This document is available in pdf at Google Drive at; goo.gl/k46ea6
Response to statements made by Dr. Joel Butler, CERN CMS 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 Joel Butler for more than 25 years when I was working at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas and he was head of the Computing Division at FERMILAB.
In 1993, together with Andy Lankford, 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. The formal report (goo.gl/zP76Tc) by the review panel recognized the validity of my 3D-Flow invention, 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.” Lankford, in a 1993 letter (goo.gl/8jaxDH) wrote about my invention: “… a technique to perform fast, programmable triggers …” 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 Butler’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 Lankford 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 to determine what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN, I wrote a six-page letter “goo.gl/7a9nSK” supporting the urgency for him 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 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 Joel Butler on the phone; however, he hung up as soon as he heard my name and has not provided the CMS Secretariat, who I later contacted, with a follow-up date for determining what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN as he mentioned in his February 28th email.
Although Butler’s emails and phone conversations were 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. Joel Butler. My point-by-point response is in ‘Times Roman’ font, red characters in between ***> my response <***.
001 From: Joel Butler [mailto:email@example.com] 002 Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 3:13 AM 003 To: Dario Crosetto <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com 004 Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org 005 Subject: Re: trigger
007 Dear Dario,
008 I would like to terminate this discussion.
- From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 1:39 AM To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Subject: RE: trigger
I just called on the phone and after answering “yes”, that you could hear me, as soon as I said my name you hung up.
Please could you let me know why you abruptly closed the conversation after hearing my name? Would you prefer to schedule a conversation another time or to communicate via email?
On February 28, 2017, you asked me a question: “In order to determine what sort of meeting, if any, would be appropriate, could you please…?”
I answered on March 10, 2017. Would you please let me know if my reply was satisfactory to you to request such a meeting? And if not, why not?
From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:57 AM To: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: trigger
Perhaps you will not believe me but I continue to repeat that I am trying to help you and CERN’s mission.
One thing should also be clear that as professionals, we and especially you who holds a position of responsibility should comply with CERN’s code of conduct, which you represent, and also because you are paid with taxpayer money to advance science, and to be fair to them we should both show transparency in science and so it is not appropriate to stop a discussion that is addressing saving taxpayer money and providing more powerful, cost-effective tools to advance science.
In particular, it is illegitimate to stop a discussion where facts, calculations, scientific evidence show that for more than twenty years my invention that was well known, recognized valuable, approved formally by an international scientific review, has been suppressed and continues to be suppressed, while taxpayer money goes to funding less efficient and more costly approaches.
One way to help, is to invite you to stand with science, with CERN’s code of conduct, defend CERN’s image pursuing the scientific truth and not defending or covering up mistakes from colleagues who have damaged and continue to damage taxpayers and the advancement of science.
010 You seem to believe that by repeating things that my colleagues and I say every day about physics
011 beyond the standard model and that you overhear from us at conferences, you have a “vision”
012 that is new. This is simply not well-connected to reality.
- I am claiming to provide a tool made of nine electronic boards contained in one crate for experimental physicists that is very powerful and cost-effective having the capability to perform calculations on the input data arriving from a plurality of detectors at an ultra-high speed 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. My claims are only based on accurate measurements and not on hypotheses. I am not making any claims if tools do not have the capability to capture and accurately measure most of the events satisfying experimenters’ desired characteristics and if the claim is not supported by a high statistics. You claim physics behind the standard model with a Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 electronic boards contained in hundreds of crates occupying a room of racks, which can be proven analytically, before construction that does not have the capability to capture most of the events and accurately measure all characteristics of the sought particle and had to be trashed on February 26, 2016. Without an efficient and cost-effective Level-1 Trigger, events with the sought particle could only be captured casually by the data acquisition system at a very high cost per valid data captured.
014 I do not know anyone that has prevented you from putting your technical ideas in front of the
015 world community. You have, in fact, been doing that for many years.The fact that no one has
016 responded may mean that they feel that you are not really offering anything new. All the people
017 who are actually working on and/or planning real trigger systems that are taking data are busy
018 and have little or no time for applying effort on something that does not look promising to them.
019 You have already demonstrated that if someone evaluated your work and did not find it useful
020 to them, you would not accept their judgment but accuse them of bias.
021 Under those conditions, and given our initial judgment that there is nothing here for us, it is time
022 to close this discussion.
- There are many other data and calculations that need to be discussed and verified.
