, LHCb and Alice, as well as the physicists who approved measuring neutrino’s speed with OPERA experiment, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current HEP experiments and how they are overcome by the current upgrades, and to compare their approach with respect to the synergy of Crosetto’s inventions and with respect to other projects presented. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

The benefits from this workshop are to reduce the upgrade costs of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, to increase their power and efficiency in discovering new particles, and to start a paradigm change that will save money and open the door to greater advancement in science. The dialogue in this workshop with leaders who are designing and building upgrades of current experiments and new experiments is key to understanding all advantages and benefits from inventions which have been available for 20 years, instead of building upgrades only to find out years from now that they could have been done at a much lower cost and with better performance.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

From: ingrid [mailto:ingrid.gregor@desy.de] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 4:54 AM
To: Dario Crosetto
Cc: ‘Bernstein, Adam’; unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: Re: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination”

Dear Dario Crosetto,

Many thanks for your proposal for a half-day workshop during the 2014 IEEE NSS.

Unfortunately the workshop you propose does not fit the scope of the NSS.

As you may be aware, the special focus workshops are intended to explore emerging techniques and technologies that complement the content of the main program. Specificity of the approach is essential for a useful workshop. However there are no details of a specific approach, technology, or focused topic area that we can see in your proposal and for this reason we can¹t include it in the symposium workshop schedule.

The scope you provided is:

“The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art of the technological developments in the various fields of application for particle detection, to analyze the limits of current systems which led to inconclusive results and to the need to replace the current first-level triggers and other components”

In an earlier mail you mentioned the LHC experiment ATLAS and CMS in this context. The results of the LHC experiments are not inconclusive at all, but in very good agreement taking into account available statistics.

There is also no replacement of the trigger planned for the near future. The later staged replacement of any trigger electronics is planned for the higher luminosity phases of the LHC where the luminosity and the pile-up will be a factor of 10 higher as for the original designed experiments (and the program is extended by 10 years).

Another benefit you mention is to reduce the upgrade costs of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, to increase their power and efficiency in discovering new particles. The main cost driver the LHC upgrade are the new tracking detectors, especially the active sensor material. Also here the proposal is lacking the detailed description of the proposed technology to reduce costs, and in our judgement a broad and non-specific call to explore such improvements is insufficient basis for a workshop.

Our general conclusion is that while the aim of reducing upgrade costs and improving power are laudable goals, the proposal lacks the specificity essential for successful workshop. If you review past workshops, you will see

they hone in on more specific concepts for which there is a consensus in the community that a problem or a potential advance exists.

Again, we thank you for your submission, and you are of course welcome to
submit an abstract to the NSS for an oral or poster presentation.

Best wishes,

Ingrid and Adam

==========================

Dr. Ingrid-Maria Gregor, DESY
NSS Program Chair
Dr. Adam Bernstein
NSS Deputy Program Chair

—–Original Message—–
From: nss2014-org@desy.de [mailto:nss2014-org@desy.de] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 10:49 AM
To: crosetto@att.net
Subject: NSS2014 abstract 2487

Dear Prof. Crosetto,

We regret to inform you that your abstract #2487 “A New Approach to Build More Powerful Apparatus to Discover New Particles and Reduces the Cost of HEP Experiments”

has not been accepted for presentation to the 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium.

The decision of program committee to reject your abstract was based on  the reviewer evaluation of quality and relevance for this year’s topics.

As we had 802 abstracts submitted to the conference we were unable to accommodate all abstracts in our program.

We thank you for your submission and certainly hope that you nevertheless will attend the conference in Seattle, and to consider submissions in future years.

Sincerely,

Ingrid and Adam

Dr. Ingrid-Maria Gregor
NSS Program Chair
Dr. Adam Bernstein
NSS Program Deputy Chair

 

*********** Previous emails *********

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:13 PM
To: ‘Bernstein, Adam’; ‘ingrid’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’
Subject: RE: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagin

Adam,

Many thanks for your reply. I will wait. This will avoid me having to inquire again.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario

 

From: Bernstein, Adam [mailto:Bernstein3@llnl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:52 AM
To: Dario Crosetto; ‘ingrid’
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: Re: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagin

Dario

Thank you for your submission.  We have received it and are circulating it to other organizers and reviewing it for relevance. This process takes a few days.  We should have an answer for you by the end of the week.

Adam

 

From:Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:01 AM
To: ‘ingrid’
Cc: ‘Bernstein, Adam’; unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: RE: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dear Ingrid,

Thank you for your response. I will take your advice in drafting the proposal for a NSS half day workshop by Sunday May 4th, however, you did not address the content of my NIM article and the sentence below. Please could you address it? What do you think it is needed to be improved the first level trigger of major LHC experiments for the restart of the Runs in 2015 (or 2016) that was lacking in the current trigger?

Please comment on this sentence:

Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good event as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be change at a later date, with the capability to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data set and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems”

Thank you,
Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: Ingrid [mailto:ingrid.gregor@desy.de] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Dario Crosetto
Cc: ‘Bernstein, Adam’; unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: Re: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dear Dario,

thank you very much for following up our phone call.

