This document is available in pdf at Google Drive at: goo.gl/B7RrrL
Response to statements made by Dr. Andrew Lankford, Chairman of HEPAP, leader of the U.S. groups working on the ATLAS Trigger and Data Acquisition Systems at CERN, former ATLAS Deputy Spokesperson, regarding my 3D-Flow OPRA and a request to follow scientific procedures complying with rules respecting science, colleagues and serving taxpayers.
I have known Andy Lankford for more than 25 years when I was working at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas and he was head of the Electronic group at the SDC Detector.
In 1993, together with Joel Butler, he was appointed by the Director of the SSC (also Director of Fermilab) to organize a formal, major, public scientific review of my 3D-Flow invention, which took place at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993. Lankford was responsible to defined the charges to the reviewers. The formal report (goo.gl/zP76Tc) by the review panel recognized the validity of my 3D-Flow invention. Lankford, in a 1993 letter (goo.gl/8jaxDH) wrote about my invention: “… a technique to perform fast, programmable triggers …”, and in 1995, Joel Butler wrote a letter of endorsement (goo.gl/ZJh0Kg) stating: “The 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments.” Livio Mapelli, another CERN leader of the ATLAS experiment, also a member of the panel of the major scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993, in a letter dated 1993 (goo.gl/l5vvvU) wrote about my invention: “… higher flexibility, coming from the programmability of algorithms and not only of parameters …” Several senior experts in the field, some working in competing experiments, for over twenty years, have endorsed in writing the validity of my invention (see citations at “goo.gl/GIC5aR” and a few complete letters at “goo.gl/VXBx33“) proving advantages to all of them, not just to one experiment.
On February 7, 2017, CERN Director General, Dr. Fabiola Gianotti, upon request from Honorable Gianni Pittella, leader of the second largest group at the European Parliament who cares to better serve his European constituents by maximizing the return of their investment in research through a public scientific review, appointed Joel Butler, Andy Lankford and Nadia Pastrone to organize a similar scientific discussion/review of my inventions at CERN.
On February 28, 2017, Joel Butler, on behalf of the three appointees, wrote me an email with the request to answer a question to determine what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN.
On March 10, 2017, I provided a three-page answer and twelve-page Appendix “goo.gl/IkXrEm”, answering thoroughly the appointee’s question and supporting the request for a transparent, public, scientific review at CERN of my new 3D-Flow OPRA, similar to the review of my basic 3D-Flow invention he organized in 1993 with Butler at FERMILAB. At that time Fermilab was the reference center for scientists in this field because they had the Tevatron, the most powerful machine in the world, whereas now CERN holds that position as they have the most powerful LHC machine in the world.
On May 15, 2017, after not receiving a follow up email from Joel Butler as he mentioned in his February 28, 2017 email asking me a question whose answer would help the appointees to determine what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN, I wrote a six-page letter “goo.gl/7a9nSK” supporting the urgency for them and the scientific community to address the proof that my invention, proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries, can replace 4,000 electronic data processing boards of the Level-1 Trigger of the CMS experiment and other experiments at CERN (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) with just one crate containing nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards (goo.gl/AoszvQ) detailed at “goo.gl/w3XlZ1”, while providing enormous performance improvements at one thousandth the cost of the CMS system. My new 3D-Flow OPRA invention has the potential to save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, provide enormous advantages in advancing science, and when used in Medical Imaging applications, to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs.
The author of the article on MIT Technology Review on May 13, 2016, titled: “Moore’s Law Is Dead. Now What? Shrinking transistors have powered 50 years of advances in computing—but now other ways must be found to make computers more capable” was not aware of my basic 3D-Flow invention from 1992 breaking the speed barrier in executing real-time object pattern recognition algorithms which was answering his question. (Moore’s law named after Intel cofounder Gordon Moore in 1965 stated that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit will double approximately every two years, which results in a faster processor). In fact, my 3D-Flow processor and system architecture can sustain the input data speed and algorithm’s complexity of a system for an unlimited number of times higher than the one sustained by any fastest processor in any given year ̶ making computers for real-time applications more capable. The highlighted statement at page 6 of ‘goo.gl/zP76Tc’ in the formal report by the panel of the major scientific review at FERMILAB in 1993, shows they have understood and recognized these advantages of my invention. And I can also explain its concept with analogies to laymen in several conferences and to different groups, including middle school Montessori students and their teachers with whom I wrote a book. I also had success explaining it to high school students where we made a video (goo.gl/tKGUjw) showing at minute 7:48, how to solve the basic problem using the analogy of analyzing for 30 seconds all envelopes which arrive at six- second intervals without missing an envelope.
