This Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3aR8qEK
Facebook in English:
Dear Ralph and Tadayuki,
Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.
We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.
In regard your score explanation:
500 years ago, the scientific community suppressed for 100 years with a score without providing legitimate, logical, scientific reasons, Galileo’s book (https://bit.ly/3zlnuUX) reporting correct calculations and the scientific truth.
In the past I asked these questions and I have not received a response:
Dario <crosettodario@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:25 PM
To: ralph.james@srnl.doe.gov
Subject: RE: 2020 IEEE NSS MIC RTSD | Reject Notice for Abstract #1691
Dear Ralph,
Is it legitimate to request how you and your reviewer determined the grades in relation to the content of my abstract vs. others “..rejections were based on the responses from multiple reviewers (usually 3). Grades were offered in separate categories, and based on those different grades, an overall score was compiled for each abstract”?
Did you and your reviewers find not satisfactory the feature of my 3D-Flow OPRA system to execute in real-time any uninterruptable programmable Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) with neighboring data exchange (3×3, 5×5, …), for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for this feature?
Please could you provide the reference to an alternative system or project with the capability to do the same or higher performance at a lower cost compared to a 3D-Flow system capable of 12,800 Gbps input bandwidth, with 10,000 electronic input channels, 50,000 x 3D-Flow processors and the capability to execute up to 40 “OPRA steps” on each processor that can be built with 2015 technology in a 36 cm cube of electronics consuming less than 6 kW at a cost of less than $15 per channel? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for these features?
Did you and your reviewers find any information in the detailed design of each component (electronic boards, cables, references to algorithm, simulation, etc.) reported in the reference (goo.gl/w3XlZ1)? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for these scientific rigour and essential information? Could you provide a reference to an alternative article, project, system with higher scientific rigour and essential information for a project that did not receive funding yet?
Do you think that the engineers of the reputable companies who provided the 59 quotes of each component for my 3D-Flow system were incompetent and you have solid calculations and scientific evidence that what they claimed to be feasible is not true? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for this aspect proving feasibility?
And in a previous email I wrote in regard your claim on the topic:
In regard to the paper you and Michael Fiederle rejected last year and the previous year claiming it was not within the scope of your Topic, this year I changed the submission to the Topic: “RTSD-10 – Detector/ASIC Hybridization, Interconnects and Electronics”.
My paper has many relations to the topic of the RTSD-10, to detector, ASIC, interconnect and electronics, and it is innovative, useful and advantageous compared to existing components and system.
If you disagree please provide the references to components and systems more flexible, with higher performance and at lower costs compared to my technology-independent 3D-FLOW ASIC and system.
Later at the presentation I saw several papers presented at your RTSD Conference that were the same topic as mine.
I respectfully ask you to let me present my paper and include it in the Proceedings of the conference.
Thank you,
Kind Regards,
Dario