https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/why-im-not-wearing-a-mask/

With the understanding that your article was written more than two months and 170,000 COVID-19 deaths ago, I am tempted to believe that you may have shifted your position. That is certainly what both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have done in the interim. Both are now firmly recommending that cloth masks be worn in public as there is greater recognition of the high transmissibility of COVID-19, of the fact that the virus is airborne, and a consensus that masks do, indeed, act as an effective deterrent against its spread.

Scientific advice is not stagnant: it changes with the addition of new information, and in the case of the novel coronavirus, new facts and issues arise every day to change our understanding, as well as our needs. A Penn State study published in the journal Science on June 10th now estimates the infection rates from COVID-19 may be 80 times higher than that of influenza. While the original CDC guidance against mask-wearing was partially based upon an incorrect understanding of how the virus spreads, it was also a reflection of the national shortage of PPE: health officials were concerned about the hoarding of N-95 masks that left first responders ill-equipped and unprotected. That dynamic has changed.

The researchers who are actively studying every aspect of the disease are working round-the-clock to give us the most current, most accurate information possible, and with every new study, our ability to protect ourselves and others grow. Just last week a Massachusetts study was published in JAMA confirming that universal masking at Mass General Brigham, the largest healthcare system in Massachusetts, was associated with “a significantly lower rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers.” Though the study was not as tightly controlled as the RCTs that you reference, the fact that the decrease in MGB’s positivity rate preceded the decrease in the general public suggests that universal masking should be part of a multi-pronged infection reduction strategy.

The debate and protests over wearing masks are nothing new. One needs only to look backward to the 1918 pandemic. Initially, mask-wearing was viewed as patriotic and responsible, and the first phase of the pandemic’s spread was minimized. But by January of 1919 people were mask weary, and thousands gathered unmasked in San Francisco to raise objections that are all-too-familiar to us today: Masks don’t work, wearing them is an irritant, and they are a violation of our constitutional rights. The protests were successful enough to force San Francisco to lift its newly re-imposed mask order just four days later, just as the second wave was tapering in the city. With those early masks being made of gauze it is difficult to determine whether they afforded any protection against the spread. There is no question about the effectiveness of the protests.

I must assume you will continue debating masks, in part because of confusing messages from both scientific organizations and from politicians. The very real fear of the disease and the effect of lockdowns on our collective psyche and the economy have people searching for certainty about a disease that we know little about.

Though you may decry anecdotal evidence when compared to the previously-conducted RCTs, it is important to note that those studies were not dealing with this disease. We are in the fog of war, and it makes sense to rely upon what is most currently known. The CDC recently released a report on two hairstylists in Springfield, Missouri who were symptomatic and tested positive for COVID-19 after having worked with other stylists and 139 clients. Both the stylists and all of the clients had adhered to a universal face-covering policy, and no symptomatic secondary cases were reported among the clients tested despite close proximity and poor ventilation. The CDC concluded that “adherence to the community’s and company’s face-covering policy likely mitigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2.”

In the face of this type of evidence, the question to be raised is whether it is better to ignore the growing body of evidence that demonstrates mask effectiveness or to join forces with those who have issued regretful deathbed statements. The discomfort of wearing a mask is minimal and may protect you and the vulnerable around you.

You may not want to wear a mask because you fear that behavior would not be accepted within your social group. It may run counter to the beliefs of those with whom you share political ideologies. You may even fear being targeted or ridiculed for wearing a mask. These are legitimate concerns that can be eliminated by policies mandating the wearing of masks in public and strengthened by making masks accessible for free to every individual, as was the case in 1918. Celebrities and online influencers can be recruited to assist in eliminating mask hesitation.

Perhaps the greatest tool used in the 1918 pandemic was the assertion that wearing masks was a patriotic duty and a way of showing responsibility to our fellow citizens. This particular phrase was recently asserted by President Trump. Perhaps if his followers can be convinced of this, the surge in coronavirus cases throughout the United States can be slowed and the battle against the disease won.

