Dear Ms. Wile, President, Vice-President, and leaders responsible for our future, Traci, thank you for your message that there was the possibility to talk to the President on the phone, I had a very busy schedule last Thursday and Friday and did not make it with the call you suggested, however, last Friday morning I called the office of Dr. Michael Laurer, Director of Extramural Research at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Laurer acknowledged reading my emails during the past days, so I thought we could address orally the table at page 57 of the attachment comparing the Explorer funded by NIH for $15.5 million which cost over ten times the 3D-CBS and does not have the capability to save many lives because it has several drawback such as consuming 60 kW and cannot process 40,000 TB data per day as instead can process the 3D-CBS project consuming only 4 kW that I submitted small parts of $100,000 in ten proposals during nine years and were all rejected. My complete study was reported in the year 2000 in my technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost Cancer Screening”. We could also addressed my answers to the reviewers who rejected my paper to the 2016 IEEE-MIC Conference in Strasbourg. I could answer any question Laurer might have. His assistant Ms. Melanie Showe told me that Laurer had the last appointment ending at 4:30 pm and I left my phone number asking if he could call me, however, Dr. Laurer did not call.
Last Friday morning I also called Dr. Eckhard Elsen, Director for Research and Computing at CERN and Chairman of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference in Strasbourg, France starting tomorrow, October 31, 2016 who rejected my two papers to the Conference.
He also acknowledged receiving my emails during the past days and not only I was interested to know his considerations to my explanations (that you can read below after the 7 questions) on how the 3D-Flow OPRA is different in topology, pipeline architecture, performance, costs, etc. compared to Wesley Smith’s and other Level-1 Triggers, but also many people who are concern in the best use of taxpayer money and advancing science would expect an ethical scientific discussion whose result is to their benefit.
When Elsen answered the phone on Friday afternoon in Geneva, I told him who I was and he started telling me I apologize, I apologize, I apologize because I need to leave immediately. I then made sure that he was the right person and asked if he was Eckhard Elsen, Chairman of the IEEE-NSS Conference starting on October 31. He confirmed “yes I am”.
I then asked if I could give a presentation because I responded satisfactorily to all his and his reviewers’ questions. At that point he repeated I apologize, I apologize that he needed to leave immediately and hanged up.
It is the expectation from many people to know the result of this different opinion of the reviewers who rejected all my papers. At this point Elsen and his reviewers should also demonstrate that all scientists who endorsed me, the FERMILAB international review panel of his 3D-Flow invention, engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent and point out errors in the simulations, components and technology data sheets of the industries who wrote the quotes.
For the benefits of taxpayers that we are serving is important to address these issue and provide professional answer.
During the past months I am receiving an average of eight emails per day from DNC, President Obama, his wife, Vice-President Biden, Donna Brazile, or others. I am respectful to you and the people you represent that you are able to express your ideas sending millions of emails more than eight times a day. I am respectful to people who express and send ideas opposite to yours such as “Free Bacon” and others or to the New York Times for informing us about the More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don’t Support Donald Trump, comforting us with an example that shows a world of REASON in a civil country is more important than a party line.
I respectfully ask the recipient of this email not to take any action that would be harmful to taxpayers, cancer patients or to the advancement in science by silencing the following legitimate questions. Also, I am asking people who filter SPAM on the internet not to filter this message which is not SPAM since they do not filter thousands of messages sent by the leaders listed above to millions of people 8 times a day. There may be reports by some who do not like the messages who want to shut them down, but these negative reports are not censuring and/or silencing the freedom of expression.
This is the beauty of a civilized democratic country; let’s not have these rights of freedom of expression of ideas and innovations taken away by people with personal interests who take taxpayer and donation money allocated for research, break the ethics of a scientist, without going through a public scientific procedure of a fair competition, who are pursuing instead their and their friends greed for power and money to the detriment of taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity. Here are the questions for which citizens of a civilized, democratic country should be receiving the answer for a world of REASON/SCIENCE:
- Why did the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) give $4.2 million of taxpayer money in 2016 to Wesley Smith after he wasted over $50 million building hundreds of crates with 4,000 electronic data processing board of the CMS Level-1 Trigger systems costing over $100 million which did not work and had to be trashed knowing that it can be replaced with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost with staggering performance improvements?
- Why did the U.S. National Institutes of Health give $3,314,184 of taxpayer money in 2016 (out of $15.5 million, $3,054,873 delivered in 2015) to the team of the Explorer project made of 491,520 expensive LYSO crystals, 12 crates with 120 data processing boards and 6 racks of computer processing 40 TB data acquired and stored on hard drives every day for a total power consumption of 60 kW, which cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day, knowing that the 3D-CBS device can make a paradigm change in molecular imaging because it has the capability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data each day, using one 3D-Flow OPRA VME crate for a total power consumption of the entire system of only 4 Kw, at less than 1/10 the cost of the Explorer? Why, knowing that the 3D-CBS could have saved millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection, reduce radiation dose to less than 1/50, reduce healthcare costs and these results can be proven on a sample population, has it not been funded?
