This document is available in pdf at Google Drive at: goo.gl/iEph5R
Response to statements made by Dr. Nadia Pastrone, President of the Italian National Scientific Committee 1 (CSN1) and responsible for the Italian physicists who worked at the CERN, regarding my 3D-Flow OPRA and a request to follow scientific procedures complying with rules respecting science, colleagues and serving taxpayers
I have known Nadia Pastrone for more than 30 years when I was working at the INFN in Turin, Italy, before being employed by CERN as paid scientific associate and later joining the Superconducting Super Collider Project.
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.
In 1993, Joel Butler and Andy Lankford, were 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 28, 2017, Joel Butler, on behalf of the three appointees, wrote me an email with the request to answer a question to determine what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN.
On March 10, 2017, I provided a three-page answer and twelve-page Appendix “goo.gl/IkXrEm”, answering thoroughly the appointee’s question and supporting the request for a transparent, public, scientific review at CERN of my new 3D-Flow OPRA, similar to the review of my basic 3D-Flow invention he organized in 1993 with 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 whose answer would help the appointees to determine what sort of meeting would be appropriate at CERN, I wrote a six-page letter “goo.gl/7a9nSK” supporting the urgency for 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 “goo.gl/k46ea6” to his email and now in this document I am further addressing and clarifying the issues he brought up in his email.
On July 13, 2017, I contacted Nadia Pastrone on the phone; however, she told me that was busy, she did not set up another appointment and hung up. I wrote her an email asking to set up phone meeting, but she did not answer to my email, nor she provided the answer promised on June 3, 2016.
Although Pastrone’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. Nadia Pastrone. My point-by-point response is in ‘Times Roman’ font, red characters in between ***> my response <***.
- From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 8:31 AM To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Subject: link to my invention/project/proposal
001 On June 3, 2016, during a phone conversation she stated:
002 “You are right, I see your point… before next week I will provide you an answer…
003 It is clear that if what you propose is saving money, I do not see the reason
004 why it should not be examined…,
005 I see your point…,
006 I do not need anything formal, because as you know in this field formality is not important
007 what counts is the substance. Do you agree?”
009 Pastrone agreed that two scientists could read a scientific article and/or slides and express
010 what they understand from it, therefore she approved the planning to read two slides and the first
011 page of the paper (https://cds.cern.ch/record/2194548/files/CR2016_121.pdf) presented by her
012 colleagues the week before at the IEEE Real-Time Conference in Padova, Italy.
013 She also expressed that it was not appropriate for Roberto Carlin, the CMS Trigger coordinator
015 3D-Flow OPRA invention proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to
016 replace hundreds of crates of electronics of the CMS Level-1 Trigger with one crated
017 at a fraction of the cost and providing staggering improvement in performance.
- I appreciate Pastrone’s statements for standing up for science when telling me on June 3rd, 2016 phone conversation that regardless of the statements made by the Trigger coordinator who was not interested in addressing the advantages of my invention, she believed that if my invention could save money it should be examined.
However, Pastrone did not keep her promise, she did not set a phone appointment, nor a time for a meeting at the University of physics in Turin between June 24 to 28 because I was travelling to Brussels and Turing. On June 14, 2016, she wrote me the following email in Italian stating: “When I will have the time and opportunity to examine the documentation you sent me, if I will find it appropriate I will contact you personally or will ask someone to contact you.”
From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 12:39 AM To: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: FW: link ro my invention/project/proposal
Ci conto su quanto mi hai detto al telefono che ricevero’ un commento in merito al documento che ti ho inviato entro fine settimana e ti chiedo gentilmente di fissare un appuntamento telefonico con te per discutere alcuni punti in merito a quanto trattato in questo documento ed altri articoli scritti da altri.
Grazie e buona giornata,
From: 3D-Computing, Inc. [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:27 AM To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Subject: FW: Chiedo la gentilezza di concedermi un incontro telefonico entro il 14 giugno ed un meeting tra il 24 e 28 giugno RE: link to my invention/project/proposal
[Reinvio da un altro account a due dei tuoi indirizzi e mi scuso se ricevi dei duplicati ma non ho ricevuto risposta sia alla mia email del 3 giugno, che a quella del 9 giugno e a quella dell’11 giugno. Grazie, Dario]
017 From: Nadia Pastrone [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] 018 Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:29 AM 019 To: 3D-Computing, Inc. <email@example.com> 020 Subject: Re: La tua risposta al telefono FW: Chiedo la gentilezza di concedermi un incontro telefonico
021 entro il 14 giugno ed un meeting tra il 24 e 28 giugno RE: link to my invention/project/proposal
023 Caro Dario 024 quando avro’ avuto tempo e modo di esaminare la documentazione
025 che mi hai inviato, se lo riterro’ opportuno ti cerchero’ personalmente
026 o chiedero’ a qualcuno di farlo. 027 028 Cordiali saluti 028 Nadia
023 Dear Dario 024 when i will have the time and opportunity to examine the documentation
025 you sent me, if I will find it appropriate I will contact you personally
026 or i will ask someone to contact you. 027 028 Best Regards, 028 Nadia
After more than one year I have not received an answer and after more than five months from her being appointed by the CERN Director General to organize with Butler and Lankford a discussion/review of my inventions at CERN, we are still waiting