This document is available in PDF at Google Drive goo.gl/hea4EC
Dear Dr. Cherry Murray, Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy at Harvard SEAS, former Director of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I respectfully request you address the proof that my invention, proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries, can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) funded by DOE with my 9 electronic data processing boards (goo.gl/OTkH4z) while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Again, Friday May 5, 2017, like the other fourteen times during the past ten months when you held the position of the Director of the Office of Science of the U.S. DOE, you deleted my emails without reading them.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Deleting my emails which proved the $50 million DOE given to a single person was wasted taxpayer money: not addressing my innovations and continuing in 2016 to give $4.2 million to the same person wasting more money can fall into suppression of the truth, information, innovations and covering up corruption, damaging taxpayers and obstructing advancement in science.
Dear colleagues at the Harvard SEAS (John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University)
Dr. ROGER W. BROCKETT An Wang Research Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Dr. PETER S. PERSHAN Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science, Emeritus
Dr. WILLIAM T. PAUL Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics and Professor of Physics, Emeritus
Dr. R.V. JONES Robert L. Wallace Professor of Applied Physics, Emeritus
Dr. DEMBA BA Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Bioengineering
Dr. FEDERICO CAPASSO Robert L. Wallace Professor of Applied Physics and Vinton Hayes Senior Research Fellow in Electrical Engineering
Dr. EVELYN HU Tarr-Coyne Professor of Applied Physics and of Electrical Engineering
Dr. H.T. KUNG William H. Gates Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Dr. TODD ZICKLER William and Ami Kuan Danoff Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Dr. JENE A. GOLOVCHENKO Rumford Professor of Physics and Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics
Dr. EFTHIMIOS KAXIRAS John Hasbrouck Van Vleck Professor of Pure and Applied Physics
Dr. ZHIGANG SUO Allen E. and Marilyn M. Puckett Professor of Mechanics and Materials
Dear decision makers, leaders in the field, investigative journalists and those who care to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail,
I respectfully request you address the proof that my invention, proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries, can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) of the CMS experimentâ€™s Level-1 Trigger (and other L-1 Trigger systems of other experiments costing millions or billions of dollars such as ATLAS experiment) funded by DOE with my nine 3D-Flow OPRA electronic data processing boards shown in the last page of â€śgoo.gl/OTkH4zâ€ť, detailed at â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť, while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost the CMS system.
The benefits of my invention could have already benefitted humanity in several other fields such as with the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) shown in the last page of â€śgoo.gl/6DS5oyâ€ť for an effective early detection of cancer and other anomalous biological processes with a single examination covering all organs of the body. (See trifold at â€śgoo.gl/YcAJDyâ€ť, overview at â€śgoo.gl/JMKyekâ€ť and details in the book â€ś400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screeningâ€ť at â€śgoo.gl/ggGGwFâ€ť. See comparison at â€śgoo.gl/tmTZ9Oâ€ť of the 3D-CBS â€śgoo.gl/6DS5oyâ€ť with the â€śExplorer Projectâ€ť: â€śgoo.gl/Tl95NNâ€ť or at â€śgoo.gl/ovMZ5jâ€ť, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health -NIH- and National Cancer Institute -NCI- for $15.5 million although less efficient, cannot save many lives and is over ten time more expensive than the 3D-CBS).
A public scientific forum where I can answer the objections from the opponents of my inventions, who built more costly and less efficient electronic systems that had to be trashed wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, is long overdue.
My invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications, has been recognized as valuable by academia, industries and research centers (including a representative from CERN) at a major public, scientific, international review (goo.gl/zP76Tc) on December 14, 1993, that was requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (also Director of FERMILAB) and endorsed by top experts in the field (see excerpts from letters at â€śgoo.gl/GIC5aRâ€ť and the full text of a few letters at the links â€śgoo.gl/VXBx33â€ť). Its concept has been proven feasible and functional in hardware in FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array). Its system architecture suitable to solve problems for detectors of any size (for Positron Emission Tomography -PET- detectors or for very large High Energy Physics detectors) has been proven feasible and functional in a hardware system made of two modular 3D-Flow data processing boards (expandable to any system size), each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA.