- Why, after informing President Obama that more than one year after having proof that Glen Crawford, Director of Research and Technology at DOE is not doing his job and five months after his 8-line email incriminating himself with statements in violation of DOE rules and contradicting his own statements, does he still hold the same position and continues to waste taxpayer money and be the internal arm of a circle of friends of corrupted scientists? Why, after Crosetto notified the DOE FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) agent by phone about this document published at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1880 proving that Crawford ordered DOE Security to block Crosetto’s messages to all DOE employees, including the Secretary of Energy, FOIA and OHA so he and his group (e.g. Helmut Marsiske) could continue to give millions of dollars to Wesley Smith and others without accountability is illegal and an abuse of power, Crosetto cannot send these facts to DOE?
- Why, after Informing President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden that Michael Laurer, Director of the Extramural Research at the National Institute of Health, does not want to hear Crosetto’s inventions, does not want to organize a public scientific review of the 3D-CBS because he believes this would not be fair to all scientists, but does not give the same importance to be fair to the public or to serve the President and Vice-President who promise to give the public the greatest benefits for their tax-dollars, no action is taken depriving instead taxpayers from the benefits from innovations that would emerge from a fair scientific competition? Why, after proving in this document that the $15.5 million given to the Explorer project is a waste of money because the 3D-CBS can acquire and process over 40,000 TB data in one day providing an effective early cancer detection and a much more powerful research tool at less than 1/10 the cost, does Laurer not respond to hear about Crosetto’s invention, organize a scientific review or consider resigning if he is being impeded from doing his job by someone, instead of complying with the ethics of a scientist and do what it is best for taxpayers?
- Why, 5 days after Crosetto explained the reason of the great damage to the advancement in science and benefit to humanity for the rejection of his papers and providing facts proving reviewers of this year as well as previous years were either incompetent or did not tell the truth because facts and documents refute reviewers claims that they did not know about Crosetto’s work, do leaders of the Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference in Strasbourg which starts on-site registration today, still not respond to let Crosetto know if he can present his inventions for the benefit of humanity at the Conference or if they will consider resigning if they are being impeded from doing their job by someone, instead of complying with the ethics of a scientist and do what it is best for taxpayers?
- Why, 5 days after Crosetto informed the Presidents and board of Directors of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, that facts show that the organizers of the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg which starts on-site registration today, have rejected three papers regarding innovations proving to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost and provide staggering performance improvement that has been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries, still do not respond about the logic and compliance with the scientific integrity that would call for IEEE to disassociate itself from the Strasbourg’s conference organizers who are contrary to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, and remove its endorsement of the conference.
- Why, a) after Crosetto and two friends drove to Davos, Switzerland, to hand-deliver a letter containing Crosetto’s 271-page proposal and 155-page report of 59 quotes from reputable industries to Vice-President Joe Biden who organized a forum among scientists of the Cancer Moonshot task force, b) after Crosetto sent an additional copy of the proposal to the physical address provided by Ms. Brazile who Crosetto met at an event at the University of Arlington in Texas, and c) after Mr. Charles Conner, a veteran who worked for Lyndon B. Johnson from 1959 to 1964, wrote a personal letter to Vice-President Joe Biden asking him to address the specific items in Crosetto’s letter, clear out bureaucratic hurdles and have Crosetto be part of the Task Force to defeat cancer, did Mr. Conner not receive a reply, the specific items in Crosetto’s letter were not addressed, and Crosetto was not included in the Task Force to defeat cancer?
161,808,200 people have died from cancer since Crosetto’s invention was crushed (11,987,200 were Americans), many of them could have been saved with his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology and hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-payer money could have been saved in High Energy Physics experiments, while providing a very powerful tool to discover new subatomic particles and advance science in different fields. This needless loss of lives, waste of taxpayer money, and loss of advancement in science calls for the reform of the peer-review process to be independent from money and politics as expressed by the National Academy of Science.
Ms. Wile, leaders and journalists we can’t do this without you, please respond to this message to implement a world of REASON, in particular to defeat cancer.
Ms. Wile, this can work also to defeat the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer. It is not sufficient to send a one-time email, but it is necessary to send millions of emails, eight times a day, every day for several months so that the scientific truth for the benefits of humanity emerge and cancer is defeated once and for all.
From: Traci Wile, BarackObama.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Dario Crosetto <email@example.com>
Subject: TODAY: Join a call with the President
I wanted to make sure you saw Katie’s message from earlier this week.
This afternoon at 4:30 p.m. E.T., President Obama will be getting on a phone call with supporters like you to discuss the upcoming Obamacare open enrollment period that starts November 1.
Don’t miss out — RSVP now to reserve your spot:
Director of Community Programs
Organizing for Action
—- ORIGINAL MESSAGE —-
I wanted to let you know about an exciting opportunity coming up this week.
This Thursday, OFA supporters are invited to get on the phone with President Obama and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, who will be discussing the quickly-approaching open enrollment period.
RSVP now to reserve your spot.
Thanks to Obamacare, millions of Americans have gained access to quality, affordable health care. The upcoming open enrollment period is our chance to build on that progress and help even more individuals and families find the coverage that works for them — it’s up to all of us to keep the momentum going.
Be a part of this push. Say you’ll join the call with President Obama:
Organizing for Action
[See this document at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1891 or at the Google Drive]
Respectfully bringing to your attention facts proving that:
Innovations saving millions of lives and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are suppressed and its inventor threatened to involve security instead of providing scientific and economic reasons why hundreds of chasses of electronics that do not provide a powerful tool to save lives and to discover new subatomic particles are funded knowing that breakthrough 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries can replace them in one chassis at a fraction of the cost providing a staggering performance improvement.