The statements in your email dated 12/11/2016: “I do not know anyone that has prevented you from putting your technical ideas in front of the world community” I respectfully disagree providing several facts, references and documents proving that I was prevented from publishing and presenting my inventions to the scientific community. The difficulties and delay in executing CERN Director General’s request for you, Lankford and Pastrone to organize a discussion/review of my inventions at CERN is a further proof of it. Please see other facts and references listed on pages 17-19 of goo.gl/J9h4qL and the article in English published on FDN on May 3, 2017, http://www.focusdailynews.com/2017/05/03/suppression-semmelweis-effect/ and in Italian published on the Corriere di Saluzzo on May 18, 2017 at http://www.corrieredisaluzzo.it/cgi-bin/archivio/news/Crosetto-la-diagnosi-precoce-e-vincente6.asp?q=crosetto. I hope that for what it concerns you, Lankford and Pastrone, you will prove the contrary with facts by organizing as soon as possible this public discussion/review of my inventions at CERN and instead of protecting scientists who made mistakes, let those who are opposing my invention take responsibility by expressing their objections and giving me the opportunity to answer instead of making your next statement below that ”they feel that [I am] not really offering anything new”.
The statements in your email dated 12/11/2016: “The fact that no one has responded may mean that they feel that you are not really offering anything new” is not a scientific reason, but is proving suppression when there is no scientific arguments to invalidate that 59 quotes from reputable industries prove feasibility to 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.
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. These implementations of the Level-1 Trigger with the 3D-Flow would have satisfy the requirements to execute Level-1 trigger algorithms capable to sustain the higher LHC luminosity in 2015-2018 and beyond, while the 4,000 data processing boards of the CMS Level-1 Trigger could not and had to be trashed.
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.
The statements in your email dated 12/11/2016: “You have already demonstrated that if someone evaluated your work and did not find it useful to them, you would not accept their judgment but accuse them of bias” is not true. I am providing evidence that data, calculations, are incorrect and I am respectfully responding to your false claim above at page 7, line 029 of goo.gl/J9h4qL
026 —–Original Message—– 027 From: Joel Butler [mailto:email@example.com] 028 Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 1:52 AM 029 To: Dario Crosetto <firstname.lastname@example.org> 030 Cc: email@example.com 031 Subject: Re: trigger
033 Dear Dario,
035 Your analysis below of the Higgs situation is flawed and incorrect. You incorrectly assume that the
036 triggering efficiency is the number of recorded H–> gamma gamma divided by the number of Higgs
039 However, H–>gamma gamma is a rare decay with a branching fraction of around a few 10e-03. Of
040 the few hundred events produced, ~fifty are detected but even then you cannot use that number
041 divided by the few hundred produced to get the trigger efficiency. That is because not all
042 the H–> gamma gamma produced have both gammas inside the CMS detector so you can’t really
043 count that against the trigger; in a high fraction of the events the photons convert in to e+e- pairs
044 interacting in the beam pipe and the (substantial) material of the Tracking System, so they may
045 actually even trigger but are often not reconstructed (an analysis loss and not a trigger loss); and
046 in order to reject two-photon background, analysis cuts have to be applied which, while reducing
047 the background by a large amount, do also eliminate some signal (while nevertheless improving
048 the “significance” of the result). The trigger is actually quite efficient for H–> gamma gamma events
049 that that are in the CMS acceptance and can be properly discriminated from background.
051 Similar reasoning applies to other decay modes where we have signals that are becoming significant
052 enough to claim an observation.
- In your email date 12/10/2016 you write the following: “However, H–>gamma gamma is a rare decay with a branching fraction of around a few 10e-03. Of the few hundred events produced, ~fifty are detected but even then you cannot use that number divided by the few hundred produced to get the trigger efficiency. That is because not all the H–> gamma gamma produced have both gammas inside the CMS detector so you can’t really count that against the trigger; in a high fraction of the events the photons convert in to e+e- pairs interacting in the beam pipe and the (substantial) material of the Tracking System, so they may actually even trigger but are often not reconstructed (an analysis loss and not a trigger loss); and in order to reject two-photon background, analysis cuts have to be applied which, while reducing the background by a large amount, do also eliminate some signal (while nevertheless improving the “significance” of the result).”
Are you using this language when you talk to the engineers to whom you request to build a black-box (or a room of electronics with hundreds of boxes of electronics) that should capture the data of the desired particle satisfying your specific criteria?
This would be like a mother telling her husband to go to the pharmacy to buy milk for their very small baby and he tells the pharmacist that it is for his baby who has two legs, two arms, one head, who will grow, will go to elementary-, middle- and high-school, will go to college, …will achieve important things and will become the President of United States? All what the pharmacist needs to know is how many months old the baby is to give the appropriate milk.
Likewise, the language of an engineer to whom you are asking to build that black-box or a room of electronics is what is the input data rate, how many channels you have, what types of algorithms you need to execute on those data to find what you want, what is the expected occupancy and the background noise that is necessary to filter. It is more important to tell this information to the engineer rather than telling that the Level-1 Trigger is targeted to find the Higgs-like boson. By the way, this is not an appropriate approach, the Level-1 Trigger system should help to uncover the unknown, to provide accurate measurements, to confirm or exclude the existence of a particle predicted by theoretical physicists.
After providing this information we can check analytically, before building the over one hundred million dollar system consisting of a room of electronics with hundreds of crate containing 4,000 data processing boards having these capabilities.
Likewise, we can check analytically, as was done in 1993, at the major international, public, scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention that was approved. We checked again after I provided the design of the 3D-Flow system in one cylinder 1.8m tall and 1m in diameter, we checked again after I provided all the software tools, simulations, test-vectors at the system level that are matching those at the gate/transistor level. We checked again after I targeted it to the hardware of three types of FPGA: ORCA from Lucent Technology, Xilinx and Altera. We checked again after spending the $906,000 grant I received from DOE in 1995 to buy instrumentation to develop software tools, to pay several subcontractors, including Synopsys, one of the best ASIC design houses in the world to design the 3D-Flow ASIC in 350 nm in 1998 and providing the tape-out for the Silicon Foundry to build the 3D-Flow chip. We checked again all details in the 45-page peer-review article published in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436 (1999) pp. 341-385 describing a programmable Level-1 Trigger system built in six 9U-VME crates.
All these 3D-Flow systems could have executed all Level-1 Trigger algorithm for LHCb, Atlas, CMS and many other experiments. It could have executed the algorithms sustaining the higher LHC luminosity in 2015, instead of the CMS 4,000 electronic boards as you state in your email 12/10/2016 which could not and had to be trashed.
If you disagree with all the experts in the field who wrote letters of endorsement like yours in 1995, with all the engineers who wrote the 59 quotes proving feasibility of my 3D-Flow OPRA system, its calculations and scientific evidence described in goo.gl/Sgdu15, we should agree to build a ER/DSU unit described on pages 29-35 and 156-195 of goo.gl/Sgdu15, and test your CMS Level-1 Trigger system and my 3D-Flow OPRA system with real data recorded from the LHC detector, edit manually Higgs-like boson events and see which system is finding more of them.
054 A second point has to do with an earlier assertion the the original trigger was replaced because it
055 “failed”. This is not true. It satisfied all the goals is was designed to accomplish at the original
056 LHC design luminosity of 10E34 cm-2 s-1. However the LHC exceeded that luminosity by quite
057 a bit in 2016 (two years early then expected). We upgraded our trigger in response, using also
058 newer technology than was available to us in 2002-2004 when we designed the original trigger.
059 The original trigger served us very well from 2010 – 2015 at the luminosity it was targeted at and
060 actually somewhat beyond.
- My 3D-Flow system designed 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-review article published by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436, (1999) pp.341-385, could have satisfied Level-1 Trigger requirements and luminosity for all these years and beyond, including those for 2015 and 2018.
062 A third point is the way you demanded spot answers, while I was driving and had to in the end cut
063 you off, to such ill-posed questions as “how many FPGAs do you have in your current system”.
064 That depends on whether you define the trigger as starting with trigger primitive generation or
065 the final operations on the trigger primitives. Since you undoubtedly mean the later, the actual
066 number (which we can expand ) is of order 10 in the final layers and the calculations are
067 accomplished with resources to spare. It also depends on whether you are including the muon
068 triggers along with the calorimeter triggers.
- My question was asking the total number of FPGAs, which includes “trigger primitive generation” and the “final operations on the trigger primitives”.
070 A fourth point is that you greatly exaggerate the cost of the existing trigger in some of your
- When we discuss about science we need to be precise and provide calculations not vague statements such as in your 12/10/2016 email stating: “A fourth point is that you greatly exaggerate the cost of the existing trigger in some of your comments.”
I have also provided an answer to that question with data and calculations in an article to the general public at “goo.gl/aHbWUu”; if you disagree, you can counter with your data and calculations, however, a generic statement as you wrote only has the effect of discrediting the information from the other party.
073 Finally, statements from your 3 page document such as ” This is essential to avoid discrepancies in
074 data such as the Higgs boson-like particle whose energy was recorded as 125.3 GeV and 126.5 GeV
075 in different experiments” show a very poor understanding of how hard it is to measure the mass
076 of these particles for order 1%. We of course use all information about particles whose mass is
077 already known to calibrate the detectors but the statistics to do so is limited (not due to the trigger
078 but due to nature) and extrapolations are needed and are of limited accuracy. ATLAS and CMS
079 now agree on the mass and and the triggers were not the main part of the problem.
081 If you are going to make proposals to the LHC experiments concerning future trigger systems,
082 you need to do your homework and get your facts straight. You need also to learn about aspects
083 of the detector that go beyond the trigger but define what is possible. And you should make sure
084 you are aware of new approaches that include tracking in silicon at Level 1 which involves millions
085 of additional channels that have to be processed.
087 At some point, after you have caught up with the actual experience at the LHC, which has gone
088 well past your 1992-1994 work, you will be in a better position to discuss such matters with real
089 trigger experts (not me, since I have not worked in this area for some time).
- In your email dated 12/10/2016 you wrote: “ATLAS and CMS now agree on the mass…” Agreements on the measurement of the mass should come from improved, calibrated instrumentation, explaining how the measurements were not correct before and what procedure has been followed to calibrate the instruments proving that now the measurements are accurate and not from an agreement between two collaborations.
In one of the last paragraphs of your email below dated 12/10/2016 you wrote:
“If you are going to make proposals to the LHC experiments concerning future trigger systems, you need to do your homework and get your facts straight.”
We are before undeniable facts showing that CMS Level-1 trigger made of hundreds of crates containing 4,000 electronic boards occupying a room approximately 22m x 16m was no longer adequate and had to be trashed on February 26, 2016.
We have my 3D-CBS OPRA invention proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to replace those crates containing 4,000 boards with nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards which provide enormous increase in performance at one thousandth the cost and you are telling me the sentence above.
I respectfully would like to ask you to reflect and consider if that sentence is more appropriately addressed to you and your collaborators and you should urgently organize a presentation from myself to your experts in particle physics?
If you want to invalidate my invention and the claim of replacing 4,000 boards with nine boards which provide enormous performance increase at one thousandth the cost, wouldn’t be your task and their task the following:
Besides that you would have to recant what you wrote in your letter in 1995, recant the statement in your email below dated 12/10/2016 stating in the last paragraph “…discuss such matters with real trigger experts (not me, since I have not worked in this area for some time)” with an opposite sentence stating you are expert now and were not expert in the past when you were working in this area because you are recanting what you wrote in 1995, you need also to prove that all other experts in the field who wrote more than 50 letters like yours were wrong and should recant their statements as you are doing now and you have to prove that all engineers from reputable industries who wrote the 59 quotes are incompetent and prove their calculations, simulations, references to data sheets and technical material are wrong.
Many of your statements are the same as the one by Pavia’s University INFN-CERN reviewers of my 264-page document which are proven incorrect by undisputable facts and scientific evidence. Rather than continuing writing the same explanations that are not read, it would be urgent for the benefit of taxpayers to organize a public, scientific review similar to the one you and Andy Lankford organized at Fermilab in 1993, and let the people who made mistakes take responsibility directly without you or CERN defending or covering up their mistakes.
Let science happen!
093 > —–Original Message—–
094 From: Joel Butler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
095 Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 11:43 AM
096 To: crosetto <email@example.com>
097 Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
098 Subject: Re:
100 I had to go on an unexpected trip to Zurich and am on a train returning I will get back to Geneva
101 late in the evening. We will have to reschedule since I can’t really talk in this situation.
105 Joel Butler
106 CMS: Spokesperson; Fermilab: Senior Research Scientist
107 EMAIL: Business: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
108 Personal: email@example.com
109 SKYPE name: joel_butler
110 Mobile Phones:
111 Europe: +41 75 411 4981 (Preferred) or (+1) 630 651 4619
112 US: (+1) 630-651-4619