The special focus workshops are there to expand on new, emerging techniques and technology to complement the content of the program. For example

– introduce a new field to the NSS/MIC.

This was for example the case for the He3 alternative detectors for some time. After having He3 alternative workshops for some years we decided it should now be a standard topic and is part of the Neutron etection Topic

– or reintroduce a topic to the conference.

This year we moved the nuclear power instrumentation from a standard topic to a special focus workshop.

From the sentence you sent me earlier today I have problems to derive a technique or technology you want to give special focus to. HEP instrumentation is a long-standing topic in the NSS, also trigger and DAQ electronics as well as other electronic topics.

You are more than welcome to submit an abstract on your topic to the NSS, but I can not see how you want to fill a full day with this topic.

Best wishes

Ingrid

 

On May 2, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Dario Crosetto wrote:

Dear Ingrid,

Thank you for taking my call Wednesday, April 30 and for setting the deadline on Sunday, May 4th for me to submit the proposal for a workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS conference. I will submit a proposal before that date, however, it will be useful if you would explain where you got the impression that I have not worked in instrumentation for HEP in the past and I do not intend to address the subject of instrumentation in the workshop, and for this reason you already anticipated that my proposal will be out of scope.

As I mentioned on the phone I have several articles published in scientific journals and I would like to ask if you could provide which aspect of my innovations/approach, for example described in one article, in your opinion is not addressing in depth the issue of designing instrumentation with the capability to identify any particle and lower the cost of High Energy Physics experiments. One of my contribution that I would like you to review is a 45-page peer-review article published by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research (NIM) Sec. A, vol. 436 -1999-, pp. 341-385.
Parte1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NlVSWHhoTl9jZXc/edit?usp=sharing ;
Parte 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5ZG82dWRlUVVPWXc/edit?usp=sharing

I implemented the system described in the NIM article in hardware on an IBM PC platform (because the large VME boards were very expensive, however, I demonstrated that it can be implemented in any platform and in any technology). It is modular with 68 x 3D-Flow processors per board. By testing the communication among two boards it shows feasibility to build system of any dimension for any HEP experiment.

I would also like to ask you to evaluate the following sentence that I used to conceive my invention in 1992 and that is still actual as a stimulus to any young student or researcher to address and find the best solution for creating a powerful instrumentation (detector + electronics) in High Energy Physics with the capability to trap (capture the good signals, process and measure all characteristics of the particle that one would like to find) any new particle that is expected to have some characteristics complying with a specific real-time algorithm designed by a physicist, giving him/her also the possibility to modify the algorithm at a later date or to fine tune it after analyzing the first data taken.

Here is the sentence that a researcher who intend to provide a powerful tool (instrumentation) to experimenters should try to find the best answer: “Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good event as possible, complying to a specific real-time algorithm that could be change at a later date, with the capability to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data set and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.” (I can try to make the sentence shorter and say the same thing, however, this is just an example of a challenging question I intend to write in the announcement of the workshop). Do you find anything out of scope in the above sentence that in your opinion is not related to design and improve instrumentation for HEP?

Please let me know if by Sunday, May 4th I need to provide a document similar to one of the following that I receive as an example from Adam Bernstein or if I need to provide additional information, or whatever you need in addition can be provided at a later date.

Thank You,
Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

˄˄˄˄˄* examples of material I need to provide by Sunday, May 4th ˄˄˄˄*

Towards a 10 ps Single Soft Photon Detector

Sunday, October 27th, 2013, 8:30- 17:00
Location: ASEM 203 A,B
Chairs:    Harry van der Graaf, Nikhef, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (vdgraaf@nikhef.nl)
Edoardo Charbon, Delft University of Technology/EWI, The Netherlands (E.Charbon@tudelft.nl)
Dennis Schaart, Delft University of Technology/TNW/RST (d.r.schaart@tudelft.nl)

A decade ago, the detection, with good time resolution, of single soft (0.1 μm < λ < 10 μm) photons was only possible with photomultipliers. Since then, the development of silicon photomulipliers (SiPMs) has gained avalanche-likemomentum in terms of detection efficiency, time resolution, granularity (2D spatial resolution), and cost reduction. These planar solid-state devices are insensitive to magnetic fields and require only low bias voltage. The ultimate soft photon detector would provide a time stamp for each individual photon with an uncertainty of less than 10 ps, as well as the x- and y- coordinates of detection with micron resolution, while noise levels should be reduced further, and data rates should be increased beyond 25 Gbps. The development of Ultra Fast Single Soft Photon Detectors (UPDs) presently isone of the most relevant and dynamic areas of research in radiation technology.

The workshop will be centred on the ultimate limits of SiPMs, focusing on new technology such as vacuum electron multiplication, superconductivity, and on new materials like germanium, graphene, nano-grass, and diamond. There will be special attention to new developments of high-QE field-emission photocathodes.