The CMS 4,000 electronic boards L-1 Trigger system consisting of hundreds of crates occupying a room approximately 22m x 16m (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) built in 20 years could have been replaced â€¦
- in 1994 with my 3D-Flow system design providing higher performance in a cylinder 1.8m tall and 1m in diameter as described on pages 105-109 of my proposal at â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť;
- in 1998 with the software tools and the 3D-Flow ASIC tape-out data generated by Synopsys but never funded by DOE to pay the silicon foundry to build the chip (see on pages on pages 110-113 of my proposal at â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť);
- in 1999 with six VME crates containing the data acquisition, conversion of the signals from analog to digital and my 3D-Flow system providing higher performance, described at page 376 of my 45-page peer-review article published by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 436 (1999) pp. 341-385;
- in 2001 when my 3D-Flow processor architecture was proven feasible and functional in hardware in two FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Array) at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California (see answer to question XI from the public at page 14 of â€śgoo.gl/XnF3JRâ€ť);
- in 2003 when my 3D-Flow system architecture suitable to solve problems for detectors of any size (for Positron Emission Tomography -PET- detectors or for very large High Energy Physics detectors) was proven feasible and functional in hardware in two modular 3D-Flow data processing boards (expandable to any system size), each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA, and presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Portland, Oregon (see goo.gl/RiIn0B);
- in 2015 with my nine 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards described in one page, proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. The nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards are shown in the last page of â€śgoo.gl/OTkH4zâ€ť and detailed at page 155-156 of the proposal at â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť.
- for future upgrades, my 9 electronic data processing boards provide enormous cost/performance advantages compared to the future CMS and ATLAS upgrades discussed at the November 2016 IEEE-NSS conference (see document â€śgoo.gl/aD2mlmâ€ť distributed to the participants of the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Strasbourg, France, discussed with all the Chairpersons of the three conference and discussed for 100 minutes with the active President and the new elected President of IEEE-NSPP, the worldâ€™s largest technical professional organization with over 400,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.
Instead, the 4,000 CMS L-1 Trigger boards were replaced by 100 data processing boards in February 26, 2016 (see https://cds.cern.ch/record/2194548/files/CR2016_121.pdf) which still do not satisfy the LHC experiment requirements to filter the increasing background noise due to the increase of the power of LHC.
I attended the 2016 IEEE-NSS conference in Strasbourg, France, where I listened to young researchers who presented the future designs/approaches of the L-1 Trigger for the ATLAS and CMS experiments. I also talked to them after the presentation informing them about my inventions and questioning the cost-effectiveness of the CMS and ATLAS designs for the future, but they were following the general directives of their leaders. They presented the Region of Interest (ROI) approach for the ATLAS experiment, and for both experiments they apply thresholds on energy deposition and measure short tracks instead of building L-1 Trigger systems having the capability to execute thorough object pattern recognition algorithms. This will still not satisfy the requirement of LHC at higher power, not even at the analytical study.
Whereas my invention has been recognized officially and formally by academia, industries and research centers in a major public review (goo.gl/zP76Tc) and proven feasible and functional in hardware that has the ability to satisfy the most stringent requirements of past, present and future higher powered LHC colliders at a fraction of the cost.
As long as the scientific community continues to refuse transparency in science denying me the opportunity to answer publicly the objections from the opponents of my inventions, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money will continue to be wasted and humanity will continue to be deprived of their benefits.
Dr. Cherry Murray, again on Friday, May 5, like the other fourteen times during the past year when you held the position of the Director of the Office of Science of the U.S. DOE, you deleted the same day my email without reading it. On November 27, 2016, for consideration and respect, I wrote you a personal five-line email asking the reason you were deleting my email regarding information contributing to DOE mission and helping in your mandate to serve taxpayers: however, you also deleted this email without reading it.
Without providing a reason why the DOE funded for $50 million during the past two decades a single person such as Wesley Smith whose work had not even proved that it could solve the problem analytically before construction (in fact, the 4,000 board hardware implementation had to be trashed on February 26, 2016), without providing a reason why you continued to fund the same person for $4.2 million in 2016 (as reported on page 16 of Smithâ€™s curriculum vitae, at http://www.hep.wisc.edu/wsmith/vita.pdf or at â€śgoo.gl/QX6Fuqâ€ť), knowing that an official, formal scientific review (goo.gl/zP76Tc) paid for by DOE recognized my 3D-Flow invention, adequate to solve the problem at a fraction of the cost, your team at the Office of Science at DOE â€¦
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â suppressed my invention,
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â did not let me present it to Siegristâ€™s group at DOE as he agreed (my request to give a presentation was legitimate because I gave a similar presentation to DOE in 1999);
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â did not give the inventor or the engineers from several reputable companies who provided the 59 quotes proving the feasibility of my invention the opportunity to explain to DOE agents who assign taxpayer money to research projects the technology that they claim is not feasible, but that instead they are not aware of the existence and do not want to express their objections and hear the answers,
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â did not address the actions of Glen Crawford whose official 8-line email to me was not only inconsistent, contradictory and self-incriminating by referring to non-existent rules, regulations or laws, but specifically prohibit me from talking with any DOE employee in the future about my invention/proposal, and prohibit me from resubmitting my invention for future consideration (I address all Crawfordâ€™s statements in more detail on the pdf document at Google Drive â€śgoo.gl/Ycm3phâ€ť).
