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

This document is available at Google Drive goo.gl/7a9nSK Previous letter to DOE & Harvard SEAS University goo.gl/hea4EC

Dear Dr. Joel Butler, Spokesman of CMS Collaboration at CERN, Dear Dr. Andrew Lankford, Deputy Spokesman of the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN, Dear Dr. Nadia Pastrone, President of the INFN CSN1, representing the CMS Italian Collaboration at CERN,

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) with my 9 electronic data processing boards (goo.gl/OTkH4z) while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost.

My 9 electronic data processing boards can also replace many boards of the ATLAS L-1 Trigger, providing similar enormous cost/performance advantages.

 

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 “goo.gl/GIC5aR” and the full text of a few letters at the links “goo.gl/VXBx33”).

 

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 same enormous cost/effective advantages could have been provided…

  • in 1994 with my 3D-Flow system 1m x 1.8m cylinder shape approach as described on pages 105-109 of my proposal at “goo.gl/w3XlZ1;
  • 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 “goo.gl/w3XlZ1”);
  • in 1999 with six VME crates as reported on page 376 of my 45-page peer-review article published on Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 436;
  • 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;
  • 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 “goo.gl/OTkH4z” and detailed at page 155-156 of the proposal at “goo.gl/w3XlZ1”.
  • for future upgrades, my 9 electronic data processing boards provide enormous cost/performance advantages compared to the future CMS and ATLAS upgrades presented at the November 2016 IEEE-NSS conference.

 

Today after sending the letter goo.gl/hea4EC, like on May 5, 2017, like on many other occasions during the past two decades, information addressing the proof of my breakthrough inventions that would have already benefitted humanity has been suppressed. This last time with the statement “The message was rejected due to content restrictions” (see email below). On other occasions my information was simply ignored and more costly and less efficient systems were funded.

 

By suppressing my communications which prove hundreds of millions of taxpayer money was wasted, and by not addressing my innovations, continuing in 2016 to waste more money by approving the projects to receive funding of millions of dollars for ATLAS ROI L-1 Trigger and ATLAS and CMS L-1 Trigger based on thresholds instead of the thorough object pattern recognition that my 3D-Flow invention is capable of, your actions or inactions can fall into suppressing the truth, information, innovations and covering up corruption, which is damaging to taxpayers and obstructs advancement in science, and in the related application of saving lives.

 

Andy Lankford, I appreciate you for standing up for science when you wrote a letter requesting support for my very important project in 1993. (goo.gl/8jaxDH)

 

Joel Butler, I appreciate you for standing up for science when you wrote a letter strongly endorsing my invention in 1995. (goo.gl/ZJh0Kg)

 

I am not aware you have written a similar letter of support and endorsement for any other project. In the event you have or you believe another project to be more cost-effective than my 3D-Flow architecture/system, please invite the authors and myself to a scientific discussion/review at CERN, similar to the one you organized at FERMILAB in 1993.

 

…And Nadia Pastrone, I appreciate you for standing up for science when telling me in a phone conversation on June 3rd, 2016, that regardless of the statements made by the Trigger coordinator who was not interested in addressing the advantages of my invention, you believed that if my invention could save money it should be examined.

 

On behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients, I respectfully request you follow the suggestion of CERN Director General on February 2, 2017, to organize a discussion/review of my inventions at CERN, because you have not provided an alternative approach/solution with more cost/performance advantages than the 3D-Flow.

 

It is in the best interest of taxpayers and cancer patients to let science happen in a public scientific discussion/review at CERN rather than let corruption continue by protecting colleagues from taking responsibility for their mistakes.

 

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 experiment’s Level-1 Trigger (and other L-1 Trigger systems of other experiments costing millions or billions of dollars such as ATLAS experiment) with my nine 3D-Flow OPRA electronic data processing boards shown in the last page of “goo.gl/OTkH4z”, detailed at “goo.gl/w3XlZ1”, while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost the CMS L-1 Trigger 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 “goo.gl/6DS5oy” 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 “goo.gl/YcAJDy”, overview at “goo.gl/JMKyek” and details in the book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” at “goo.gl/ggGGwF”. See comparison at “goo.gl/tmTZ9O” of the 3D-CBS goo.gl/6DS5oywith the “Explorer Project”: “goo.gl/Tl95NN” or at “goo.gl/ovMZ5j”, 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.

 

The 4,000 CMS L-1 Trigger boards were trashed on February 26, 2016 (see https://cds.cern.ch/record/2194548/files/CR2016_121.pdf), and replaced by 100 data processing boards which still do not satisfy the LHC experiment requirements to filter the increasing background noise due to the increase of the power of LHC and capture the rare particles.

 

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, and 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 publicly answer the objections of my opponents, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money will continue to be wasted and humanity will continue to be deprived of their benefits.

 

During the past years, I informed all of you in several emails, letters and documents about my inventions. More recently, during the past 12 months, I have sent you several emails and documents.

 

The last time I spoke in person with Andy Lankford was in building 40 at CERN on January 11, 2011, when I was with Dr. Vigna, the Chairperson and organizer of the Leonardo da Vinci competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis. Lankford provided his scientific recommendations (which were implemented) to define the rules of the competition that were fair to the applicants and to cancer patients in serving their interest in identifying the project with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost.

 

The last time I spoke with Joel Butler was in a few phone conversations at the end of 2016, when I recommended that he allow science to happen in the same way he and Lankford organized the public scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow at Fermilab in 1993, instead of protecting their colleagues who have made mistakes and continue to make mistakes in suppressing my inventions.

 

I received an acknowledgement from Butler that he had read 21 of the emails I sent him in 2016 and 2017 at the following dates and times: 10/24/2016, 10/26/2016, 10/27/2016 at 7:03 am, 10/27/2016 at 8:52 am, 10/27/2016 at 10:38 am, 10/27/2016 at 1:24 pm, 10/27/2016 at 4:01 pm, 10/27/2016 at 4:53 pm, 10/29/2016, 10/30/2016 at 12:48 pm, 10/30/2016 at 5:13 pm, 11/3/2016 at 12:15 pm, 11/3/2016 at 2:48 pm, 11/3/2016 at 4:13 pm, 11/3/2016 at 5:20 pm, 11/3/2016 at 6:11 pm, 11/4/2016, 11/15/2016, 12/19/2016, 12/30/2016 at 6:17 pm, and on 12/30/2016 at 11:28 pm. However, without giving me the opportunity to answer the opponents of my inventions who built more costly and less efficient systems that had to be trashed wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, my emails have been ignored.

 

In 2016 I had a few phone calls and email exchanges with Nadia Pastrone; however, my emails seem now to be ignored and suppressed with no scientific reason.

 

This last times, today when I sent at 5:00 pm the letter goo.gl/hea4EC to Dr. Cherry Murray, former Director of the Office of Science of the U.S. DOE who was responsible to address the unsubstantiated claim that my invention was not feasible, although 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is feasible and after sending my previous email on May 5, 2017, both were rejected from Butler and Pastrone’s email address with the statement “The message was rejected due to content restrictions” (see email below). CERN service-desk asked to write an email for further assistance in understanding why my email was rejected, I wrote an email on Friday, May 5, 2017, however, no reply was provided and my email continue to be rejected from CERN.

 

To avoid the rejection of my emails from the CERN system, I am also sending a copy to Butler and Pastrone email address at their home institute: pastrone@to.infn.it and butler@fnal.gov.

 

Andrew, Joel and Nadia, forgive me now if in defense of the interest of the taxpayers who have been robbed of their tax-dollars when hundreds of millions of dollars in electronics were wasted when they had to be trashed, and knowing that there existed my 3D-Flow invention, recognized as being far more effective at one thousandth the cost, I share this with your colleagues, 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 and the 3D-CBS been built, I share this with your colleagues, leaders in the field, investigative journalists and those who care to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail. I trust they can assist and help you to remove the obstacles to implement transparency in science and organize a public scientific discussion/review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention that can replace 4,000 CMS L-1 Trigger data processing boards (and many electronic boards of other systems) with nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards, more performant at one thousandth the cost.

 

Overcoming the obstacles that are preventing this public discussion/review with people who spent money on similar less efficient and more costly systems would also enable the benefit that can be provided by my other invention, the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), hundreds of times more efficient than the over 10,000 PET currently in use 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 only to increase healthcare costs.

 

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 “goo.gl/XnF3JR”).

