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

This document is available in pdf at Google Drive at:


Scientists: by addressing ideas/inventions/projects analytically before construction

Everyone: by supporting transparency in science, Signing the Petition at ‘’

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 response to experts in the field to accelerate its benefitsDear Prof. Thomas Rosembaum, President of CALTECH, Prof. Gil Refael, Executive Officer for Physics, Prof. Adam Wierman, Executive Officer for Computing and Mathematical Sciences, Director Information Science and Technology, Prof. Ali Hjimiri, Executive Officer for Electrical Engineering and scientists expert in Physics, Computing and Electronics at the California Institute of Technology,


Emeritus Faculty in Physics: Prof. Barry C. Barish, Prof. Felix H. Boehm, Prof. David L. Goodstein, Prof. Thomas G. Phillips, Prof. Jerome Pine, Prof. Petr Vogel, Prof. Rochus E. Vogt, Prof. Ward Whaling

Research Faculty in Physics: Prof. Sean M. Carroll, Prof. Curt J. Cutler, Prof.   Bertrand Echenard, Prof. Todd C. Gaier, Prof. George Helou, Prof. Richard A. Mewaldt, Prof.  David H. Reitze, Prof. Jack Sayers, Prof. Mark Scheel, Prof. Daniel M. Silevitch,

Experimental Elementary Particle Physics: Prof. Brad Filippone, Prof. Sunil Golwala, Prof. David Hitlin, Prof. Harvey Newman, Prof. Ryan Patterson, Prof. Frank Porter, Prof. Maria Spiropulu, Prof. Nick Hutzler

Ligo: Prof. Barry Barish, Prof. Rana Adhikari, Prof. Alan Weinstein,

Physical Biology: Prof. Michael Dickinson, Prof. Michael Elowitz, Prof. Lea Goentoro, Prof. Markus Meister, Prof. Lior Pachter, Prof. Rob Phillips, Prof. Michael Roukes, Prof. Matt Thomson,


Prof. Alan Barr, Prof. Yaser Abu-Mustafa, Prof. John Doyle, Prof. Steven Low, Prof. Leonard Shulman, Prof. Erik Winfree,


Prof. Yaser Abu-Mostafa, Prof. Jehoshua Bruck, Prof. Hyuck Choo, Prof. John Doyle, Prof. Azita Emami, Prof. Michelle Effros, Prof. Ali Hajimiri, Prof. Babak Hassibi, Prof. Victoria Kostina, Prof. Steven Low, Prof. Pietro Perona, Prof. David Rutledge, Prof. Alex Scherer, Prof. Yu-Chong Tai, Prof. P.P. Vaidyanathan, Prof. Lihong Wang, Prof. Changhuei Yang, Prof. Amnon Yariv,


The author of the May 13, 2016, article on MIT Technology Review ‘’ entitled: “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 the answer to his question.

In fact, my 3D-Flow processor and system architecture can sustain the input data speed and algorithm’s complexity of a system for object pattern recognition, similar to the requirements of the Level-1 Trigger in High Energy Physics for an unlimited number of times higher than the one sustained by the fastest processor in any given year   ̶  making computers for real-time applications more capable.

(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 would result in a faster processor).

The indisputable advantages of my original 3D-Flow system, were recognized valuable from academia, industry and research centers (including a representative from CERN) in a major, formal, official, international, public, scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993. The review panel stated in the summary statements of the 1994 final report ‘’: “The committee finds this project an interesting and a unique concept…, We believe the concept will work… We see no technical reason why the proposed ASIC processor could not be built… We do not believe there are any major flaws in the proposed system… The committee was impressed with the work already completed by an essentially one person operation… We see nothing fundamentally wrong…” and at page 6 of the report in regard to the 3D-Flow Architecture: “One unknown with this architecture has to do with the added flexibility provided by the programmability of this system. It is hard to a crystal ball gaze, however, there are some feeling that given this feature experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible…” and in regard to the System Design of the 3D-Flow: “The committee believes there are no major flaws in the conceptual design…”


Even now, twenty-five years after my basic 3D-Flow technology-independent invention, the concept and implementation are still very competitive with any system built or planned to be built even by the most expensive experiments in the history of the planet at CERN.


Due to the complexity of my invention, and because the public places their trust in CALTECH competence in the fields of Physics, Computing, and Electronics, 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 differences in performance and costs between:


  1. a) the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger system consisting of hundreds of crates containing 4,000 data processing boards ‘gl/mPHw5Y’ (and several other trigger systems) and


  1. b) my 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithm) consisting of one crate containing nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards ‘gl/AoszvQ’.


The basic ‘’ 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture and the synergy of its implementation in its different parts summarized in two pages at ‘’ and detailed at ‘ the inventive step of the new 3D-Flow OPRA with unprecedented advantages and the capability to build an over 10,000 channel object pattern recognition system in one 36 cm cube of electronics capable of sustaining several terabytes/sec. of input data and execute complex real-time algorithms at a production cost of approximately $100,000. Larger systems can be built with several similar cubes of electronics.


Fifty-nine quotes from reputable industries have proved that the 3D-Flow OPRA can replace the 4,000 boards of the CMS system or other trigger systems at CERN with nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards, while providing enormous performance improvements at one thousandth the cost of the CMS system.


In fact, it has consistently outperformed every alternative system built in the last 25 years, as reported on pages 102-117 of ‘’, which legitimizes and justifies the request by taxpayers for the most prestigious universities to examine my inventions and my responses to experts in the field so as to accelerate their benefits. It was shown superior, as mentioned in some of the references below:


  • in 1994 when the 3D-Flow system was shown to be feasible in a cylinder 1.8m tall x 1m in diameter.
  • in 1998 in a 3D-Flow ASIC in 350 nm technology designed by Synopsys that I paid for with a grant received from the Department of Energy. However, funds to pay the Silicon Foundry to build this ASIC were never provided. (See pages 21, 72, 73, 85, 104, 105 of ‘’).
  • 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.
  • in 2015 with 59 quotes from reputable industries (including two quotes from different companies of the 3D-Flow OPRA ASIC in 40 nm technology) proving feasibility to replace 4,000 electronic boards with nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards, providing higher performance at one thousandth the cost.


The feasibility and functionality in hardware of my 3D-Flow innovative concept was first proven when I built, at my own expense, two FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) circuits and presented them 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 when I built, at my own expense, two modular boards, each containing sixty-eight 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA, which I presented at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland, Oregon.


Clearly the MIT Technology Review group on May 13, 2016, was not aware of my 3D-Flow invention and of any solution that would make computers more capable after the death of Moore’s law in 2010, ‘’. Likewise, the 2016 President of IEEE-NPSS, John Verboncoeur, and the 2017 new elect President, Stefan Ritt, in an almost two-hour meeting on November 5, 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg, France, where I presented them with the over 200 page document ‘’, stated that they had never heard of a parallel-processing architecture similar to the 3D-Flow.  They found it instead quite interesting and could not point out any flaws. IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional organization with over 400,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Before Dr. Karen Bartleson was president of IEEE, she was the Senior Director of Corporate Programs and Initiatives at Synopsys. She can therefore provide information about the success rate of the ASICs designed by Synopsys which should reassure those who question my 3D-Flow ASIC designed by Synopsys in 350 nm in 1998 although I did not receive funding to pay the Silicon Foundry to test it. However, I proved my invention works in hardware in FPGA.


If anyone at CALTECH or any other University knows of another system that would make computers more capable than the 3D-Flow in 1994, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2009, 2015, in real-time applications such as the trigger in high energy physics experiments or in a different application where it is required to break the speed barrier of the available technology in any given year, to recognize objects executing complex algorithms requiring neighboring and distant data correlation among signals arriving from a matrix of sensors at ultra-high speed, please provide a reference to an article or project.


My improved 3D-Flow OPRA system is relatively easy to examine starting with the two pages at ‘’ which summarizes the entire Level-1 Trigger system and provides details of each component at ‘’. I would be available to help CALTECH 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 ‘’, 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, it can claim for the first time a true paradigm change in molecular imaging because it can offer at once the three advantages of a) an effective detection of diseases such as cancer at a very early and highly curable stage, and improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of 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 unnecessary. The 3D-CBS invention can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs. This is not claimed by me but experimental data over 50 years proves it and is confirmed by major cancer organizations. I am claiming to achieve the three goals listed before that create a paradigm change in molecular imaging enabling an effective early cancer detection that is what it saves lives. (See the 2000 book: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening at ‘’, the five-page 2003 article at ‘’, the 32-page 2013 article at “”, one-page innovations at “”, one-page benefits at ‘’, two-page 2016 summary and comparison with the Explorer at: ‘’ and the source information from the authors of the “Explorer Project” at ‘’ or at ‘’, which is funded by NIH for $15.5 million although less efficient, incapable of saving many lives and more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS).


Because of the considerable discussion which my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions have created in the scientific community, and their potential to save hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of lives from cancer, on behalf of taxpayers, I respectfully request you examine and address the above referenced material and my responses to experts in the field and/or provide the names of experts in the field at your university who would be willing to render this service to taxpayers so as to accelerate their benefits.


I would be very grateful if you would join me in this effort to accelerate the benefits from these inventions to humanity and provide feedback within one week if you find this is in your field of expertise, or if you know someone expert in evaluating and comparing the two systems: a) the CMS Level-1 Trigger system consisting of hundreds of crates containing 4,000 boards and b) my 3D-Flow OPRA system consisting one crate containing nine boards, more performant and at a fraction of the cost.


The ER/DSU unit (Event Recorder Detector Simulation Unit described on pages 8, 12, 23, 32, 149-170 of ‘ would be able to record raw data from the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) apparatus and then replay the same data to the 3D-Flow OPRA system and to the CMS Level-1 Trigger (or other trigger system) proving their enormous difference in efficiency and cost-effectiveness.  A more important scientific advancement of the 3D-Flow OPRA than identifying the sought particle in HEP is its capability of filtering the background noise with higher LHC luminosity. Experimental results showing which system can find more sought particles within real LHC data at a very high luminosity in a controlled environment where it is known how many sought particles are memorized in the ER/DSU unit, will prove which system is the best. However, it is essential to find experts available to render the service to the public by addressing analytically different systems, otherwise innovations will never have the chance to be funded and provide benefits to the public.


I am available to answer any questions you might have related to the 3D-Flow OPRA and the 3D-CBS inventions.


Thank you,


Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX, 75115 – Email:

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

This post is also available in: Italian

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