###### Dr. Crawfordâ€™s 8-line email sent on June 19, 2016, judging Crosettoâ€™s proposal and taking actions before the review was completed #####
- We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy.
- The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application.
- We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.
- All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov.
- In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications:
- our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.
- The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10.
- Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.
Sincerely, Glen Crawford email@example.com. Director, Research and Technology Division. Office of High Energy Physics. Phone 301 903 4829
################### end Dr. Crawford email ##########################
You deleted the fourteen emails that I sent on: 4/22/2016, 4/27/2016, 4/28/2016, 4/29/2016, 5/6/2016 at 7:56 am, 5/6/2016 at 8:05 am, 5/6/2016 at 4:09 pm, 5/6/2016 at 4:10 pm, 5/9/2016, 5/13/2016, 10/27/2016, 11/3/2016 at 5:13 pm, 11/3/2016 at 6:20 pm, 11/27/2016 and last week 5/5/2017.
You acknowledged reading five of my emails sent on 03/03/2016, 03/04/2016, 04/17/2016, 08/09/2016 and 10/30/2016, and therefore was informed, but did not provide an answer and did not take actions to remove the suppression of my inventions by your DOE agent Glen Crawford.
Your deletion of my emails is only part of the suppression of my invention at DOE. Over eighty percent of all material, my proposal, my correspondence, the same email from Crawford dated May 19, 2016, have been destroyed or disappeared from DOE official records. This was confirmed when I submitted a request to FOIA and also by the Office of Hearing and Appeals that recognized that DOE was at fault in destroying my documents and I won the appeal. However, no one has removed Crawfordâ€™s action in his email that I cannot talk to DOE employees about my invention/proposal or resubmit my proposal.
It is also very surprising that I was requested to submit a formal proposal and then DOE employees did not want to examine it, and further destroyed all evidence of the material I sent them.
This is how I came about submitting a formal proposal to DOE:
Since May 5, 2015, I was solicited both verbally and in writing to formally submit a proposal of my inventions to the Department of Energy by my former supervisor at the Superconducting Super Collider, Dr. Jim Siegrist, who knew about the value of my invention and who is now Director for the Office of High Energy Physics -HEP- at the Office of Science of the Department of Energy. During this time, Dr. Siegrist and several DOE employees told me I would need to communicate with Glenn Crawford as he is responsible for Research and Technology.Â However, he never once answered my technical emails, phone calls, or addressed/discussed any scientific issues with me.
Siegrist also agreed that I could give a presentation of my invention to his colleagues at DOE during the Summer of 2015. In July, he told me to wait until all DOE agents returned from their summer vacations. Then he asked me to provide Crawford the ingredients for a compelling case for my presentation with the words: â€śâ€¦to make a future arrangement if we have a compelling case for you to visit. The most important ingredient is your presentation containing a description of the work plan and scope you plan to propose to DOE.
I replied on September 10, 2015, providing a 30-page document supporting the claim with scientific arguments that my invention could replace hundreds of crates of electronics of the CMS Level-1 Trigger funded by DOE with a single crate of electronics much more performant at a fraction of the cost of the CMS L-1 Trigger.
From that point on, communication became much harder and the possibility to give a presentation to DOE to explain how my invention could achieve the claimed results was apparently blocked by Glen Crawford. I was later told by Security that he also blocked my emails to all DOE employees.
To satisfy Siegristâ€™s request, I worked hard from August to November 2015 with several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes showing the feasibility of a 8,192-channels Level-1 Trigger for LHC in 9 electronics data processing 3D-Flow OPRA boards replacing at 1/1000th the cost the CMS Level-1 Trigger system made of 4,000 boards or the most recent SWATCH made of 100 boards (see two slides of the CMS upgrade at â€śgoo.gl/qptaYBâ€ť).
I then submitted a formal proposal of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention (see pp1-36 and pp 125-271 of my proposal at â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť), Â to DOE on December 22, 2015, whose review was assigned to Dr. Glen Crawford.
Then on May 16, 2016, I was shocked to be told by the executive officer of your Office of Science, that I was not being cooperative in providing information to HEP Office of Science. This is false; I had not received any requests from Dr. Crawford or any other DOE department – therefore, I could not have been uncooperative. Siegrist confirmed in a phone call on May 6, 2016 that nothing was requested by DOE.