UPDs will cause a paradigm shift in the instrumentation of particle physics (particle tracking, calorimetric, Cherenkov imaging detectors, Cherenkov Trackers, Time-of-Flight), medical imaging (CT, PET, SPECT), space research, atomic and molecular physics, optical data communication, quantum encryption, and true 3D imaging.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks made by internationally recognized experts. The beginning of the afternoon will be dedicated mainly to short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

PET-MR and SPECT-MR

Date: October 28, 2013; 13:30-17:30
Location: ASEM 201
Organizers: Georges El Fakhri, Ph.D., DABR, Benjamin M. W. Tsui, Ph.D.

After 15 years of research and development, simultaneous PET-MR has emerged from bench to bed-side. Innovative detector technologies, special instrumentation designs, and imaging acquisition and reconstruction methods have demonstrated feasibility of acquiring PET and MR small animal image data simultaneously with minimal interference and degradation of image quality. The success has translated to clinical PET-MR with the first commercial system available in 2011. Despite the excitement and the availability of commercial systems, several issues such as attenuation for PET and motion correction remain topics of active research. Furthermore, evaluation of its clinical utility has just begun and is a hot area of research as well. The development of simultaneous SPECT-MR lags behind with feasibility demonstrated recently in small animal imaging studies.

Following the overwhelming success of the 2010 IEEE NSS/MIC Workshop on PET-MR in Knoxville, this workshop will provide the fundamentals of simultaneous PET-MR and SPECT-MR and focus on challenges and opportunities afforded by the recent and exciting developments in innovative detectors and instrumentation for simultaneous small animal and clinical PET-MR and SPECT-MR imaging, reconstruction and quantitation methods, radiochemistry, as well as emerging clinical applications of PET-MR in oncology, neurology and cardiology. World experts will cover each topic in focused presentations followed by discussions.

˄˄˄˄˄* End of examples of material I need to provide by Sunday, May 4th˄˄˄˄*

 

April 30, 2014, 09:59 am

Phone conversation between Ingrid-Maria Gregor and Dario Crosetto

CROSETTO: Adam Bernstein, the deputy Chair of NSS gave me your phone number and asked me to call you about this. Did you receive our e-mails that we exchanged last night?

GREGOR:  Yes, Dario. I am currently in the preparation of a big proposal at this time. To be honest, this second I do not have time for a long discussion.  Last night I did read through your proposal for the special focus workshops and I think this is not really in the scope of the conference.

CROSETTO: Excuse me? It is not in the scope of the conference?

GREGOR: I think this kind of discussion you are proposing is not really in the scope of the conference.

CROSETTO: Well could you please send me an e-mail telling me………

GREGOR: I meant this is an instrumentation conference. We are really looking into new technical developments, new results on how to solve technical problems.  So it’s really a technical conference and the attendees are more interested in “how can I make my detector better and …” Your description of what I read last night sounded rather political, like “Where did Atlas made mistakes?” which this statement, for me… is actually relatively crude and other statements like this, sound for me, more like not an instrumentation but a kind of a political discussion and I think this is not really within the scope of this conference.

CROSETTO: Well, the last e-mail I sent you last night had a very short title, about 1 line long and…

GREGOR:  No, I got another e-mail from you earlier on from April the 17th where you wrote a longer description of what you would like to do.

CROSETTO: Yes, but as I said, it was perhaps confusing, because it was a target to several applications.  Now I will focus only on the NSS, nuclear science symposium. Well, if you could just let me know, because I have to inform also other people here, what does not comply and what is not appropriate.

GREGOR:  Yeah, and maybe I don’t have enough information for this but for what I got from all the messages together, I have the feeling this is kind of a political discussion which I think should not be part of an instrumentation conference.  If you can give me a little bit more of what kind of thing you would be thinking of, I can take a look at it, but I have to say we are very, very close to the deadline.  I mean we have to have the workshops ready in a few days so you’re really coming in at the very last moment and I am not sure if you can even meet the deadline when we decide on the special focus workshops. As I said, I really don’t see this as a topic for this kind of conference.

CROSETTO:  Would you give me a deadline please?

GREGOR:  At the end of this week.

CROSETTO:  Friday or Sunday?

GREGOR:  Sunday.

CROSETTO:  Ok, I will work hard on that.

GREGOR:  As I said, I think this is more a political and not a scientific topic, therefore I am not fond of this topic.

CROSETTO:  I have been working very hard to be very technical. I wrote a very technical scientific article in the Nuclear Instruments and Methods and Physics Research Scientific Journal that was 45 pages.

GREGOR:  Was it accepted?

CROSETTO:  Oh yes, it has been published for many years, and has been appreciated, as technical and scientific and not political.

GREGOR:  As I said, Dario, maybe my amount of information is not good enough for this and therefore, I need some more information.

CROSETTO:  Yes, for sure, I can give you references of IEEE and articles from Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. These are top scientific journals.

GREGOR:  I believe you. As I say, I am not aware of these articles right now.

CROSETTO:  OK, so I will try to clarify that this is very technical, very scientific, and not political, ok?

GREGOR: OK. Yes, if you make that clear, we can discuss it, but I would need this in the next couple of days.