Hundreds of millions of taxpayer and donation dollars are being wasted and millions of lives are being needlessly lost from cancer because innovations are suppressed by a flawed peer-review process and funding agencies are complicit with scientists who do not have scientific integrity and break their professional ethics instead of making them accountable.
The value of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concepts have been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review held at FERMILAB in December 1993, where Crosetto answered objections from other scientists. Recently it was proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost.
Excerpt from the full document available at the Google Drive:
A. Review of paper 2493 by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference:
“I do not understand how 3D flow differs to various standard network topologies currently used in HEP (this is after reading a poster or two on his website).
Technical Merit poor , Originality & Innovation poor, Significance poor”
“I do not understand how 3D flow differs to various standard network topologies currently used in HEP (this is after reading a poster or two on his website).”
The 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger system (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) “differs from various standard network topologies” such as the CMS Level-1 Trigger reported on the first page of the article presented at the Real-Time conference on June 6, 2016, consisting of 4,000 electronic data processing boards confined in a room 2,200 cm x 1,600 cm with approximately 136 racks, each rack with 3 x 9U crates, each crate with 10 data processing boards. In stark contrast, the digital Level-1 Trigger system with the 3D-Flow OPRA is confined in a 36 cm cube of electronics in a single crate with 8 x 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards and one 3D-Flow OPRA pyramid board for channels and data reduction (See last page of the summary of paper 2493).
Because the Level-1 Trigger system needs to provide high performance in executing complex Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms on data arriving at an ultra-high rate as a typical object pattern recognition algorithm needs to exchange data with neighboring processors (or circuits) and cannot move the data of an event (frame or picture) out of the processor (or circuit) until the algorithm is complete, a topology minimizing the distance between electronic components is required to minimize the time to exchange the data, which in turn minimizes the volume of the electronics, the power dissipation, etc.
The CMS topology in 4,000 boards housed in a room with 136 racks of electronics covering a floor of 2,200 cm x 1,600 cm as reported in Figure 18.1 on page 579 of CERN/LHC 2000-38, requires some signals to travel 4,000 cm that will take longer than 133 nanoseconds (limited by the speed of light 300,000 km/sec), while signals travelling the longest distance in the 36 cm cube 3D-Flow OPRA system will require approximately 1.2 nanoseconds (100 times faster in moving data). No matter how fast the circuit is executing the algorithm, choosing the wrong topology will limit and provide a less performant system.
Even future 16 nanometer FPGA technology cannot compete in performance with a system having better topology. For example, a 16 nanometer technology might perform 2 to 4 times faster than less expensive technology, however, the CMS topology with electronics in a 700 million cubic cm, limits the data rate and complexity of the algorithms that can be executed to 100 times lower than the 3D-Flow OPRA in 46,656 cubic cm. The use of the FPGA rather than the 3D-Flow ASIC further limits the overall performance and the component cost is another big disadvantage assuming it accommodates 64 x 3D-Flow processors in a 16 nanometer FPGA at $4,000 per FPGA component, the cost would be 60 times the 3D-Flow ASIC costing $67 with 64 processors and the power dissipation would also increase considerably.
The 3D-Flow OPRA offers by far the best and most balanced topology when one considers cost-effectiveness, power consumption, speed, nanometer technology, component costs, the coupling between detector and electronics, the system architecture, the processor architecture, etc. providing the highest performance in its capability to sustain an ultra-high speed input data rate and the execution of complex real-time algorithms at the lowest possible cost.
Wesley Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 data processing boards or the new SWATCH Level-1 Trigger system made of 100 data processing boards are limited in the performance, input data rate and complexity of the algorithms they can execute that is hundreds of time lower compared to the 3D-Flow OPRA due to all factors listed above. However, the first wrong step was made when it was chosen as the topology.
In 1994, I choose the topology of the Level-1 Trigger that was a cylinder of electronics 100 cm in diameter x 180 cm tall shown on page 106 of my proposal, reflecting the topology of the trigger towers in the detector.
My last 3D-Flow OPRA design is in the VME and VXI form factor as shown in detail on the second page of the Summary (and it can be easily ported to the ATCA form factor which has a higher cost with no advantages in performance).
I chose VME and VXI form factor for the lower cost and standardization with the other electronics used in the same experiment; however, the topology that will allow to achieve the highest performance for a Level-1 Trigger continues to be my original 1994 design of the cylinder which now it would be approximately 0.4m in diameter and 1m tall and would achieve a higher performance in the input data rate and execution of complex pattern recognition algorithms.
2. Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2493 abstract.
This abstract contains extremely valuable quantitative data & technical merit of the project/research:
- The 3D-Flow processor has the capability to execute billons algorithms vs. 128 algorithms of CMS experiment.
- The 3D-Flow processor has the capability to execute at each “step” up to 26 operations in less than 3 ns.
- The 3D-Flow OPRA system has the capability to extract ALL valuable information from radiation…
- The 3D-Flow processor hasg the capability to execute specialized instructions (or “OPRA steps” for an optimized Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm) to identify particles.
- My 3D-Flow invention was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.
The most valuable quantitative data & technical merit are:
- The 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is technically sound and feasible to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements.
In light of the results that the Level-1 Trigger of large experiments did not work, the 4,000 CMS data processing boards had to be trashed because very few Higgs-like boson particles were found after analyzing trillion of events recorded casually and not for merit of the Trigger, it is clear that most of the papers on Level-1 Trigger during the past two decades should have been rejected and rated “poor” in quantitative data & technical merit, while papers on the 3D-Flow that was recognized valuable by top experts in the field since 1993 as having the capability to execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms at the Level-1 Trigger with zero dead time should have been approved.
The 09/19/2016 rejection statements by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers at the 2016 IEEE-NSS conference imply that all scientists who endorsed my inventions, the FERMILAB international review panel and engineers of the industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent.
Although it may not be their intention, by rejecting my papers and making their statements the circumstance they have created must draw to this conclusion.
Eckhard and Susanne should therefore reflect and allow the scientific truth to emerge, by referring to their professional ethics and scientific integrity that requires them to point out the papers that they believe provide quantitative data and have technical merits that they approved for the conference to be superior to the 3D-Flow system. To make the scientific truth emerge, they should give a chance to all authors, including myself, to present their project/research and organize a public workshop to discuss the details and let each author support their claims and question each other.
Furthermore, after my answer and technical explanation regarding how “the 3D-Flow OPRA differs from various standard network topologies” decision makers should reflect and realize that the current peer-review system is flawed and that for twenty years reviewers of my papers have shown they are unqualified to do their job. Ethical scientists should demonstrate their competence and qualification to do the job with pertinent and scientific answers supported by technology, calculations, scientific evidence and not by silencing the questions from the applicant and/or rejecting his papers. The devastating consequence of incompetent reviewers is that decision makers at higher level in the hierarchy, funding agencies, etc. repeat and pass on these non-scientific opinions from the reviewers including the question on the topology which denotes the level of incompetence of the reviewer to do his job that is crushing innovations and detrimental to humanity.
Would Intel, Apple or Samsung place in charge for the vision and planning the future direction of their company a person who claim to be expert in the field who does not know the difference between a relay and an integrated circuit?
Would the U.S. President place in charge a secret service agent who should protect his life and be alert from anything moving in the back yard of the White House to a person who does not know the different it might pose the presence of a small lizard, or a small squirrel compared to an intruder, hundreds of times bigger like a man armed with several weapons breaking the fence of the perimeter of the White House?
If reviewers of IEEE papers who are supposed to be knowledgeable and expert in the field cannot see the difference in advantages between a topology hundreds of times bigger than the other, how many other advantages that requires a deeper understanding such as a different architecture, flexibility, scalability, technology-independent, advantages in using one type of connector and cable rather than another etc., is this reviewer going to miss and deprive humanity from advancement in science and the subsequent benefits they could receive?
The only way to fix this is to allow science to proceed freely through a reform of the peer-review procedure allowing the presentation of my inventions and those by others at conferences and at funding agencies, comparing their advantages publicly, requesting other authors and reviewers’ responsible to make the best use of taxpayer and donation money to express their concerns, ask their questions, such as in this case, let authors respond and support their claims.
3. Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2493 abstract
This abstract contains extremely valuable innovations and significance of the project/research:
The 3D-Flow performance is further increased by its bypass switch and North East West South communication channels with neighbors.
The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists.
The 3D-Flow invention was recognized valuable by academia, industry, and research centers in a formal scientific review held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993.
The 3D-Flow invention has the capability of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation, which can save taxpayers millions of dollars in HEP experiments ….
It can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, at a staggering increase in performance, and at a fraction of the cost.
The innovations provide a staggering significance in advantages as:
The 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is technically sound and feasible to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements.
It is inconceivable that 24 years after my basic 3D-Flow processor architecture invention, system architecture, bypass switch, etc. which enabled a dead-time free Level-1 Trigger in 1994 to be built in a cylinder 1m x 1.8m and its evolution to today’s 3D-Flow OPRA system with higher performance housed in a 36 cm cube for 8,192 electronic channels at 80 million events/sec per each 16-bit channel, reviewers still claim they cannot understand my invention and for 20 years have approved articles and funding of a 700 million cubic cm CMS Level-1Trigger without zero dead-time, having much lower performance and a much greater cost.
Because the reviewers of articles are the same as the reviewers for funding projects, this would explain the statement of DOE Director of the Detector R&D, Helmut Marsiske, who funds HEP projects, when he stated on November 16, 2015, during our phone conversation that they were close to designing and implementing a Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time and did not know that I solved this problem in 1992.
It is inconceivable that reviewers of this abstract are not aware of the many endorsements of my inventions, several in writing and in letters by many scientists who are experts in the field, and by the panel of experts of the major scientific review held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993.
It is inconceivable that reviewers of this abstract/summary still cannot understand the value of my invention and the advantages compared to the other abstracts/summaries they are approving.
The advantages of my 3D-Flow invention have been understood to be valuable by many scientists, accepted for publication in several scientific journals, including being published after a peer-review in a 45-page article in the journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research in 1999. It has been published in several books; it has been understood by middle and high school students as shown in the YouTube video (see at minute 7:58) when a group of student were solving the problem of analyzing for 30 seconds every envelope arriving at a rate of one every 6 seconds, which explains how to build a Level-1 trigger system dead-time free with the capability to process each event for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data.
How can reviewers of this abstract/summary and IEEE-NSS reviewers of the past 16 years continue to reject my papers with a “poor” score in innovation and significance and approve hundreds of other papers that cannot claim advantages from innovations as mine and build a 700 million cubic cm Level-1 Trigger?
The statement in my abstract: “It can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, at a staggering increase in performance, and at a fraction of the cost” is very clearly addressing the significance of my work. If reviewers disagree with this statement, it is their ethical duty to refute my claim with calculations, references to technology, scientific evidence and references to other articles/projects/approaches with greater significance (e.g. reducing Smith’s 700 million cubic cm Level-1 Trigger to a system smaller than my 36 cm 3D-Flow OPRA) proving their competence and not covering up corruption by silencing my invention.
4. Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merits, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and the figures worth a thousand words in the 2493 summary
I respectfully request that Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn carefully study the three figures of the summary that are worth more than a thousand words. For better understanding, Figures 1 and 3 should be viewed electronically in order to zoom-in and see the details which are drawn to scale relative to the dimensions reported for the crates.
I respectfully request that Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn provide a Summary or article in any scientific journal which provides an equivalent amount of information as the two-page 2493 summary from the top down design of the entire system to the detail of each component with reference to the 271-page document explaining in detail each component supported by 59 quotes from several reputable industries with at least two quotes from different industries for each component.
The first figure in the first page of the 2493 summary provides an overview of the entire Level-1 Trigger for four large HEP experiments. On the right of the figure are represented the four experiments at CERN: CMS, Atlas, Alice and LHCb and the “Trigger Tower” which provides the raw data information from the detectors at each of the 8,192 electronic channel.
This data that in current detectors are less than 16-bit (typical 11-bit) per channel every 25 nanosecond (however, the 3D-Flow OPRA provide additional performance for future detector upgrade accepting up to 32-bit every 25 nanoseconds per channel), are sent with different cables, connectors and protocols to the backplane of the dual backplane PRAI crate (Patch Panel Regrouping Associates Ideas).
Signals from different subdetectors are aligned to the same event with the same time-stamp, formatted in 11- to 32-bit words, and sent simultaneously to the 8,192 electronic channels of the 3D-Flow OPRA VXI through the connectors located on the front panel of the 8-blade ATCA boards plugged into the front-plane of the dual backplane PRAI crate. The 3D-Flow OPRA VXI crate on the right of Figure 1 contains the entire Level-1 digital Trigger system consisting of 8 x 1,024 channel data processing boards and one 3D-Flow Pyramid board for data reduction and channel reduction.
Figure 3 on the second page of the summary details the system providing the mechanical dimensions to scale of each component, whose functionality is described in detail in the 271 page document available at the hyperlink provided in the abstract and in the summary and whose cost and feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from several reputable industries.
On the bottom left of Figure 3 is shown the ATCA-PRAI crate with the information arriving from the detector on different connectors to a board plugged into the backplane of the dual backplane ATCA.
Each of the eight ATCA blades plugged into the front of the dual backplane house 8 x 400-pin connectors which each carry 128 signals at 640Mbps (DDR at 320MHz) speed per signal, transported to the 3D-Flow OPRA boards through 128 Micro Twinax cables. The Micro Twinax data sheet is reported on page 184, the 400-pin connector data sheet on page 187 and pin assignments using many pins for ground to improve signal integrity and eliminate crosstalk is reported on page 185 of the proposal. To assure feasibility and reliability, I have used components that can offer performance much higher than what is used in this application – in some case ten times the requirement which will be useful for future speed upgrades.
The design of the two boards and 128 Micro Twinax assemblies carrying the signals from the ATCA crate to the 3D-Flow OPRA crate is detailed on Figures 66-67 on pages 195-198 of the proposal. Each receives 3D-Flow OPRA boards for 1,024 channels and is described in Figures 35 and 36 on pages 155-156 of the proposal.
The text on page 1 and 2 of the summary lists the main features of this project, and the last page explains how valuable information is extracted from radiation. One very important provision of the project is the verifiable capability mentioned on the first page of the summary described in detail from pages 149 to 170 of the proposal. It is the TER/DSU unit costing approximately $50,000 that can generate the functionality of the LHC apparatus allowing any Level-1 Trigger system to be tested on a test bench even far from the $50 billion LHC collider-detector at CERN in Geneva.
Figure 2 at the bottom of page 1 summarizes the significance of this project which would replace hundreds of crates of electronics for the level-1 Trigger of current experiments with one crate.
5. Crosetto’s comments to Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject the 2493 paper
Dear Eckhard and Susanne,
I believe that scientists should not fight over scientific issues, but cooperate in understanding the laws of nature that will provide well-being to humanity.
A scientist has an ethical duty to explain the reason(s) for rejecting the claims made by applicants by providing calculations and logical reasoning, not just rejecting it for no scientific reason.
On behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients who are deprived of the benefits of my inventions, and referring to our ethics and duty as scientists to pursue the scientific truth, I am asking Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn and the reviewers appointed by them to reflect about their actions which demonstrate that they and the reviewers appointed by them are not competent to do the job required in their position as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-NSS conference and resign, leaving this responsibility to other people more competent in the field.
In the event Elsen and Kuehn disagree with the analysis of the facts showing that they did not provide sound scientific reasons to reject my papers, I respectfully request them to provide references to other abstracts/summaries that they and their reviewers accepted in the field of Level-1 Trigger that they believe have provided an abstract and summary with more quantitative details, higher technical merit, innovation and significance and we could continue the discussion referring to some concrete cases.
I am providing some background information that should make you realize why the rejection of all my IEEE-NSS papers for the past 16 years does not comply with the ethics of scientists/reviewers and is not in agreement with the IEEE mission as stated on their website. This should open an investigation into the unfairness of the current peer-review system that is highly damaging to taxpayers and cancer patients.
Here are some facts:
- a) In 1993, I received many letters of endorsement and appreciation of my 3D-Flow invention from scientists and experts in the field and passed a major scientific review with experts from academia, industry and research centers. In 1995, I received $906,000 in grants from DOE to develop the 3D-Flow software tools and the RTL files to be sent to the silicon foundry to produce the 3D-Flow ASIC with four processors in a chip. The money to complete the project was never provided. Wesley Smith, responsible for the trigger at SDC experiment at the Superconducting Super Collider, contrary to all other scientists and experts in the field, wrote me an email stating that programmability at the Level-1 Trigger was not necessary. After the closure of the SSC, Smith became responsible for the Trigger at CMS experiment at CERN. Beginning in 1999, I receive strong opposition to present my work at the IEEE conferences and articles to the IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science. In 1998, my 3D-Flow system was listed by Eric Eisenhandler on page 53 of the CERN/LHCC/98-36 (Fourth Workshop on Electronics for LHC Experiments) in his presentation among all possible solutions to the Level-1 Trigger for LHC experiments and my article was reported on pp. 517-522. The following year, Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp were co-Chairmen of the same conference in Snowmass, Colorado, and they prevented me from attending the conference as they knew my solution was superior to theirs and they did not want to “lose”, just like an athlete with higher skill is prevented to the Olympics from others because they know will lose the competition. I can provide a long list of rejections, boycotts, and difficulties encountered which are not scientific and not fair to taxpayer, cancer patients and humanity who have been deceived, have sustained a high economic burden of wasted money and deprived from the benefits of my inventions.
- b) Over the years I have tried having an analytical scientific discussion on the Level-1 Trigger with Patrick Le Du, a senior organizer of the IEEE-NSS conferences. Our relation has always been cordial; however, the typical course of events at the IEEE conferences is the following: on day one I ask him for a meeting; he schedules our meeting during a coffee break but then never shows up; we set another meeting, and again he does not show up. He never answers emails on technical-scientific issues.
I hope that this information will make you realize that there are some individuals within the scientific community who are not only are unethical and unfair to taxpayers, to science and to their colleagues but discredit the entire category with their behavior (if these facts do not convince you that ethical conduct has been broken within the IEEE community, I can provide additional facts).
To restore the prestige of the scientific community, give those with innovations the opportunity to present their papers with their inventions, it is necessary to reform the peer-review system and organize public workshops where the skills of the participants are compared publicly and the best ideas are revealed, just like an athlete skill is revealed at the Olympics.
Your position as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-NSS conference gives you the possibility to restore the prestige of the scientific community referring to the ethics of a scientist serving science and the interest of taxpayers rather than the personal agenda of the greed for power of a few scientists. I am just serving the community and have done my part by answering as I did in this document your and your reviewers’ questions about the different topology of the 3D-Flow and the other trigger system. If you disagree with my answer, please provide your scientific consideration and I will give you my consideration.
In the event you realize that the best action would be to allow science to proceed freely through a fair, open, public scientific discussion but you are under pressure as I imagine Chairman Uwe Bratzler was in the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference when he was unsuccessful at receiving the reasons for the rejection of all my abstracts/summaries, then you should consider resigning in order to send the right message to those who do not respect your position and authority as Chairmen who are responsible for making the scientific truth emerge.
B. Review of paper 2484 by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference:
“this is pure nonsense. duplicate with #2493
And from a second reviewer: The last several sentences does a lot of damage to the credibility of this abstract.
The architecture seems like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s – so I’m missing the innovation here.
Technical Merit poor , Originality & Innovation poor, Significance poor”
“this is pure nonsense. duplicate with #2493”
This project makes a lot of sense and its feasibility is proven in fine details of the architecture, the electronics, mechanics, algorithms, software, speed of components, power dissipation, etc.
It is surprising the reviewers do not understand the merits of the 3D-Flow OPRA which now can execute programmable pattern recognition algorithms in one VME crate containing 4,096 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (650GB/sec) at approximately $80,000 production cost per crate, or in one VXI crate with 8,192 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (1.3TB/sec) at approximately $100,000 production cost per crate, with the potential to build 3D-Flow OPRA systems in one VXI crate capable of sustaining an input data rate of 20TB/sec.
This breakthrough invention has evolved from the 3D-Flow invention recognized valuable and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, by a panel of experts from academia, industry and research centers in a major review held at FERMILAB in 1993, accepted for publication in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, understood by middle and high school students and their teachers with whom I wrote a book and now, this new 3D-Flow OPRA topology, architecture, system with staggering performance in breaking the speed barrier in real-time application at the lowest possible cost is proven feasible from 59 quotes from reputable industries.
It is surprising the reviewers do not understand the advantages of the 3D-Flow OPRA that can replace hundreds of crates housing 4,000 electronic data processing boards, 40 computers, running 200 processes of the Wesley Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger with one crate housing 8 x 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards and one pyramid board for data and channel reduction at 1/1000 the cost with a staggering performance improvement.
Either the reviewers do not understand or they have a different agenda like Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp who prevented me from attending the Workshop on Electronics for LHC at Snowmass in 1999 and many others who rejected all my papers submitted to IEEE-NSS and to TNS during the past 16 years and who refuse a scientific forum proposed in 2001 by the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference, Uwe Bratzler. Why was it that after DOE granted me $906,000 from 1995 to 1998 to develop the 3D-Flow software tools and the tape out to send to the Silicon Foundry to build the 3D-Flow ASIC, suddenly all funding stopped and all papers within the scientific community of the most influential people who shape the future of High Energy Physics and Medical Imaging were rejected? All funding stopped too, even from funding agencies who were not participants at these conferences; is it because they and cancer organizations, philanthropists and laymen receive information from the media about the best technological breakthroughs from reviewers in a specific field of particle detection and medical imaging who are always the same and are led by influential people who have their own interest on how to spend taxpayer and donation money and provide evaluations like this reviewer: “this is pure nonsense.”
Historical data shows that 1998 was the turning point when in the same year my scientific work and inventions were crushed by influential people in the field and plans were made to spend millions of dollars on projects that were much less efficient and more expensive and ultimately failed.
This failure could have been proved analytically before construction it had underwent an open, fair, public scientific review as my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS projects were proven analytically to work.
My projects proved analytically the capability to sustain high input data rate, execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms with zero dead-time, to find new subatomic particles and to find all possible signals from the tumor markers enabling an effective early cancer detection, but it was not funded.
Instead the CMS and other Level-1 Trigger proved analytically that could not sustain LHC input data rate with zero dead-time, could not execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms, costing 1000 times my 3D-Flow level-1 Trigger and it was funded.
Then in 1999, I was prevented by Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp from attending the Workshop on Electronics for LHC Experiments in Snowmass, Colorado, and following rejections by many reviewers of my papers, articles and funding. At this turning point, Wesley Smith and his friends laid out the CMS Trigger Schedule from 1998 to 2005, reported in Figure 20.1 on page 589, in the 2000 CMS Level-1 Trigger Technical Design Report CERN/LHCC 2000-038. On page 579, Figure 18.1 of the same document, was also reported the layout of hundreds of racks, each containing either 5 VME crates or 3 VXI crates. The $50 million DOE and NSF funding had to go in the direction of Smith and his colleagues which meant ignoring any fair transparent scientific procedure; this explains the actions on all fronts to crush publications and funding of my project that had been recognized superior.
This impediment to advancing science and the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity only increased during the course of these past 16 years. On September 2, 1999, I was able to give a presentation to DOE at their office. However, influential scientists were able to use their power to stop the funding and the completion of my 3D-Flow project, block any review similar to the one held on my invention at FERMILAB in 1993. Now, after several attempts by the Director of the Office of High Energy Physics, at the Department of Energy, Dr. Jim Siegrist, to organize a presentation of my work at their office since June 2015, this is no longer a possibility as it was in 1999.
It is surprising that the reviewers do not understand the advantages in Medical Imaging that the 3D-CBS device can bring, allowing an effective early cancer detection with the potential to reduce over 50% of cancer deaths.
Responses to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:
“The last several sentences does a lot of damage to the credibility of this abstract.”
Because my abstracts/summaries that justify a high score have been rejected for the past 16 years without providing scientific reasons and because reviewers have approved other abstracts that would justify a lower score in technical merit, innovation and significance, it is legitimate and appropriate in order to accelerate the transfer of my inventions to benefit humanity to add to my abstract:
“I have faced many adversities and obstacles these past years that have delayed implementation of my invention, and the resulting monetary burden to taxpayers as well as curbing the advancement of science call for … a PUBLIC scientific review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention with funding agencies – similar to the one I had in 1993 of the 3D-Flow which recognized it valuable but where there were not enough funds available for its completion”
Response to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:
“The architecture seems like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s – so I’m missing the innovation here.”
No, it is not. I explained the difference orally beginning with my 90-minute presentation to hundreds of scientists at the major public scientific review of my 3D-Flow invention requested by the Director of the SSC held at the FERMILAB auditorium on December 14, 1993, which lasted an entire day.
I explained the difference between my 3D-Flow pipeline architecture and the classical pipeline at several conferences and in several published articles; however, I faced strong resistance to the paper presented (see Figure 4 explaining the different parallel and pipeline systems) at the 1999 IEEE-NSS conference that was never published in Transaction of Nuclear Science (TNS). Despite IEEE senior scientist (Aaron Brill) intervening in defense of a fair review involving renowned scientist (Les Roger) to make scientific merit prevail, and despite having the majority of the reviewers approve my paper for publication in TNS, the paper was never published because two anonymous reviewers claimed (without providing scientific reasons) that the 3D-Flow was flawed (although it was analytically explained and simulated in 1999 that it was not flawed and in 2001 proven feasible and functional in hardware).