Because I realized that I was trapped in a rigged review that would reject my proposal based on false accusations and then ban it forever, and in order to speak with Crawford and DOE employees about technical issues before my proposal was rejected and then prevented for resubmission for life, I felt the only option was to withdraw my proposal (I had been told by Crawford that I could not talk about technical matters with him while my proposal was under review, and yet even before my submission Crawford would never talk to me about technical issues and never answered my emails).
Therefore, I wrote Crawford an email telling him I was withdrawing my application in order to talk to him to address technical issues as I could not talk to him while my proposal was under review, and then I would resubmit it. However, as a result, Crawford wrote the above email stating that he was not stopping the review, expressing the judgement that my proposal was not sound and feasible before the completion of the review (which was completed on May 31, 2016, but I never received a report), preventing me from talking with any DOE employee about my proposal in the future, and preventing me from resubmitting the proposal in the future.
This is complete suppression of my innovations from DOE forever.
Dr. Cherry Murray, forgive me now if in defense of the interest of the taxpayers who have been robbed of their tax-dollars in wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in electronics that had to be trashed knowing that there was my 3D-Flow invention, recognized as being far more effective at one thousandth the cost, I share this with your colleagues at SEAS Harvard University, trusting they can assist and help you to evaluate my 9 electronic board 3D-Flow system vs the 4,000 electronic board CMS system (and other L-1 Trigger systems).
Forgive me now if with compassion for the past and present suffering of millions of cancer patients, many of whom died needlessly because they could have been saved with an early cancer detection had my 3D-Flow invention been funded so it could have been used to build the 3D-CBS, and I share this with your colleagues at SEAS Harvard University trusting they can assist and help you to evaluate my 3D-CBS invention, hundreds of times more efficient than the over 10,000 PET currently used and also more efficient and ten times less expensive, with the potential to save many lives compared to the Explorer project. The Explorer project, besides being ten times more expensive does not have the capability to save many lives, but just increases the healthcare costs.
From the list of professionals, experts in different fields at SEAS Harvard University, I selected the names of emeritus professors and professors in the disciplines of computer science, electronics, physics which are the fields dealing with my over 400-page proposal for the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť. Because there are some aspects in my project that are related to mechanics, such as the assembly of the electronic boards, the cables, and the mechanical support of the cables so they would not exercise mechanical stress on the connectors, I also selected the name of a professor in mechanics. Please revise this list and suggest any other professionals/professors/scientists that you find appropriate.
Because of the trust from the public in scientists and professionals like us, we have the responsibility to address technically with ethics and scientific integrity my 3D-Flow system made of 9 boards, more performant and at one thousandth the cost vs. the CMS L-1 Trigger system without the prejudice that my breakthrough is not feasible. (See the questions from the public related to this issue and my answers published in newspapers and online news in English and Italian at â€śgoo.gl/XnF3JRâ€ť).
On May 16, 2003, the General Chairperson of the 2003 IEEE-NSS conference, Ralph James, who approved all my articles submitted to the conference, wrote me the following in an email: â€śI will say that any approach (even from a Nobel laureate) that suggests 2-3 orders of magnitude improvements in anything will meet considerable skepticism. This must be expected. However, you should not be discouraged nor feel despair. Your persistence will win, if you are correct. Failure will only result if you quit, and you were right after all.â€ť However, it is not fair to make the public who trust us and science wait for another 20 years before addressing my breakthrough inventions and receive the benefits from them. Its resolution is long overdue and it is our responsibility to address it technically and the inventor should have the possibility to answer all objections from opponents.
My 3D-Flow OPRA nine electronic data processing board system is easier to study because the entire Level-1 Trigger is described in one figure on the third page of the attached document, or at â€śgoo.gl/OTkH4zâ€ť which provides the scale dimensions of the electronic boards and crates. Each component is then described in more detail in the 271-page document â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť and its implementation and cost proven feasible and described in 59 quotes from reputable industries. At least two quotes are provided by two different companies. For example, the modular 128-twinax cable assembly is described on pages 193-199 and the datasheet of the twinax cable is described at page 184, while the ending connectorsâ€™ data sheets are provided on page 187 of â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť. The next level of detail of the 1024 channel or 512-channel board is described on pages 155-156 of â€śgoo.gl/w3XlZ1â€ť. A further level of detail is described in the quotes and an additional level of detail in the patent. Any objection to its feasibility as claimed by DOE agent Glen Crawford must be expressed so that I, or the engineers who wrote the quotes, can inform him about the current technology that he seems unaware of or unfamiliar with.
