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

Figure_Solution_3Dear President Obama and Cancer Moonshot Task Force,

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.

As reported in the 413-page document, my breakthrough invention was formally and officially recognized valuable by academia, industry, and research centers in a major international scientific review in 1993 (pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed by experts (pp. 50-55 & 75-83), received awards and passed subsequent scientific reviews (pp. 84-101), proven feasible and functional in hardware (pp. 142-146), proven to replace many crates of electronics with a single crate at a fraction of the cost (pp. 19-24 & 125-135), proven to be scientifically advantageous and beneficial in many applications (pp. 1-2 & 24-29), explained to 12-18 year-olds using a bottling water analogy which uses an analytical, scientific process.

In a multi-step process delivered in this and future messages (9 in total), I am providing an explanation 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 inventions, 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; 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.

Definition of the Water Bottling Analogy problem to be solved: 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. We are challenged by bottles requiring more time to fill than the interval between two consecutive bottles arriving.

Definition of the Cancer problem to be solved: The cancer problem is to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce cancer deaths and costs. 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.  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 the mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years.

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 reducing the examination cost because of the 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 #3: One bottle filled every 12 seconds *****

Solution #3 for the bottling analogy:

The multi-switch approach is distributing information received from a single source to multiple units. In this case it distributes empty bottles received from a single line source to several filling stations, then from multiple stations with full bottles to a single destination creating a parallel system of operations.  

Five copies of the bottling station were created and a general switch one-to-five implemented by five students transporting bottles was placed before the five stations and a general switch five-to-one (implemented by the same students) was placed after all bottling stations. 

The students were warned that the bottling process could run smoothly with a throughput of a bottle every 12 seconds with no need to run or to do things faster than in the previous exercise. However, it was crucial that the bottles from the station before the water was bottled should be carried by switches 1 through 5 to the five water bottling stations in a strict sequence: Switch No. 2 should always take a rinsed bottle from the station before after Switch No. 1, and Switch No. 1 should take it after Switch No. 5, and so on. 

Five faucets for filling the bottles with fresh spring water were chosen in different rooms of St Alcuin’s school including the kitchen. The distance to reach each filling station from the previous station of the overall task described in Solution#2 was different in length, however, to take them to the next station was no longer than 17 seconds without any need to run. 

The new bottling assembly line was working according to the scheme of Figure 25 on page 46 of book ISBN 0-9702897-1-5, producing a throughput of a full bottle every 12 seconds. 

Note to Solution No. 3

Solution No. 3 was definitely an improvement on solution No. 2. However, it still has several drawbacks: 

The main problems are caused by the presence of the general switch before the five bottling stations going from one point to multiple points and the other general switch after the five bottling stations going from multiple points to one point. 

It is difficult to lay out an assembly line on the floor of a school (or to lay out integrated circuits on the surface of a printed circuit board) with the same (as short as possible) distance to/from all bottling stations from/to a single source. In particular, every time we add a new bottling station with the intent to increase the throughput of that station, the station must be located at a further distance from the receiving and destination stations because the real estate (or the PCB) gets crowded. 

Soon we arrive at a limit in improving the overall throughput, even if we add a new bottling station. For example, if we would like to add a sixth bottling station, it must be at a further distance from the receiving and destination stations. Let’s say that the distance of the new station in time will be 25 seconds. Both ways would require 50 seconds plus the 28 seconds required for bottling, so that the total would be 78 seconds. To calculate the throughput of this station we need to divide 78 seconds with the six stations that now implement the parallel bottling task, which gives 13 seconds. The result is that by adding one bottling station, we will not improve the throughput, but rather it will decrease in efficiency from one bottle every 12 seconds to one bottle every 13 seconds. Thus the maximum throughput of one bottle every 6 seconds could not be met by adding extra bottling stations. 

The problem would be even greater if we had to build many assembly lines, one next to the other. This illustrates the difficulties encountered in the PET device (Positron Emission Tomography), where we have many detector channels and for each one we need to build a pipeline assembly line (complicated by the requirement of intercommunication between neighboring channels) similar to the one representing solution No. 3. 

The real-estate problem will become insoluble in both cases: several bottling assembly lines, one next to the other, and the components that need to be laid out on a PCB. There will be the need to keep the components (faucets) close to each other to minimize transmission time, but the necessity to establish connections between neighboring components, from one to many, and from many to one will inevitably lead to connections of different lengths. The transmission times of the longer connections will penalize the entire system in putting throughput constraints on the entire system. 

In summary, it was seen that to improve the efficiency of the process, we needed to address the bottling station. Most students had the idea of duplicating the bottling station. This worked up to a limit and the limit was reached when the station was duplicated five times. It was seen that to duplicate more than five times was counterproductive.  

The output of one bottle every 12 seconds was certainly an improvement on solution 2 but still twice as slow as the 6-second goal. 

Students reported their analytical thinking on page 46-51 of book ISBN 0-9702897-1-5, noting the multi-switch approach has drawbacks and limitations. 

So, How can We Improve the Efficiency even more? 

The answer is in the next message of Solution #4 with the bypass switch of the 3D-Flow invention. 

***** End of the analytical thinking with 12-18 year-olds students about the results from approach #3: One bottle filled every 12 seconds *****

See previous messages at:


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
May 2019
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
April 29, 2019 April 30, 2019 May 1, 2019 May 2, 2019 May 3, 2019 May 4, 2019 May 5, 2019
May 6, 2019 May 7, 2019 May 8, 2019 May 9, 2019 May 10, 2019 May 11, 2019 May 12, 2019
May 13, 2019 May 14, 2019 May 15, 2019 May 16, 2019 May 17, 2019 May 18, 2019 May 19, 2019
May 20, 2019 May 21, 2019 May 22, 2019 May 23, 2019 May 24, 2019 May 25, 2019 May 26, 2019
May 27, 2019 May 28, 2019 May 29, 2019 May 30, 2019 May 31, 2019 June 1, 2019 June 2, 2019
Recent Comments