It was presented again the following year at the 2000 IEEE-MIC conference and the difference with respect to the classical pipeline architecture is explained on pages 12-87, 12-88.
In 2000, after explaining the different parallel processing and pipeline architectures in several lessons to the middle school students of St. Alcuin Montessori school in Dallas and learning the differences hands-on with practical exercises and analogies, together with the students and the teachers I wrote a book which was available on Amazon.com for several years and which has been brought to the public again in 2016, explaining the different parallel processing and pipeline architectures from page 36 to page 66 on the blog http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1541#more-1541.
My 3D-Flow invention is not “The architecture … like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s”, is not an algorithm whose execution is split into several CPUs, instead the entire algorithm is executed in a single CPU. It is not a task split into several subtasks pipelined like the assembly line of a car, television, refrigerator, manufacturing company, but the entire task (algorithm) is executed in a single pipeline station (CPU).
It breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications providing the capability to execute programmable uninterruptable algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets (events or frames) with zero dead-time at the lowest possible cost per each valid event captured. Zero dead-time means that ALL frames are analyzed.
This is different from the alternative Level-1 Trigger systems developed during the past 25 years for large HEP experiments which missed events when the trigger fired and failed to trigger on valid events. Had these alternative Level-1 Trigger systems worked, the cost would have been exorbitant for each valid event captured.
Had the expensive trigger apparatus for CMS and Atlas undergone an open/transparent analytical study/review before construction in 1998, and been compared to my 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger System, then millions of taxpayer dollars and the work of thousands of scientists would not have been wasted when it was trashed because they would have known in advance that it was not dead-time free and could not execute complex object pattern recognition algorithms. When the 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger System underwent such a review in 1993, it was formally and officially recognized as not only capable of achieving zero-dead time and executing programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms but at a fraction of the cost while sustaining a very high input data rate.
Instead of building the 4,000 CMS data processing board using hundreds of crates in a 700 million cubic cm volume room that did not work, they could have built the 3D-Flow system at one thousandth (1/1000) the cost.
In 1994, the 3D-Flow system would satisfy the requirements of the Level-1 Trigger for different experiments at LHC such as CMS, Atlas LHCb, etc. in a cylinder 1m x 1.8m as shown on page 106 of the proposal.
In 1999, the 3D-Flow system for the Level-1 (or Level-0) Trigger of LHC experiment could be built in 6 x 9U crates as described on page 376 in the 45-page peer-review article published in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 436 (1999) pp. 341-385.
In 2003, I built two modular IBM PC boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors in FPGA (that needed NRE funding to be converted into an ASIC) shown on page 143 of the proposal that is providing a topology in 3-D assembly through the backplane found on page 157 of the proposal and suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.
Recently, my added inventions were proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build 4,096 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) on a VME crate with a 16 cm cube of electronics at 80 million frames per second (0.65TB/sec) executing up to 30 OPRAS at approximately $80,000 production cost per crate; or in one VXI crate with a 36 cm cube of electronics and 8,192 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (1.3TB/sec), executing up to 20 OPRAS at approximately $100,000 production cost per crate; and the potential to build 3D-Flow OPRA systems in one VXI crate capable of sustaining an input data rate of 20TB/sec. and VXI boards on pages 154-156 of the proposal to build a 3D-Flow OPRA system in a 3-D topology in a crate with a 16 cm cube data processing board. (OPRAS: Object Patter Recognition Step executing up to 26 operations such as add, subtract, compare with 24 values, etc. in a single cycle of 3 nanosecond).
The bottom line is that Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers still do not understand the differences and advantages of the 3D-Flow architecture and topology of the higher performing 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger system using ONE 36 cm cubic crate, and the CMS Level-One Trigger system using HUNDREDS of crates contained in a 700 million cubic cm volume and costing 1000 times the 3D-Flow OPRA. And Helmut Marsiske, DOE Director of Detector R&D, who assigns taxpayer money to research projects with Glen Crawford have been giving $3 to $4 million every year to Wesley Smith to build the flawed CMS Trigger system at a cost of over $100 million. On November 16, 2015, Marsiske stated in a phone conversation that I had with him that they had almost succeeded to design a Level-1 Trigger system with zero dead-time, obviously unaware that I had already accomplished this 24 years ago and was published this success in the 1994 DOE/LM-0002, DE94005148.
To avoid wasting any further taxpayer money, it will be necessary to allow inventors including myself to present their inventions at several conferences and public workshops soliciting comparison of my work with others, to reform the peer-review system and to organize a public scientific review of my invention similar to the one organized at Fermilab in 1993 for my basic 3D-Flow invention but conducted at CERN that has now became the center of activity in this field.
In summary, the differences between the 3D-Flow OPRA architecture and the “standard architecture for parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s” is that the 3D-Flow OPRA architecture can
- a) sustain an ultra-high input data rate with zero dead-time,
- b) execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms,
- c) be built in a volume of 65,000 cubic cm instead of 700 million cubic cm of alternative Level-1 Trigger systems that are limited in performance because of the distance between components (see more detailed explanations in the first answer to the difference in topologies), and
- d) be built at a fraction of the cost of other trigger systems.