CROSETTO: Yes, and please if you will respond to my e-mail, I will not disturb you on the phone.

GREGOR: As I said, I am about to submit a very big proposal and I have some priorities in the next couple of days.

CROSETTO:  OK, I will send it to you, thank you.

GREGOR: OK, thanks for your understanding.

CROSETTO: OK, thank you, Good bye.

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:12 PM
To: ‘Bernstein, Adam’
Cc: ‘Ingrid-Maria Gregor’
Subject: RE: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dear Adam,

Many thanks, that was helpful. I just wanted to reassure that it is not my intention to propose any subject of saving lives at Nuclear Science Symposium Workshop.  It will deal strictly on tools for particles detection. I am familiar with that because I was hired at the Supercollider to study the first level trigger for GEM and I ended designing a programmable trigger suitable for several experiments. The title for NSS could be something like this: “How does your project/idea/invention compares to other projects in advancing science in the discovery of new particles and reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” However, now is late here in Italy and I might think something shorter tomorrow. It was helpful to read the ten lines (circa) description of each workshop in 2013.

Thanks,
Kind Regards,

Dario

 

From: Bernstein, Adam [mailto:Bernstein3@llnl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:42 PM
To: Dario Crosetto
Cc: ‘Ingrid-Maria Gregor’
Subject: Re: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dario

You are welcome. Please see the Special Focus Workshop link at

http://www.nss-mic.org/2013/NSSMain.asp

This has several examples from 2013 of the kind of workshop you’d be organizing.

Adam

 

From: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net>
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Adam Bernstein <bernstein3@llnl.gov>
Cc: Ingrid-Maria Gregor <ingrid.gregor@desy.de>
Subject: RE: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your response, yes, please send me an example of a Workshop organized during the previous years. For example, last year there was a workshop pro and con the 10 picosecond circuits, however, I do not have the documentation in the 2013 booklet.

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: Bernstein, Adam [mailto:Bernstein3@llnl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:06 PM
To: Dario Crosetto
Cc: Ingrid-Maria Gregor
Subject: Re: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dario

Thank you for your email and phone call.  My apologies for not responding sooner.

I’m CC;ing Ingrid Gregor, the Science Chair for the Nuclear Science Symposium, about your request.  I’m not sure whether the deadline for such submissions has past, Ingrid can tell us.  To organize the workshop, we’d have to establish relevance to the NSS goals, and you would need to create and agenda for and invite  speakers to the session.  Assuming time and space are available, this could be 1/2 day or all day.

Based on the information below, the topic does appear to be potentially relevant for a cross-cutting workshop within NSS-MIC. My main concern is that the language not be over-broad so that you don’t get a cacophony of voices claiming their detector both cures cancer and finds the Higgs or weighs the neutrino.

I will be seeing Ingrid next week and we will discuss this if she does not respond to you sooner.

Regards, Adam

 

Adam Bernstein
Deputy Science Chair,  2014 Nuclear Science Symposium
Rare Event Detection Group Leader
Physics Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550
L-211
(925) 422-5918
(925) 337-4671 (cell)
(925) 424-5512 (fax)

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:32 PM
To: ‘Jae Sung Lee’; ‘hjk1@yonsei.ac.kr‘; ‘steven.meikle@sydney.edu.au‘; ‘gscho@kaist.ac.kr‘; ‘kanno@nucleng.kyoto-u.ac.jp‘; ‘Ralph James’; ‘jhha@kaeri.re.kr‘; ‘cslevin@stanford.edu‘; ‘a.lavite@ieee.org‘; ‘e.lampo@ieee.org‘; ‘ingrid.gregor@desy.de‘; ‘bernstein3@bnl.gov‘; ‘elfakhri@pet.mgh.hardvard.edu‘; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de‘; ‘michael.fiederle@fmf.uni-freiburg.de‘; ‘p.ledu@ipnl.in2p3.fr
Cc: ‘Andrew Lankford’; ‘Uwe.Bratzler@cern.ch‘; ‘aaron.brill@vanderbilt.edu‘; ‘mpomper@jhmi.edu‘; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net‘; ‘office@fundamentalphysicsprize.org‘; ‘info@gatesfoundation.org‘; ‘berkshire@berkshirehathaway.com‘; ‘jmjo@samsung.com‘; ‘minkook.cho@samsung.com‘; ‘bjoern.seitz@glasgow.ac.uk‘; ‘Peter.Jenni@cern.ch‘; ‘Fabiola.Gianotti@cern.ch‘; ‘michel.della.negra@cern.ch‘; ‘Tejinder.Virdee@cern.ch‘; ‘guido.tonelli@pi.infn.it‘; ‘joseph.incandela@cern.ch‘; ‘Horst.Wenninger@cern.ch‘; ‘rolf.heuer@cern.ch

Subject: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Subject: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science” that is of interest to scientists, philanthropists, foundations, cancer organizations, taxpayers and the general public

Dear Organizers of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference and Colleagues,

I respectfully request:

1. Permission (and also guidance) to organize a workshop within the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference with the title: “How does your project/idea/invention compares to other projects in advancing science in the discovery of new particles and in reducing cancer deaths, and how can it reduce costs in both applications?” I was encouraged by Craig Levine who said to me after his talk on the last day of the 2013 conference that he would support such a request for a workshop if submitted.

2. Access to the 2013 Conference Record (CD) because I am interested to read the article by Meikle Steven “A Guide to Best Practices in Writing and Reviewing Scientific Papers that he presented with Simon Cherry. I would also like to receive a copy of the article by Simon Cherry about the ultrasensitive Total-Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research. However, at the end of March 2014 none of the ten articles presented by Cherry were available at the 2013 IEEE CD web-side where we could find articles from other authors including mine. The first week of April 2014 I was still able to login to the CD section of the IEEE website, however, all articles had been removed and April 14 it is not even possible to login and I have not received the CD.

Because CMS and Atlas experiments measured the same phenomenon in nature yet received two different values, and because of their limits in accurately measuring particles’ decay, they need to replace their first level trigger and other electronics. Also, because the over 5,000 current PET introduced in the market over the past 17 years, when combined with the new drugs, do not show a significant reduction of cancer death and cost, it is imperative and essential to ask researchers to establish a connection, a logical path between the objective and the proposed technology.

Using the most advanced and expensive components does not automatically guarantee better results in a more powerful and flexible tool for finding new particles and reducing cancer deaths and cost. The researcher must explain and support with calculations and logical reasoning even before building a prototype why one can expect higher performance, flexibility, and lower costs than other approaches. What is important is the synergy among components (detectors, optics, assembly, electronics, coupling electronics with detectors, algorithms, software, hardware, etc.) and not the use of the most advanced and expensive components.

The workshop could be divided into several sessions followed by a round table discussion similar to the “Hadron Therapy” and “The 10 picosecond electronics for PET” at the 2013 Conference. …

List of the people who received a copy of Crosetto’s letter dated June 30, 2014:

Leaders of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference
To. Anthony Lavietes 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chair
To. Ed Lampo, 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Deputy General Chair
To Dr. Georges El Fakhri, Chair 2014 IEEE-MIC Conference
To. Dr. Katia Parodi Co-Chair2014 IEEE-MIC

Leaders of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference
To. Hee-Joung Kim, 2013-IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chair
To. Steve Meikle, 2013-IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Deputy General Chair
To: Dr. Craig Levin, 2013-IEEE-MIC Deputy Program Chair
To: Dr. Jae Sung Lee, 2013-IEEE-MIC Program Chair
To. Gyuseong Cho, 2013-IEEE-NSS Program Chair
To. Ikuo Kanno, 2013-IEEE-NSS Deputy Program Chair
To. Lynn Evans, 2013-IEEE-NSS Plenary Talk (CERN)
To. Jaemoon Jo, 2013-IEEE-MIC Plenary Talk (Samsung Electronics)
To. Martin Pomper, 2013 IEEE-MIC Plenary Talk (Johns Hopkins Medical Institution)

Some IEEE senior scientists who support an open public scientific procedure
To. Ralph James, 2013-IEEE-RTSD Program Co-Chair
To. Jang Ho Ha, 2013-IEEE-RTSD Program Co-Chair
To. Uwe Bratzler, former IEEE-NSS-MIC General Chair
To. Aaron Brill, Professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Some scientists with responsibilities in the field of particle detection
To. Rolf Heuer, CERN Director General
To. Horst Wenninger, former CERN Director General
To. Peter Jenni, CERN-Atlas experiment
To. Fabiola Gianotti, CERN-Atlas experiment
To. Andrew Lankford, CERN-Atlas Experiment
To. Michel Della Negra, CERN-CMS Experiment
To. Tejinder Singh Virdee, CERN-CMS Experiment
To. Guido Tonelli, CERN-CMS Experiment
To. Joe Incandela, CERN-CMS Experiment

Government Funding Agencies:
To. Dr. Patricia Dehmer Director of the Department of Energy, Office of Science
To. Dr. Francis S. Collins Director of the National Institutes of Health
To. Dr. Alexandru Costescu Development of new diagnostic tools and technologies: in vivo medical imaging technologies. European Commission Agency funding Research
To. Dr. Torbjörn Ingemansson Tools and technologies for advanced therapies. European Commission Agency funding Research
To. Dr. Sasa Jenko Research and Innovation actions. European Commission Agency funding Research
To. Dr. Barbara Kerstiens Piloting personalised medicine in health and care systems European Commission Agency funding Research

Entrepreneurs interested in the advancements of physics for the benefit of mankind
cc. Yuri Milner, the Russian entrepreneur who startled the scientific world in 2012 by handing awards to scientists