The CMS Level-1 Trigger system made of 4,000 electronic data processing boards requires more hours to be studied because it is the result of 20 years of meetings, workshops and conferences among hundreds (or thousands) of physicists, engineers, technicians who end up filling over 50 volumes, each about 600 pages, of Electronics for LHC, Technical Design Reports and documents similar to the CERN/LHCC 2000-38, CMS TDR 6.1, 15 December 2000: â€śThe Level-1 Trigger Technical Design Reportâ€ť or the 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 Â â€¦or the Proceedings of the â€śWorkshops on Electronics for LHC Experimentsâ€ť such as the CERN/LHCC/96-36 that took place in Rome, Italy, on September 21-25, 1998, or the following year in Snowmass, Colorado, as well as all the others that took place almost every year from 1994 to date.
To avoid spending hours studying thousands of pages of the Level-1 Trigger for CMS, ATLAS and other experiments to look for information needed to understand each system, it is time-saving for SEAS and CERN professional/physicists/engineers who understand this subject to ask specific questions to the hundreds of authors of the CMS, ATLAS, other experiments and to myself about our Level-1 Trigger. The authors of different systems should also be allowed to question each other.
For this reason, I am continuing to request that I give a presentation at CERN where over 12,000 scientists gravitate among whom are all those who designed and built the Level-1 Trigger for CMS, ATLAS and several other experiments. However, because the decision to fund one project over another is ultimately the decision of the U.S. budget at the Office of Science of the DOE that you have directed, and you decided to continue to give $4.2 million to the same person who had already wasted $50 million in previous years, to be fair to taxpayers, journalist working in the public interest should open an investigation.
We cannot continue to suppress my innovations for another 20 years and this issue of replacing 4,000 boards with nine more powerful boards at one thousandth the cost being ignored by deleting my email. We cannot continue to develop obsolete L-1 Trigger systems for the future as presented at the IEEE-NSS conference on November 1-5, 2016 in Strasbourg while my solution enormously more cost-effective has existed since 1992.
For the benefit of all of us I respectfully request you cooperate in an investigation on all this matter.
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:10 AM To: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: FW: Vice President Joe Biden: Real quick, Dario. Real quick, Joe RE: FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor is threatened to involve security
Dear Dr. Murray,
I see that you deleted this message without reading that it contains proofs of feasibility from 59 quotes from reputable industries that my invention can be built in one crate of electronics providing an enormous performance improvements and replacing at 1/1000 the cost, hundreds of crates of electronics of the CMS Level-1 Trigger containing 4,000 data processing boards and my inventions provide great benefits to humanity when used in many other applications.
Would you please provide a reason why you delete my message without reading it, so that I could pass it on to the public?
Dario Crosetto_____________________________________________ From: Murray, Cherry [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 11:20 PM To: United To End Cancer <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Not read: RE: Joe Biden: Read quick, Dario. RE: Read quick, Joe. RE: FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor is threatened to involve security
Your message Â Â To: Murray, Cherry Â Â Subject: RE: Joe Biden: Read quick, Dario. RE: Read quick,Â Â Joe. RE: FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving livesÂ Â Â Â and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor isÂ Â threatened to involve security Â Â Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:53:09 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) Â was deleted without being read on Sunday, November 27, 2016 12:19:31 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM
To: ‘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’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu’ <GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘President@rockfound.org’ <President@rockfound.org>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov’ <The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov’ <IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov’ <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Michael.Lauer@nih.gov’ <Michael.Lauer@nih.gov>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘LowyD@mail.nih.gov’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘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’ <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’ <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’ <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’ <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’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk’ <Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘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’ <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’ <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’ <email@example.com>; ‘James.A.Forese@citi.com’ <James.A.Forese@citi.com>; ‘Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com’ <Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com>; ‘Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com’ <Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com>; ‘Richard.Evans@citi.com’ <Richard.Evans@citi.com>; ‘Vikram.Pandit@citi.com’ <Vikram.Pandit@citi.com>; ‘Jane.Fraser@citi.com’ <Jane.Fraser@citi.com>; ‘John.C.Gerspach@citi.com’ <John.C.Gerspach@citi.com>; ‘Deepak.Sharma@citi.com’ <Deepak.Sharma@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Volk@citi.com’ <Stephen.Volk@citi.com>; ‘Paco.Ybarra@citi.com’ <Paco.Ybarra@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Bird@citi.com’ <Stephen.Bird@citi.com>; ‘Don.Callahan@citi.com’ <Don.Callahan@citi.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’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>
Subject: I respectfully request you address the proof that my invention can replace 4,000 electronic data processing boards with my 9 electronic data processing boards while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost