On behalf of the 7000 people who signed a petition, the 1600 Americans dying every day from cancer (one every 4 seconds in the world), I respectfully request you call for a public ANALYTICAL and SCIENTIFIC discussion of my 413-page invention to solve the cancer dilemma through an effective early detection between myself, the DOE and NIH-NCI experts responsible for spending taxpayer money to advance science, significantly reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs.
I am providing an explanation in a multi-step process delivered in this and future messages (9 in total) of the analytical process I used with 12-18 year-olds to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a water bottling analogy. I used a similar analytical process regarding efficiency and cost-effectiveness in my 413-page invention and now I am respectfully requesting the same analytical thinking and discussion with experts of my inventions which can save 33% of cancer deaths in 6 years, 50% in 10 years, realistically saving over 13 million lives in 30 years and reducing cancer healthcare costs by over 50%.
Fifteen years before receiving the letter from you on September 25, 2015, stating that you are confident you “can give scientists, innovators, and technologists the tools they need to think analytically”, I implemented analytical thinking with Middle School students of a Dallas Montessori school by optimizing a process to increase the speed of a multi-step process without requiring an increase in the speed of any one phase of that process. Future messages on “Inventions Part #?” detail the analytical reasoning of each successive approach to solve the problem, gaining system performance at each approach.
I adopted the same analytical thinking process with scientists in my article “System Design and Verification Process for LHC Programmable Trigger Electronics” presented at the 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference in Seattle (WA), October 24-30. Conference Record 279-286 vol.1. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.1999.842493; also in the article “A modular VME or IBM PC based data acquisition system for multi-modality PET/CT scanners of different sizes and detector types” (see Figure 7), presented at the 2000 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Conference Record. 12/78-12/97 vol.2. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2000.949946, and in my book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” ISBN-0-9702897-07. However, since then I have received strong resistance to implementing analytical thinking from the decision makers assigning taxpayer money to fund research.
The bottling analogy problem is to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to fill bottles with 2 liters of water where each takes 30 seconds to fill. The goal is to fill a bottle every 6 seconds, providing the possibility to fill larger bottles at a higher rate.
The cancer problem is to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce cancer deaths and costs.
In this specific case the task is to extract all valuable information from radiation by capturing and accurately measuring all signals from tumor markers at the lowest cost for each valid signal captured. As for the bottling water analogy we are challenged by data requiring more time to process than the interval between two consecutive input data sets. The proposal is to build three 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) units, 400 times more efficient than current PET, requiring 1/100 the current radiation dose, and screen 10,000 people for cancer per device per year with a single 4-minute examination covering all organs of the body, in the age group 55 to 74 taken form three different locations where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate has been constant.
Based on the increased efficiency of the 3D-CBS device provided by my 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms) technology, and based on the analytical and scientific evidence of my inventions described in the 413-page proposal, whose feasibility are supported by 59 quotes from several reputable companies, a 33% reduction of cancer deaths is expected 6 years from funding, and 50% in ten years. The staggering increase in efficiency of the 3D-CBS technology, besides providing a cost reduction of the examination because of a higher throughput and lower radiation dose, further improves cost-effectiveness by providing an effective replacement of several cancer screening exams (mammogram, colonoscopy, PSA, PAP-Test, etc.).
***** Beginning of the analytical thinking with 12-18 year-olds students about the results from approach #2: One bottle filled every 30 seconds *****
Solution #2 for the bottling analogy:
The pipeline approach divides the overall task into a sequence of smaller operations executed at each step. The speed of the system will be determined by the slowest step in the operation. This technique is used in several applications. For example, the assembly line of an automobile plant, refrigerators, televisions, the execution of programs by hardware units of a computer, etc., is sub-divided into several operations carried out at different stations. The total time to assemble a product may take several hours, however, if the longest indivisible operation requires 10 minutes, then we have a pipeline system that produces a new product every 10 minutes.
For our specific case, the overall task taking 60 seconds to receive a full bottle at the output of the system described in solution #1 is now divided in 6 operations executed in 6 steps at 6 different stations. Since our longest operation is bottling water taking 30 seconds, each station in our pipeline will take 30 seconds, or less, and the output rate cannot be faster than one bottle every 30 seconds.
In the practical exercise one student per station performs the task assigned to that station. If he or she finished the task in less than 30 seconds, he waits for the next “go” (clock) before passing the bottle on to the nest station and receiving the bottle from the previous station.
Station 1: receives an empty bottle, fills the bottle with a glass of water,
Station 2: shakes the bottle,
Station 3: throws away the rinse water,
Station 4: fill the bottle with 2 liters of water,
Station 5: place the bottle cap,
Station 6: dry the bottle and place it into the carton,
Throughput time = 30 seconds, twice the speed of solution #1 but still 5 times slower than the 6-second goal.
Students reported their analytical thinking on page 44-45 of book ISBN 0-9702897-1-5, noting the water flow at station “d” is utilized at it full capacity, however, the task at other stages can be executed in a shorter time. If it were possible to optimize the execution time of stage (d), the overall throughput would be improved.
Students were asked to think how they could improve the pipeline so that the output time could be decreased even more. A hint was given to redesign station 4 as this is the slowest step and is slowing down the output.
After defining some rules that would make the competition fair to everyone, their analysis and discussion led them to Solution #3.
***** End of the analytical thinking with 12-18 year-olds students about the results from approach #2: One bottle filled every 30 seconds *****
This email was sent first to:
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:33 PM
To: ‘Barack Obama’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTMLemail@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov’ <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E]’ <email@example.com>; ‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <email@example.com>; ‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <email@example.com>; ‘NIBIB Info’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <email@example.com>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Inventions Part #5 of 9. Analytical thinking with 12-18 year-olds students. #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren. Bottling Water Analogy showing how to handle big data for an effective early cancer detection. Solution #2: Pipelining approach