Private Funding Agencies and Billionaires leading “The Giving Pledge,” an organization of billionaires committed to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy
cc. Luca Remmert, President, Compagnia di San Paolo, Turin, Italy (Leading Private Foundation in Europe)
cc. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Co-Chairs
cc. Warren Buffet, American business magnate, investor, and philanthropist. Co-Chair of “The Giving Pledge”

cc. Television, Newspapers, Magazines and Online News who wrote about CERN and the movie Particle Fever: BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, One Guy’s Opinion, Groucho Reviews, It’s Just Movies, SF Weekly, Seattle Weekly, The Patriot Ledger, Blu-ray.com, East Bay Express, Philadelphia Inquirer, Metro, Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Arizona Republic, Paste Magazine, Chicago Reader, Daily Herald (IL), San Francisco Chronicle, Salon.com, NPR, Christian Science Monitor, Canada.com, Flick Filosopher, Globe and Mail, Los Angeles Times, Toronto Star, New York Daily News, AV Club, Slant Magazine, RogerEbert.com, Time Out New York, Village Voice, The Dissolve, Daily Telegraph, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, [44].

cc. Mark Levinson, Director of the movie “Particle Fever

 


[1] One page description of one of the basic elements of Crosetto’s invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5UlpTLXhQQjFrZDg/edit?usp=sharing

[2] Video explaining Crosetto’s invention for High Energy Physics and Medical Imaging applications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMnHRuWo4o&feature=channel&list=UL

[3] Article presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Seoul, South Korea, October 27, November 2, 2013. Conference Record, R05-52. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YXU0MW1QM1IzUW8/edit?usp=sharing

[4] Report by the review panel about the formal review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow parallel processing system held on December 14, 1993 at FERMI National Laboratory https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YUdqVll4ZkVkWTA/edit?usp=sharing

[5]  CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas) has been in the news in 2012 for corruption and for criminal investigation. All leaders were forced to resign, including two Nobel Laureates. On September 2009 CPRIT asked for public comments to the rule for assigning grants. Crosetto noticed that the rules were asking applicants to “capture reviewer’s attention” without specifying that should be by demonstrating highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. In fact the vague statement could be interpreted as “giving $90,000 for Gov.’s campaign,” as it occurred and the inaccurate rules were not preventing that. Crosetto’s remarks were ignored and corruption had an open path. See Crosetto’s remarks at page 43 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RXhPQmhBNmlnZjQ/edit?usp=sharing. In April 2012 the CPRIT CEO wrote an email to the Nobel Prize CPRIT Scientific Director asking him to resign. By December 11, 2012, the two Scientific Directors (both Nobel Laureates), the CEO and the Director of Commercialization were no longer in their positions at CPRIT. On Nov. 18, 2012, newspapers disclosed that David Shanahan got $12.8 million in CPRIT grants after Shanahan and his associates gave $90,000 to the campaigns of Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. On Nov. 29, 2012, CPRIT disclosed that $11 million in grants were awarded to the company Peloton without going through the required commercialization or scientific review. On December 11, 2012, the Travis County district attorney’s office confirmed they were criminally investigating CPRIT. On Dec. 21, 2012, the CPRIT oversight Committee appointed Wayne Roberts, a former budget director for Perry, as the agency’s new interim executive director. Should taxpayers have confidence in Perry’s former budget director to investigate the $90,000 Perry received for his campaign from an awardee? Please visit: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Anatomy-of-a-grant-Emails-indicate-cancer-agency-3622443.phphttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Conflicts-of-interest-possible-in-Houston-cancer-3578293.phphttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/articleComments/Conflicts-of-interest-possible-in-Houston-cancer-3578293.php?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos;   http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Conflicts-of-interest-possible-in-Houston-cancer-3578293.php  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/507.pdf;   http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/tag/cprit/; http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/05/m-d-anderson-offers-to-resubmit-controversial-grant-application/, www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/322.pdf.

[6] List of statements from scientists that are not complying with the ethic of a scientist. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5SURFR01FbjNON1U/edit?usp=sharing

[[7]] S. Dasu: seminar on January 9, 2013 on what is confirmed, what is not confirmed and the year and effort it will take to confirm the Higgs boson, http://www.hep.wisc.edu/~dasu/public/Dasu-H2Tau-Seminar.pdf

[8] CMS Technical Design Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade. CERN-LHCC-2013-011. CMS-TDR-012. ISMB 978-92-9083-390-1, 1 August 2013. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556311/files/CMS-TDR-012.pdf

[9] Recognition of the value of Crosetto’s basic invention in this field that he presented in 1992 within 35 days at three international conferences in Europe, Annecy and the U.S. Corpus Christi, TX, Orlando, FL, and published in the prestigious scientific journals: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and IEEE-NSS-MIC.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NFN3ZFFyWmU1cUU/edit?usp=sharing

[10] D. Crosetto: LHCb base-line level-0 trigger 3D-Flow implementation. Nuclear Instr. and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436 (1999) pp. 341-385. Part 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NlVSWHhoTl9jZXc/edit?usp=sharing  Part 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5ZG82dWRlUVVPWXc/edit?usp=sharing

[11] CERN annual report for the year 2012 with figures on overall costs and personnel cost. http://oldlibrary.web.cern.ch/oldlibrary/content/ar/yellowrep/varia/annual_reports/2012/pdfs/Eng/CERNinfigures.pdf

[12] CERN report by the Human Resources Division –HR- on the budget and CERN personnel http://hr-info.web.cern.ch/hr-info/stats/hrr/HR2004.pdf

[13] D. Crosetto: “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) Features and Implementation” IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M7-129. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RDQ2UURPeHBIYnc/edit?usp=sharing

[14] Statements by leaders of trigger of the major experiment at the trigger Session of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/852.pdf

[[15]] S. Dasu: seminar on January 9, 2013 on what is confirmed, what is not confirmed and the year and effort it will take to confirm the Higgs boson, http://www.hep.wisc.edu/~dasu/public/Dasu-H2Tau-Seminar.pdf

[16] SDC (Solenoidal Detector Collaboration), Technical Design Report, SDC-92-201, SSCL-SR-1215, April 1, 1992

[17] GEM (Gammas Electrons and Muons) Technical Design Report, GEM-TN-93-262 SSCL-SR-1219, April 30, 1993

[18] Atlas (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) Technical Proposal CERN/LHCC/94/43, LHCC/P2, December 15, 1994

[19] CMS (The Compact Muon Solenoid) Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94/38 LHCC/P1, December 15, 1994

[20] Atlas (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) Level-1 Trigger 1999 http://cds.cern.ch/record/381429/files/cer-0307030.pdf Atlas Phase II upgrade  https://indico.fnal.gov/getFile.py/access?contribId=13&sessionId=3&resId=0&materialId=1&confId=6381

[21] CERN Annual Report 2013 https://cds.cern.ch/record/1710503/files/AnnualReport2013.pdf

[22] Burns, A., Chapman-Hatchett, A., Crosetto, D., et al.: “The BOSC project”.
1990. In the Proceedings of 2nd European Particle Accelerator Conference (EPAC 90), Nice, France, 12-16 Jun 1990, pp 803-805

[23] Crosetto, D. “Fast Digital Parallel Processing Module (Fdpp). . CERN-DD/89-33, CERN-SPS/89-50, Dec 1989. 37pp.

[24] Crosetto, D.: Lecture at CERN School of Computing, Ysermonde, Belgium 2-15 September 1990, “Digital Signal Processing in High Energy Physics”. Publ. by CERN 91-05. 14 May 1991. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Z3Z4bHFLRWU5bDQ/edit?usp=sharing

[25] Bertolino, F. et al.: “A DSP based FASTBUS board for data acquisition or high level trigger control in DELPHI electromagnetic calorimeters. 1989. Presented at Real Time Computer Applications in Nuclear, Particle and Plasma Physics, Williamsburg, Virginia, 16-19 May 1989. Published in IEEE Trans.Nucl.Sci.36:1469-1474,1989

[26] Crosetto, D.: “DSP review and applications.” Oct 1990. Prepared for ECFA Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Workshop: Physics and Instrumentation, Aachen, Germany, 4-9 Oct 1990. Published in *Aachen 1990, Large Hadron Collider, vol. 3* 104-111

[27] Crosetto, D. A local / global architecture for level 2 calorimeter triggers.
D. Crosetto (INFN, Turin) , N. Ellis (Birmingham U.) , G. Mornacchi (CERN) , J. Strong (Royal Holloway, U. of London) . Oct 1990. Prepared for ECFA Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Workshop: Physics and Instrumentation, Aachen, Germany, 4-9 Oct 1990. Published in *Aachen 1990, Large Hadron Collider, vol. 3* 145-148

[28] D. Crosetto: “3D-Flow Processor for a Programmable Level-1 Trigger,” Computing in High Energy Physics, CHEP92, 21-25 September, 1992, Annecy, France, 803-806.

[29] D. Crosetto: “Calorimeter Programmable Level-1 Trigger,” III International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, Corpus Christi, Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 1992. SSCL-Preprint-180, October 1992

[30] D. Crosetto: “3D-Flow Processor for a Programmable Level-1 Trigger,” SSCL-Preprint-164, Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS), Medical Imaging Conference (MIC), Orlando, Florida, October 25-31. 1992

[31] D. Crosetto: “A modular parallel processing system for trigger decision and DAQ in HEP experiments,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A315, (1992), 487-490

[32] D. Crosetto: A fast cluster finding system for future HEP experiments. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A311 (1992) pp. 49-56.

[33] D. Crosetto: “General Programmable Level-1 Trigger with 3D-Flow Assembly System for Calorimeters of Different Sizes and Event Rates. SSCL-607, Dec. 1992. Submitted to Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research

[34] Explanation to laymen with an analogy one of the key concepts of Crosetto’s invention https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RndkMW5OWXdnQkk/edit?usp=sharing

[35] J. Butler: Letter appreciating and supporting Crosetto’s research work and inventions  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5eW9CbFpESFVxams/edit?usp=sharing

[36] LHCb Letter Of Intent (LOI) 1995 adopted the 3D-Flow for the calorimeter and muon level-0 trigger

[37] Amato, S. et al.: LHCb technical proposal. By LHCb Collaboration. CERN-LHCC-98-04, CERN-LHCC-P-4, Feb 1998. 180pp

[38] D. Crosetto: “400+ time improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower cost cancer screening.” Technical-scientific book presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Sympos. and Medical Imaging Conf., Lyon, France, 2000: ISBN 0-9702897-0-7. 2000. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5WVFVWnJteENqMWc/edit?usp=sharing

[39] D. Crosetto: “A modular VME or IBM PC based data acquisition system for multi-modality PET/CT scanners of different sizes and detector types.” Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-563, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MTBoTVRucF9CREU/edit?usp=sharing .

[40] D. Crosetto: “Real-time, programmable, digital signal-processing electronics for extracting the information from a detector module for multi-modality PET/SPECT/CT scanners.” Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-567. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5d1NENTRkSUg2NVU/edit?usp=sharing

[41] Article by Crosetto, D.: “3D-Flow DAQ IBM PC board for Photon Detection in PET and PET/CT” presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M3-130. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5eVRubUdMRmZxYkk/edit?usp=sharing

[42] CERN 2012 Accelerators annual report http://oldlibrary.web.cern.ch/oldlibrary//content/ar/yellowrep/varia/annual_reports/2012/pdfs/Eng/Accelerators.pdf

[43] The General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference attempted to organize with Crosetto a public workshop on technical issues at CERN on August 26, 2008. However, the colleagues contacted by him refused to implement a public scientific procedure. Crosetto gave his seminar at CERN on August 26, 2008 from the teleconference room of CMS and was broadcast via EVO system. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Z0xVbUlmcGFXTUE/edit?usp=sharing

[44] Reviews of the movie “Particle Fever” http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/particle_fever/reviews/#

[45] CERN movie 1,000 trillion events produced http://cds.cern.ch/record/1532418

[46] Code of ethic of a scientist http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/09/13/a-code-of-ethics-for-scientist/

[47] Wikipedia page of the Higgs boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

[48] CERN Bulletin No. 41 & 42 reporting the “outstanding” measurement accuracy by OPERA collaboration http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2011/41/News%20Articles/?ln=en

[49] Slides by OPERA collaboration measuring breaking the speed of light, presented on September 23, 2011 at CERN http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=155620 (See slide 49 the uncertainty in signal distribution of several thousands of picoseconds).

[50] Schematics and PBC layout detail (see at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Wl82SG0xSC1hakU/edit?usp=sharing) of the “3D-Flow DAQ IBM PC board for Photon Detection in PET and PET/CT” that I designed in December 2002, built and tested in March 2003 and presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland (OR) in October 2003. The modular board allows the building of a system that would guarantee a difference of less than 40 picoseconds between any two clock signals among hundreds of thousands of channels. See Conference Record. M3-130. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5eVRubUdMRmZxYkk/edit?usp=sharing.

[51]   M. Banchio, M. Bently, L. Colombo, D. Crosetto, F. Gaspari, F. Guy, S. Ratti, P. Saunier, V. Sereno, R. Sonnino, D. Verra, V. Vigna, A. Werbrouck, J. Zagami, A. Zonta, and about 1,000 cosigners: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with an invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer death: the need for a paradigm change in oncology research”. Abstract ID 78 and poster presented at the “Physics for Health in Europe. February 2-3, 2010, CERN, Switzerland https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/edit?usp=sharing

[52] Interview with Christian Joram who states that the Axial-PET is NOT a cancer research project. Yet the next day the Axial-Pet receives the first prize from CERN for the best cancer research project and the Association Madame Curie assigns it funding. Comparison: Axial-PET to 3D-CBS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqWZ8G0gzbI

[53] Editorial staff of the newspaper “magaze”: “From Texas, the promise of the research scientist, Dario Crosetto to the deceased friend, Lillo Mulone”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MHFnbTRBbGo3RWc/edit?usp=sharing

[54] SEER – Surveillance Epidemiology End Results: Experimental data from several official sources agree the earlier cancer is detected, the greater the survival rate (in most cases 90% to 98%). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5N2ZBN0RxZXFDU00/edit?usp=sharing

[55] Bertolucci, audio https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MVczRjVWV19kR0k/edit?usp=sharing

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

This post is also available in: Italian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
July 2017
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
June 26, 2017 June 27, 2017 June 28, 2017 June 29, 2017 June 30, 2017 July 1, 2017 July 2, 2017
July 3, 2017 July 4, 2017 July 5, 2017 July 6, 2017 July 7, 2017 July 8, 2017 July 9, 2017
July 10, 2017 July 11, 2017 July 12, 2017 July 13, 2017 July 14, 2017 July 15, 2017 July 16, 2017
July 17, 2017 July 18, 2017 July 19, 2017 July 20, 2017 July 21, 2017 July 22, 2017 July 23, 2017
July 24, 2017 July 25, 2017 July 26, 2017 July 27, 2017 July 28, 2017 July 29, 2017 July 30, 2017
July 31, 2017 August 1, 2017 August 2, 2017 August 3, 2017 August 4, 2017 August 5, 2017 August 6, 2017
Recent Comments