This document is available in pdf at Google Drive at: goo.gl/dGTQR3
Subject: The breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention has aroused considerable discussion in the scientific community to justify the request by taxpayers for the most prestigious universities to examine my answers to experts in the field so as to accelerate their benefits
Dear Prof. FRANK DOYLE, Dean of John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) of Harvard University and scientists expert in Physics, Computing and Electronics,
As Harvard continues to focus not only on technology but also on its students becoming innovative thinkers, it is no surprise that the public places their trust in Harvard’s SEAS competence in the fields of Physics, Computing, and Electronics. Due to the complexity of my invention, I have been asked to submit references of two Level-1 Trigger systems for large experiments in High Energy Physics (HEP) to be evaluated by your experts to determine and compare their costs and performances.
Regardless of this specific application for the HEP Trigger, experts in Physics, Computing, and Electronics should be able to evaluate the two systems and recognize the importance of the differences in performance and costs between a) the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger system (and several other trigger systems) and b) my 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithm) system, a stand-alone black box of electronics having the specific capability of inputting data at any given rate, and then having the capability to perform calculations on the input data to identify objects with specific characteristics to uncover the unknown, or confirm or exclude with accurate measurements the existence of a particle predicted by theoretical physicists.
The enormous advantages of the 3D-Flow OPRA compared to alternative systems are due to the new inventive step of my approach, which legitimizes and justifies the request by taxpayers for the most prestigious universities to examine my inventions and my answers to experts in the field so as to accelerate their benefits.
The recent 59 quotes written by reputable industries to build my 3D-Flow OPRA system have proven it is possible to replace the hundreds of crates containing 4,000 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), while providing enormous performance improvements at one thousandth the cost of the CMS system.
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 indisputable advantages of my original 3D-Flow system, which was recognized valuable in a formal, official, international, public, scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993, have been compared to the alternative systems built over the past 25 years, as reported on pages 100-115 of “goo.gl/w3XlZ1”.
First in 1994 – showing feasibility in a cylinder 1.8m tall x 1m in diameter, and later in 1999 – showing feasibility in 6 x 9U VME crates as described in the 45-page peer-reviewed article published by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436, (1999) pp.341-385.
The first feasibility and functionality in hardware of my 3D-Flow innovative concept was proven in two FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) circuits at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in San Diego, California, where scientists were able to verify the functionality of the 3D-Flow processors by selecting a cluster pattern on switches, verifying the expected result displayed on the LED, and the input data rate and the time to execute the real-time algorithm displayed on the oscilloscope.
The feasibility and functionality to build 3D-Flow systems suitable for detectors of any size was first proven in two modular boards, each containing sixty-eight 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA, presented at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland, Oregon.
My improved 3D-Flow OPRA system is relatively easy to examine starting with the two pages at “goo.gl/AoszvQ” which summarizes the entire Level-1 Trigger system and provides details of each component at “goo.gl/w3XlZ1”. I would be available to help Harvard experts locate details of each component in the 264-page document, and answer questions in a public forum. In regard to the CMS Level-1 Trigger system “goo.gl/mPHw5Y”, all the literature is available on CERN’s website and in several publications.
In addition, when the 3D-Flow OPRA invention is used in the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) device can claim for the first time 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 monitoring treatments effectively, 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 5 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 is more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS).
On behalf of taxpayers who would receive enormous benefits from this advancement in science including a significant reduction in cancer deaths and healthcare costs, I respectfully request you examine and address the above referenced material and my answers to experts in the field and/or to provide the names of the experts in the field at your university who would be willing to render this service to taxpayers so as to accelerate their benefits.
President of United to End Cancer
900 Hideaway Pl.
DeSoto, TX, 75115