Currently, the numbers of participants in clinical studies are low. Studies show that there is a myriad of reasons for these low numbers. But, some of the largest determining factors are the overwhelming amount of possible trials, the lack of ability to sort and find related trials, and the difficulty in making travel arrangements. An AI-based website could help potential participants sort through the thousands of studies to determine their best matches. This proposed website, AClinicalTrial.com, could also use its AI functionality to provide additional services such as travel planning and financial aid inquiries.

Introduction

Clinical trials or interventional studies are experiments conducted in clinical research. These trials study how human subjects react to certain biomedical or behavioral interventions such as vaccines, drugs, and treatments. They are also meant to test reactions to new ways of using already known drugs and treatments. Their purpose is to determine if these interventions are safe, efficacious, and effective. Clinical trials require approval from their relevant countries prior to their start. This approval does not mean that the intervention being tried is safe just that the clinical trial can begin. In fact in the US, only approximately 10% of drugs which started in clinical trials on humans are approved by the FDA. The process for developing new drugs takes on average 10 years. The clinical trials alone last six to seven years. This lengthy timeline is one reason why there is so much planning put into conducting a clinical trial.

Normally trials run in four phases. The first three are the most important phases where the number of human participant goes from a small group to several hundred or thousands. With many trials, in the early stage, a number of healthy participants are needed to test if the medicine or the intervention can be tolerated. In further stages, the clinical trials need patients who are affected by the condition, which the intervention is designed to address. This is needed because more precise measurements are required for the dosage and the timing. There are many specific requirements based on the nature of the condition being studied and the finding the right group of volunteers. It takes months or even years to find suitable volunteers, this is especially true for trials which are focused on rare diseases or those focused on children where a number of legal and ethical questions arise regarding participation. The last phase is designed to monitor the effect on the whole population and possible side-effects in widespread usage. This phase happens when the intervention is already available in the marketplace.

Information can be accessed on both public and private clinical studies on websites such as ClinicalTrials.gov. This platform is run by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their database contains information about studies conducted throughout the US, as well as, 201 other countries around the world. The study records include information about the:

· Disease or condition in question.

· Intervention (for example, the medical product, behavior, or procedure being studied).

· Title, description, and design of the study.

· Requirements for participation (eligibility criteria).

· Locations where the study is being conducted.

· Contact information for the study locations.

· Links to relevant information on other health websites.

· Scientific articles on the topic.

Some records also provide information about the results of the study, the participants, the outcome and any adverse effects.

Clinical Trial Search Interest

As previously noted, clinical trials depend on a large number of participants, both those that are affected by the conditions, as well as, healthy participants. Studies show that while people hold positive attitudes toward clinical trials there is a low level of participation. For example, less than 5% of adults with cancer participate in clinical trials related to the illness and only between 5 and 12% of healthy volunteers participate in trials. This is an ongoing issue with clinical trials and is one of the reasons why the trials can take so long to complete. The National Cancer Institute has determined that the two main reasons why cancer patients do not want to participate are fear of getting a placebo and not wanting to be used as “guinea pigs”.

Given that clinical trials are a necessary step for developing new and better treatments, participation levels need to increase. Of course, trials must not override the rights and needs of patients, therefore it is of utmost importance that any enrolment is done with as full consent as possible. Because of possible infringement of patients’ rights, doctors are sometimes hesitant to talk to patients about clinical trials. As well, they need to find a balance between giving too little information, which can lead to confusion, and too much information, which can lead to anxiety and perhaps despair. One proposed way on how to circumvent this problem is to focus on motivating possible candidates to actively seek information about clinical trials so that they are better prepared to discuss the information with their doctors and make an informed decision.

The access to information and motivation to actively seek out trials seems to be critical. One study suggests “that patients who use the cognitively effortful information seeking and information-processing decisional strategies are more effective in coping with life-threatening illnesses.” Past research has shown that a lot of individuals who join clinical trials do so not because of information about the study but because they are mostly influenced by “non-rational” factors. These factors include the relationship with their doctor, general beliefs about clinical trials, and even message cues. All this shows the importance of introducing a simple and efficient way for interested parties to access clinical trial databases and find the actual information they need.

While there is no single unified worldwide register of trials, ClinicalTrials.gov is the biggest database available with approximately two-hundred and forty thousand registered trials. However, one study shows that it is far from easy to conduct a proper search of this registry or others that are available. The study developed four different search strategies — very precise, precise, sensitive, and very sensitive. These strategies differ on the basis of how many specific conditions and how many specific interventions were mentioned. The study determined that none of the strategies was very good, but that the best results were with the sensitive one. Their conclusion was that the most efficient search approaches, in terms of finding as many of the available relevant trials and the fewest irrelevant trials, remains to be established.

The people who are searching for clinical trials have different motives. A number of healthy volunteers are needed, and while their motives might be purely altruistic, at least some see it as a matter of gaining extra income. Indeed, in some trials, individuals are compensated for the risk they take. One website claims that a volunteer can earn hundreds or even thousands of dollars. But, those participants who are affected by the condition in question have many more potential benefits. They will most likely be treated at leading medical facilities often for free and will receive treatment which is not widely available. Moreover, they can take a more active role in their own healthcare, help future generations, and all those suffering from the same condition. Clinical trials are especially important for those suffering from chronic, rare, and life-threatening medical conditions. It should also be noted that not only do the patients receive medical treatment but in cases where the technology has not yet found a cure, clinical trials are helpful as they can provide a better quality of life for those who cannot be fully cured. Furthermore, without clinical trials developing vaccines would be much more difficult. These vaccine studies, while controversial to a degree as they are often conducted in underdeveloped countries which are the most affected ones and involve a number of placebo methods as well, are the number one way of eradicating certain diseases.

International Clinical Trials

ClinicalTrials.gov is the biggest registry and it lists 262,570 trials from all over the world. As of January 01, 2018, it includes 47% Non-US only trials, 36% U.S. only trials, 5% of the trials which are conducted both in the US and Non-US, and 12% are trials where the location is not provided. After the US as the number one country with 107,579 total trials, Europe has around 70 thousand trials, and China with around 27 thousand clinical trials. More importantly, out of all of the trials, there are 45,551 studies which are recruiting volunteers. They break down to 57% are outside of the US (25,838), 38% are in the US (17,367) and 5% are both in and out of the US (2,346).

ClinicalTrials.gov started their registry in 2000 and had only around 5.5 thousand trials in the registry that year. But from 2006 and 2007, there has been a steady sharp rise of registered trials, because of the decision by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to require trial registration as a condition of publication from 2005, and the FDA expanded registration requirements from the end of 2007.

There are currently several million people taking part in clinical trials worldwide.

Both private and public sectors are involved in clinical trials. In the US by law, trials can be funded by pharmaceutical companies, academic medical centers, even voluntary groups, as well as Federal agencies such as the National Institute of Health. The costs of running a trial and developing a new medicine are huge and can be in the billions of dollars. Reportedly 60% to 70% of the costs of development are for clinical trials. This amounts to 80 to 90 billion dollars per year. In 2000, it was reported that around 70% of the money from clinical drug trials in the US comes from the pharmaceutical industry and not the public sector. In the EU, the situation is similar where around 61% are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and around 39% by non-commercial sponsors. Taking into account the huge prices for developing and the small percent of these medications making it to the market there has even been accusation that the private sector tries influencing the results of the trials.

But while it is true that pharmaceutical companies fund trials and they might have their own interests at heart, the companies themselves are not the ones who directly conduct that clinical trials. They are done and tested by independent organizations according to protocols and designs which are approved by the review boards. All the results are in the end reviewed by the regulatory agencies, such as the FDA (US), EMA (Europe), and PMDA (Japan).

In the last decade, a lot of those interested in conducting clinical trials have started to outsource them to so-called Contract Research Organizations (CROs). These basically privately-owned companies are specialized in research and help with clinical trials, as well. They provide services for pharmaceutical industries, as well as, governmental institutions. This outsourcing has been a huge trend in the past years and many major corporations are using CROs. Around 50% of CROs perform outsourced clinical trial for the pharmaceutical industry. Using CROs arguably cuts down the costs and time when specific trials are conducted. It is reported that top areas of their research are oncology, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular, and infectious disease. Some of the CROs manage only a part of the trial, for example reviewing the clinical trial data collected by a clinical investigator. Others are specialized in regulatory support, data analysis, or clinical trial management. Bigger CROs offer to manage all aspects of the trials. And while they perform the trial, the sponsor is the one responsible for the integrity of the trial and the data behind it. Cutting costs on the development of new medicine arguably allow pharmaceutical companies not only to lower prices but also to develop drugs and treatments for rare diseases which have a smaller market.

There are over a thousand companies in the world that are contract research organizations. Most of them are small and have a revenue below ten million dollars, but there are large companies too. The top 10 in 2016 controlled around 80% of the market. Not all of their revenue comes from clinical trials, but the top 5 companies in this field in 2016 were:

1. IQVIA which reported revenues of 7.8 billion USD. It has facilities across the globe in 100 countries, which includes a wide portfolio of clinical research and post-research services (92), and employs 50 thousand people.

2. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is second on this list with a bigger revenue of 9.4 billion, but with a smaller portfolio of services (31).

3. Parexel which has the second number of services (79), and a revenue of 2.4 billion.

4. Pharmaceutical Product Development, LLC is present in 47 countries with 89 offices and 19 thousand employees.

5. Inc Research Holdings, Inc. which is very focused on Phase 1 to 4 of clinical trials, with 6800 employees in over 50 countries on six continents.

PRA Health Sciences, Inc. is another expert in clinical development with 70 offices all around the world, with over 13 thousand employees.

Not all pharmaceutical companies outsource their clinical trials, partly or in full. Reportedly, in 2013 two large European pharmaceutical companies Roche and Novartis each had almost 1000 active trials, spending between 5.5 and 7 billion dollars on this alone.

Clinical Trials in Developing Countries

In the last few years, there has been a shift from conducting clinical trials in developed countries toward those conducted in developing and emerging nations. It is very common that clinical trials are conducted in different countries at the same time. There are different reasons for shifting to developing nations and while there are some practical reasons, as for example to test a vaccine you need the population to be in great number subjected to the disease at hand, there are financial reasons as well. One NGO claims that currently one in every two drugs sold in Switzerland has been at least partly developed on the basis of clinical trials conducted in developing or emerging countries. The reasons they mention for this change is that it’s not only cheaper, but there are much fewer regulations, or at least they not as strict. This fact might lead to a serious breach of ethical standards, however. Almost half of these trials are never made public and therefore we have no idea what kind of risk the volunteers have been subjected to. In their conclusion, they claim that in the case of Switzerland, one of the most developed nations of the world, it is impossible to determine which clinical trials ultimately lead to the approval of specific drugs.

A joint study by a number of organizations from December 2016 in Egypt illustrates how clinical trials are run in developing countries. Egypt has become a very attractive destination for clinical trials for a number of reasons, leading it to host the most trials in the Middle East and North Africa. The country itself has a good research infrastructure and a fast-growing population, which has been described as “treatment-naïve”. In other words, most of the population is not fully aware of the risks from participating in these trials. The costs in Egypt are also lower than other similar countries. In addition to this, almost 50% of the population has no health insurance and the costs of treatment represent a huge burden on the affected population. This leads to the problematic situation in which poor people are joining clinical trials because this is the only way for them to have access to medical treatment. Even if the results of the trials are not certain and can be risky. This opens the door for possible exploitation of these populations.

Luckily, most of the trials are late-stage ones with products which have already been available in developed countries. In fact, this is in accordance with Egyptian laws which only allows testing products that have already been approved in other countries. Still, around 16% of the trials in Egypt are in phase 1 and 2. The problem in Egypt is that there is no robust legislation governing trials and the governmental bodies can interpret differently the conditions necessary for the trial to be conducted. Furthermore, one of the biggest problems is that the drugs on trial are not systematically available to most of the population. This fact goes against certain ethical standards by not allowing participants to more freely choose if they want to volunteer in the trial or not.

The problems from the example of Egypt are present in many other cases, as well. In 2013, a similar report was presented regarding phase 3 trials in Argentina. Similar to the case of Egypt, a lack of clear legislation rules led to certain companies taking advantage of enrolment of babies in trials who are from very poor segments of the population. Another problem is an improper use of placebo trials and most importantly the discontinuation of treatment after the trial was over, not to mention the lack of any compensation from problems arising from the trials.

More reports show that there are no exceptions. One of them reporting on Zimbabwe, stresses the same problem that “limited access to health care and weaknesses in clinical trial oversight in these countries leave room for possible violation of the rights of vulnerable test subjects”. The story is similar as with other cases involving a bad health care system which is incapable of addressing major health challenges, such as a very high morbidity and mortality rate, high levels of almost 15% of adult population is infected with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis is the second leading disease in Zimbabwe and malaria. The high number of patients is very suitable for clinical trials to be conducted especially in later stages.

One of the most famous cases of trial abuse happened in India when a vaccine for rotavirus infection was tested. Rotavirus is responsible for about 5% of yearly deaths of children around the world. The trial was funded by a number of private and governmental institutions, including the US National Institute of Health. Around 6800 infants have enrolled in the study and two-thirds of them received the new vaccine. One third got a placebo drug. The problem is that at the time there were two other highly effective vaccines previously developed. Under such circumstances, using a placebo seems morally wrong. And it could never happen in developed countries like the US.

Clinical trials in developing and emerging nations do not have to be on their own problematic, but as we see there seem to be a number of concerns. The trend of moving trials toward the “less-developed” world will only grow for a number of reasons. As previously said, the number of volunteer and participants in developed countries is not very high which makes trials hard to conduct and last longer. While there are clear problems with consent in previously reported cases of Egypt, Argentina, India, and Zimbabwe, it is also clear that recruitment there is much easier and higher in numbers. Sadly, the cost of the studies also dictates where they will be conducted. Lower costs mean moving clinical trials into those areas of the world. It should also be said that legislation in most of these countries does indeed put high obligations towards those conducting the trials, but the general lack of funds put the regulatory commissions in a situation in which they cannot properly do their work.

To address the problems of ethical principles in human experimental research there have been different proposals and declarations. The Declaration of Helsinki has been regarded as the most important one, developed by World Medical Association. Sadly, the declaration is still broken in countries where the governmental agencies are unable to fully control the trials.

Clinical Trials in Developed Countries

In developed countries, the guidelines and laws regarding clinical trials are followed more strictly and each country has a governmental agency in charge of overseeing compliance with local laws. It is also true that in the developed world the chances for litigation are much higher. This is because of the more regulated legal systems and also because of the possibility of bad publicity.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration is the body which oversees how the trials are conducted. The clinical trial for drugs comes as the third step in drug development process. First, we have the discovery and development process, where thousands of compounds are tested and only a few look promising for further study. After the initial discovery, the development includes further experiments to determine the biochemical potential of the compounds, the possible dosage, side effects, and interactions with other drugs. The second step is the preclinical research. At this stage of testing anything on humans, researchers must know if there is the potential for serious harm. The research is done both in vitro and in vivo. During the preclinical research, there are already very serious regulations under good laboratory practices. These define the minimum criteria for the personnel, facilities, and equipment, as well as, operating procedures and protocols. The researchers must develop a system of quality assurance according to the FDA regulations.

The clinical research comes as the third step. The FDA makes great efforts to protect volunteers who participate in these trials from unreasonable and significant risk. When a trial is submitted, it is either approved, delayed, or stopped. These decisions are made in thirty days. The reasons for the delays are normally high-risk factors, investigators not being qualified enough, misleading participant information, or that there is not enough information regarding the risk. This shows that FDA cares greatly that the participants are aware of any possible risk or harm from the study. Normally, the FDA does not stop a trial instead it provides comments about how the study can be improved.

The clinical trials are conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, including adequate human subject protection. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international ethical and scientific quality standard of conduct, performance, monitoring, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Compliance with GCP is now a legal obligation both in the US, as well as, the UK/Europe for all trials involving the investigation of medicinal products. The GCP considers side effects as it determines that a trial can only be conducted if the anticipated benefits justify the risks. It also includes having an informed consent is necessary from every subject and that the rights and safety of individual participants prevail over the interests of science or society.

In the EU, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is not the one which is responsible for approving the trial. Instead, each state member has its own national agency, but it does work on harmonizing exactly the coordination of GCP in the EU. As well, most trials are conducted in more than one-member state the EMA is then the one responsible for helping and coordinating the work of other institutions involved.

Artificial Intelligence and Medicine

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a hot topic in recent years. Articles detail the potential of AI to solve numerous problems and to create new opportunities. However, often it is not truly clear what is meant by AI. One of the founders of the field of AI, John McCarthy, defined AI as the science of making intelligent machines that are mostly computer programs. AI replicates the ability that humans have, and some non-humans, to take in different information, calculate different odds, and make strategies to achieve the set goals. Given that computers are more available and sophisticated the applications of AI will increase in the near future. AI might not be suited for every task, but it has a number of advantages over human intelligence. First, machines can do the computational work much faster than humans. For example, we use navigation system on our phones to get the fastest or shortest route. Humans have been using maps for hundreds of years, and in principle could do the same calculation, but it would take us much longer. And getting the information on traffic, as well as processing it, would take us hours. Also, computers don’t get tired, they don’t get emotional, and they don’t have biases. There is no deviation in their application of an algorithm for computers. With the same input, you get the same output from a computer. Humans are far from that fast or consistent.

AI is everywhere these days from the keyboards of our phones, which guess what we are about to write using predictive text, to self-driving cars, and recently developed AI that predicts what kind of real-estate you want to buy. Google has enhanced its application and services (search engine, Gmail, YouTube, Google Street view, and others) with AI obtained from the DeepMind’s. DeepMind’s AlhpaGo project made a breakthrough with deep learning and recently has developed an algorithm which can learn solely from reinforcement without human help or input.

In April 2017, The New Yorker published an article describing how AI can help with medical diagnostics. In fact, for the last twenty years, different computer interpretations have been introduced to track electrocardiograms, the machines that track hearts electric activity. In mammography, computers have had a great impact on a study from 2007 showed that these machines had problems detecting small, invasive breast cancers, which are the hardest to detect. The detection of these kinds of cancers further decreased with the introduction of computer aid. The problem was that machines could not “learn” from examples. These limitations are becoming solvable. A paper in Nature from February this year shows that AI outperforms dermatologists on skin cancer diagnostics and that it can help with detection of early skin cancer with competency levels comparable to real dermatologists. The researchers further claim that this so-called deep neural network AI can be used on smartphones, which would extend the reach of dermatology tests outside of clinics for a very small cost. In the UK at the University of Nottingham, researchers developed a system that scanned patients’ routine medical data and predicted which of them would have heart attacks or strokes within 10 years. The accuracy of the software was higher than ordinary diagnostic methods. New research from the University of Adelaide in Australia helped in developing a computer-based analysis that can predict which patients would die within five years with 69% accuracy. This percentage is comparable to predictions made by real doctors. But while doctors need to spend years of practice to achieve this level of accuracy, the AI can be applied with more ease and to a larger number of patients. The researchers predict that with more data the accuracy of the AI will get higher.

In general, the application of deep-learning will have a great impact on medical diagnostics and treatments. Computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton claims that it is just a matter of years before we have learning algorithms which will be capable of reading CT scans, X-rays, and MRIs better than doctors are. In fact, very soon in Denmark an AI will be listening to all calls to emergency services to help detect cardiac arrest. The software uses speech recognition to transcribe the call before analyzing the text for specific possible cardiac arrest signs. Determining cardiac arrests has been difficult for human operators because of the distress of the callers and their lack of medical training.

But, AI does not have to fully exclude medical professionals from diagnostic procedures. It can help by being a second opinion as if another doctor. The Human Dx platform aims to help with that and to improve the accuracy of individual doctors. The application uses machine learning to automatically learn from patterns in data and then crowdsources to get the best medical knowledge from thousands of doctors from seventy countries. The application helps in providing specialist advice to general medical doctors, which offer care to many people. The physician can, before starting any treatment, post a question and even upload photos, test results, and any other relevant data, so that other doctors who are part of the network can give their opinion. The software, over a couple of days, analyses all the answers and aggregates them into a single report, after collating the most likely diagnoses.

The functionality of A Clinical Trials Platform

AClinicalTrials.com is an AI involved platform designed to provide help to anyone interested to participate in clinical trials. The website will offer the unique service of searching a database of over three hundred thousand trials from all over the world. It will use AI to determine which trials are suitable for the individual in question. The AI will capture the information and any behavior of users to recommend solutions to the next user. In time, it will become proficient and will mimic the role of a medical expert. The algorithm will use millions of inputs from users, medical experts, and crawling websites related to a particular condition in a matter of seconds. The way our search engine works is that the user searches for a condition and the results are then displayed via a network of branches showing annotations from each country with statistics for each trial, the history of a certain trial, the past results, and the institution’s reputation. The AI application then guides the user to find out exactly what they are looking for with questions such as what stage is your condition at, and what are the timelines for your treatment. Using these inputs, the AI application then looks for the best possible option for the user to make sure the correct trials are recommended. The AI application suggests more solutions and asks questions in sequence until it has determined that the user is finished their search. The AI then saves these logs to be utilized later with similar conditions and also keeps logs of each search conducted so that it can learn from it. Over time, the AI will get better and faster in recommendations. It will also be able to “understand” which questions are more informative than others thereby making the whole process smoother and more precise.

This platform will be able to offer a second opinion from professional medical experts. It will also assess published work in medical journals and be able to compute all the data to determine the success rates for each recommended trial. Not only that users will be able to quickly search the database, they will also be able to upload their medical information, while their privacy is completely protected, and the AI will use this data as well when searching the database of suitable clinical trials. The platform using AI for searching clinical trials will have a number of benefits for users. The amount of time needed to find the right clinical trial will be lower, which is very important when life-threatening conditions are in question. There will be no need to see a human doctor and the search itself will be much faster. We have already seen that AI diagnostics work even better than real life humans, moreover, AI is not biased in any way and no possible ethical misconduct is possible when a trial is recommended. This is important as doctors have been under pressure to behave in the most ethical manner when suggesting clinical trials. The AI in the platform has no possible conflict of interests. The platform will also help with other practical issues when a trial is chosen such as helping with possible travel arrangements and any costs of a particular trial.

Individuals could cut costs for their treatments by using this AI driven platform. The AI would be able to find the best possible deals for travel to another country for trials. Many people get discouraged by the travel costs associated with some trials and therefore stay with trials provided by their local health institutions. But, an algorithm could find much better deals for travel and present them on the same site alongside the trials themselves. Currently, there is a lack of concern for those who are not able to afford their health insurance. In the US, citizens pay 3.4 trillion dollars a year for medical care. In 2012, this came out to almost 10 thousand dollars per person. The numbers are steadily growing so that it is expected to be 15 thousand dollars per person in 2023. The cost of medical care in the US is growing twice as fast as that in any other developed nation. A patient diagnosed with breast cancer, depending on the stage of their illness, will have to pay between sixty thousand, and one hundred and thirty-four thousand dollars on average in the 24 months after being diagnosed. In general. the costs of drugs and treatment are much higher in the US than in the rest of the world. From simple drugs to MRI scans and hip replacements, the US is the most expensive country in the developed world for medical care. But, medical costs do not seem to follow other costs of living or income, so there is a strange discrepancy.