In addition, when the 3D-Flow OPRA invention is used in the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) device, it can claim for the first time a true paradigm change in molecular imaging because it offers at once the three advantages of a) an effective early detection of diseases such as cancer at a highly curable stage, improved diagnosis, prognosis and effectively monitoring treatments, b) a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET (Positron Emission Tomography), and c) a 4-minute, very low examination cost that will cover all organs of the body. Hence, screening on specific organs such as: mammography, PAP-test, colonoscopy, and PSA will be superfluous. The 3D-CBS invention can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs. (See the 2000 book: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening at “goo.gl/ggGGwF”, the five-page 2003 article at (goo.gl/RiIn0B), the 32-page 2013 article at “goo.gl/qpnNxd”, one-page innovations at “goo.gl/3AFCWM”, one-page benefits at “goo.gl/Zx1p9Q”, two-page 2016 summary and comparison with the Explorer at: “goo.gl/QLuA1n” and the source information from the authors of the “Explorer Project” at “goo.gl/Tl95NN” or at “goo.gl/ovMZ5j”, funded by NIH for $15.5 million although less efficient, without the ability to save many lives and more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS).
On June 27, 2017, after receiving on June 12, 2017, a review from Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN of my 3D-Flow OPRA project, I responded point-by-point goo.gl/J9h4qL to their untrue, unsubstantiated, unsupported statements which are damaging the advancement in science, taxpayers and cancer patients. Those statements underline the need to be able to present my invention at CERN and to have the opportunity to answer directly, face-to-face, the objections from the opponents of my inventions because, regardless of all articles, documents, proposals I write, scientists and reviewers do not read them, they continue to refer to old obsolete technology, make wrong assumptions, and damage taxpayers in funding less efficient and more costly projects, preventing my innovations from being presented, published, discussed, funded to benefit advancement in science and humanity.
On July 12, 2017, after realizing that several of the unsubstantiated, unsupported statements in the review by Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN dated June 12, 2017, were similar to those received from Joel Butler on December 10-11, 2016, I sent him more specific point-to-point answers “goo.gl/k46ea6” to his email and now in this document I am further addressing and clarifying the issues he brought up in his email.
On July 13, 2017, I contacted Andy Lankford on the phone; however, I was not able to talk to him not even by going through the Atlas Secretariat, nor I received an answer to my emails. Therefore, I left a message with the Atlas Secretariat to ask him if he could respond to them so they could kindly report his answer to me about determining what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN as they mentioned via Butler’s February 28th email.
Although Lankford’s emails response was not very friendly and cooperative to address issues scientifically, I am doing my best to provide professional, scientific answers related to my invention replacing 4,000 boards with 9 boards, which provide higher performance at one thousandth the cost. Who does not want that and why?.
The following text in black in ‘Arial’ font are the original statements by Dr. Andrew Lankford. My point-by-point response is in ‘Times Roman’ font, red characters in between ***> my response <***.
001 From: Andrew J. Lankford [mailto:email@example.com]
002 Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:25 AM
003 To: firstname.lastname@example.org
004 Subject: No contact
006 Dear Dario,
008 Please do not call me. Please do not write to me. I do not want to and will not talk to you.
009 I want you to stop using my name in your emails to others.
011 Thank you,
014 Sent from my iPad
- —–Original Message—– From: Crosetto Dario [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:17 PM To: ‘Andrew J. Lankford’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: legitimacy to contact professionals holding position of responsibility to serve taxpayers and handling their money
Please could you tell me the reason for your request?
Last time that I met you in building 40 at CERN on January 11, 2011 with Prof. Vincenzo Vigna, we had a cordial conversation and we seemed in agreements on scientific issues when we discussed the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition.
What happened after that to make the request below? I remember addressing letters to the leaders in this field in September 2009 and in other letters, including also your name because of the position you were holding. I found that legitimate and because we met in 2011 and you did not say anything, I thought that also you found it legitimate to address scientific issues to leaders and experts in the field.
Please let me know the reason for your request.
- —–Original Message—– From: Crosetto Dario [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:54 AM To: ‘Andrew J. Lankford’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: legitimacy to contact professionals holding position of responsibility to serve taxpayers and handling their money
I am contacting you as the Chairman of HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel), as the Deputy Spokesperson of Atlas Experiment at CERN and as the person with several responsibilities related to making the best use of taxpayer money to advance science in particle detection by providing the most efficient and cost-effective Level-1 Trigger that can provide the most powerful tool to uncover the unknown and to confirm or exclude with accurate measurements the existence of a particle predicted by theoretical physicists.
As long as you will hold any position related to these responsibilities, on behalf of taxpayers I will legitimately address pertinent questions and send appropriate email to your attention and refer to your name for things that are related to your position. The day that you will resign from all these positions of responsibilities, I will contact the person replacing you and you will have all the rights to ask me or anyone else not to contact you if you wish so, …and I will respect your desire.
Please just respond professionally according to your duty as per your job description and put aside any personal consideration.
I have asked to discuss openly, publicly my 3D-Flow OPRA systems which offers much greater performance than all Level-1 trigger systems at CERN at a fraction of the cost, including a much higher performance with respect to the ATLAS ROI (Region of Interest) Level-1 Trigger, present and the one planned for future upgrades of the LHC that were presented at the last IEEE-NSS Conference in Strasbourg, France on November 2016.