 

On May 16, 2003, the General Chairman of the 2003 IEEE-NSS conference, Ralph James, who approved all my articles submitted to the conference, wrote me the following in an email: “I 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.” 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 with the inventor who 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 goo.gl/OTkH4z” which provides the scale dimensions of the electronic boards and crates. Before presenting the components of the figure on the last page of the document at my presentation at CERN, preceding the discussion/review of my invention as requested by CERN Director General Dr. Fabiola Gianotti, I intend to address the more general issue of the Level-1 Trigger, its history and address the first figure of page 2 of the attachment, , or at goo.gl/OTkH4z”.

 

I will then describe in more detail each component of the figure on the last page of the attachment by referring to the 271-page document “goo.gl/w3XlZ1 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 connectors’ data sheets are provided on page 187 of “goo.gl/w3XlZ1. The next level of detail of the 1024 channel or 512-channel board is described on pages 155-156 of “goo.gl/w3XlZ1. 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: “The Level-1 Trigger Technical Design Report” 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  …or the Proceedings of the “Workshops on Electronics for LHC Experiments” 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 CERN professional/physicists/engineers who understand this subject to ask specific questions to the hundreds of authors of the CMS, ATLAS, or 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.

 

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 rejecting my emails. We cannot continue to develop new L-1 Trigger systems destined for failure 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 into this matter so it can be finally addressed once and for all.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

—–Original Message—– From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 4:29 PM To: ‘service-desk@cern.ch’ <service-desk@cern.ch> Subject: RE: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Please could you tell me the reason this message was rejected and who placed the restrictions.

 

Thank you,

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

—–Original Message—–

From: noreply@cern.ch [mailto:noreply@cern.ch]

Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 9:03 AM

To: volunteers@u2ec.org

Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

 

This is the mail system at host cernah01.cern.ch.

 

I’m sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It’s attached below.

 

For further assistance, please contact service-desk@cern.ch.

 

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.

 

The mail system

 

<joel.butler@cern.ch>: host cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch[188.184.36.53] said: 550 5.7.1

The message was rejected due to content restrictions (in reply to end of

DATA command)

 

<nadia.pastrone@cern.ch>: host cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch[188.184.36.53] said: 550

5.7.1 The message was rejected due to content restrictions (in reply to end

of DATA command)

 

 

—–Original Message—– From: noreply@cern.ch [mailto:noreply@cern.ch] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:02 PM To: volunteers@u2ec.org Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

 

This is the mail system at host cernah02.cern.ch.

 

I’m sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It’s attached below.

 

For further assistance, please send mail to service-desk@cern.ch.

 

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.

 

The mail system

 

<joel.butler@cern.ch>: host cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch[188.184.36.53] said: 550 5.7.1

The message was rejected due to content restrictions (in reply to end of

DATA command)

 

<nadia.pastrone@cern.ch>: host cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch[188.184.36.53] said: 550

5.7.1 The message was rejected due to content restrictions (in reply to end

of DATA command)

 

This document was sent on May 15, 2017 to:

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:18 PM
To: ‘butler@fnal.gov’ <butler@fnal.gov>; ‘joel.butler@cern.ch’ <joel.butler@cern.ch>; ‘ajlankfo@uci.edu’ <ajlankfo@uci.edu>; ‘pastrone@to.infn.it’ <pastrone@to.infn.it>; ‘nadia.pastrone@cern.ch’ <nadia.pastrone@cern.ch>
Cc: ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘brockett@seas.harvard.edu’ <brockett@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘jones@seas.harvard.edu’ <jones@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘paul@seas.harvard.edu’ <paul@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘pershan@seas.harvard.edu’ <pershan@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘zickler@seas.harvard.edu’ <zickler@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘htk@seas.harvard.edu’ <htk@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘demba@seas.harvard.edu’ <demba@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘capasso@seas.harvard.edu’ <capasso@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘ehu@seas.harvard.edu’ <ehu@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu’ <GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu>; ‘kaxiras@physics.harvard.edu’ <kaxiras@physics.harvard.edu>; ‘suo@seas.harvard.edu’ <suo@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘barish@ligo.caltech.edu’ <barish@ligo.caltech.edu>; ‘President@rockfound.org’ <President@rockfound.org>; ‘jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk’ <jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk>; ‘contactholmember@parliament.uk’ <contactholmember@parliament.uk>; ‘The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov’ <The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov’ <IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov>; ‘foia-central@hq.doe.gov’ <foia-central@hq.doe.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov’ <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov>; ‘lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Michael.Lauer@nih.gov’ <Michael.Lauer@nih.gov>; ‘shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘LowyD@mail.nih.gov’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘rpettig@mail.nih.gov’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov’ <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘johnv@egr.msu.edu’ <johnv@egr.msu.edu>; ‘stefan.ritt@psi.ch’ <stefan.ritt@psi.ch>; ‘presidents@ieee.org’ <presidents@ieee.org>; ‘executivedirector@ieee.org’ <executivedirector@ieee.org>; ‘k.bartleson@ieee.org’ <k.bartleson@ieee.org>; ‘hmichel@umassd.edu’ <hmichel@umassd.edu>; ‘parviz.famouri@mail.wvu.edu’ <parviz.famouri@mail.wvu.edu>; ‘s.ramesh@csun.edu’ <s.ramesh@csun.edu>; ‘eekman@cityu.edu.hk’ <eekman@cityu.edu.hk>; ‘moura@ece.cmu.edu’ <moura@ece.cmu.edu>; ‘president@ieeeusa.org’ <president@ieeeusa.org>; ‘nssmic2016@ieee.org’ <nssmic2016@ieee.org>; ‘nytnews@nytimes.com’ <nytnews@nytimes.com>; ‘executive-editor@nytimes.com’ <executive-editor@nytimes.com>; ‘scitimes@nytimes.com’ <scitimes@nytimes.com>; ’60m@cbsnews.com’ <60m@cbsnews.com>; ‘info@ap.org’ <info@ap.org>; ‘stephen.engelberg@propublica.org’ <stephen.engelberg@propublica.org>; ‘mmontgomery@cironline.org’ <mmontgomery@cironline.org>; ‘adonohue@revealnews.org’ <adonohue@revealnews.org>; ‘apyle@revealnews.org’ <apyle@revealnews.org>; ‘nsb@nsbtalent.com’ <nsb@nsbtalent.com>; ‘patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org’ <patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org>; ‘historydetectives@opb.org’ <historydetectives@opb.org>; ‘charlierose@pbs.org’ <charlierose@pbs.org>; ‘rockcenter@nbcuni.com’ <rockcenter@nbcuni.com>; ‘b.spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <b.spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘nicola.harley@telegraph.co.uk’ <nicola.harley@telegraph.co.uk>; ‘sarah-kate.templeton@sunday-times.co.uk’ <sarah-kate.templeton@sunday-times.co.uk>; ‘Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk’ <Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk>; ‘guardian.letters@theguardian.com’ <guardian.letters@theguardian.com>; ‘observer.letters@observer.co.uk’ <observer.letters@observer.co.uk>; ‘Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘syndication@washpost.com’ <syndication@washpost.com>; ‘act@credoaction.com’ <act@credoaction.com>; ‘unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com>; ‘contact@icij.org’ <contact@icij.org>; ‘investigations@icij.org’ <investigations@icij.org>; ‘hello@gijn.org’ <hello@gijn.org>; ‘fundfij@gmail.com’ <fundfij@gmail.com>; ‘megan@ire.org’ <megan@ire.org>; ‘ilab@investigativecenters.org’ <ilab@investigativecenters.org>; ‘foucart@lemonde.fr’ <foucart@lemonde.fr>; ‘larousserie@lemonde.fr’ <larousserie@lemonde.fr>; ‘hristio.boytchev@correctiv.org’ <hristio.boytchev@correctiv.org>; ‘nerazzini@gmail.com’ <nerazzini@gmail.com>; ‘report@rai.it’ <report@rai.it>; ‘ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org’ <ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org>; ‘hug@pressebuero-sg.ch’ <hug@pressebuero-sg.ch>; ‘cecilia.anesi@gmail.com’ <cecilia.anesi@gmail.com>; ‘info@irpi.eu’ <info@irpi.eu>; ‘info@bernie.org’ <info@bernie.org>; ‘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>; ‘peter.henry@stern.nyu.edu’ <peter.henry@stern.nyu.edu>; ‘jes138@columbia.edu’ <jes138@columbia.edu>; ‘ernesto.zedillo@yale.edu’ <ernesto.zedillo@yale.edu>; ‘wendy.j.braught@citi.com’ <wendy.j.braught@citi.com>; ‘gryle@icij.org’ <gryle@icij.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘scoop@huffingtonpost.com’ <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>
Subject: Dr. Butler, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Pastrone, & Decision Makers, I respectfully request you address the proof that my invention can replace 4,000 elec. boards with my 9 elec. boards while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost

 

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

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