It is the costs of traveling, the difficulty of arranging such trips, and the uncertainty of the quality of services at the trials which are the main factors that discourage people from the US from considering participating in trials in other countries. And, those who do not have health insurance in the US are at the greatest risk. But a platform that helps with all this plus takes into account the experiences of previous patients and the success rate of the treatments globally, all these hurdles would lessen. With many options, the average individual would be in a much better position to make the best decision for their well-being. The AI technology which is now being developed could add longevity by providing quicker solutions.

Therefore, the users of this platform will be able to make the best decision on the potential success rate and other information about the trail which they may find important. All this will be possible without any special consultation or any medical background. In general, the process of participating will become much easier than it is now, which will boost the participation rate in trials which is very important for the later stages of the trials. In this way, not only will the individual participants gain a lot from this platform, but the platform will also help to increase the successful running of the trials.

Story of Kathleen Barnard

Kathleen Barnard’s story is a powerful example of the potential positive impact that a platform like A Clinical Trials could have. In 2003, Ms. Barnard was told that the lump in her arm was just fatty tissue. However, a second lump turned out to be cancerous. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 Metastatic Melanoma. Her instinct was to fight the cancer even though she was aware of the fatal potential of her diagnosis. After six months of standard treatment including chemotherapy, her cancer had spread to her lung. At this point, her family pushed hard to see if she could get access to experimental treatments. Cost of these treatments was high, but she was able to participate in a clinical trial. This treatment was able to eventually put her cancer into a state of remission. The trial protocol did help her for a time but in 2007 her cancer reemerged. In between her two bouts with cancer, she had become an advocate for treatment options for cancer patients. For her second cancer treatment, she once again accessed newer treatment options. Her advocacy includes dealing directly with the government and the pharmaceutical industry to make treatment options available to cancer patients. She also works to help cancer patients fundraise to cover the cost of their treatment. Had Ms. Barnard had access to a platform such as A Clinical Trials she would have potentially been able to locate and access these experimental treatments quicker. The added elements of assisting with travel set-up and the possibility of help with costs are also aspects of the platform that could have greatly assisted her and other cancer patients. Her cancer journey began in 2003, but her advocacy work shows how many cancer patients still need the help that she struggled to find. This help could potentially exist in the A Clinical Trials platform.

Works Cited

Anon, 2015. Biopharmaceutical Research & Development: The Process Behind New Medicines, PhRMA. Available at: http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rd_brochure_022307.pdf.

Anon, 2015. The Basics. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Available at: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/basics [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Anon, Clinical Trials — Public Eye. Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics-background/health/clinical-trials/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Anon, Clinical Trials and Human Subject Protection. FDA. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm.

Anon, European Medicines Agency — Research and development — Clinical trials in human medicines. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000489.jsp [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Anon, Trends, Charts, and Maps — ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resources/trends [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Ballenger, B., 7 Things to Know Before You Join a Clinical Trial. Money Talks News. Available at: https://www.moneytalksnews.com/7-things-to-know-before-you-join-a-clinical-trial/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Berne Declaration, 2013. Clinical Drug Trials in Argentina: Pharmaceutical Companies Exploit Flaws in The Regulatory System, Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/Gesundheit/1309_ARGENTINA_Final_Report_ENG.pdf.

Bodenheimer, T., 2000. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. The New England journal of medicine. Available at: http://insights.ovid.com/new-england-medicine/nejm/2000/08/170/clinical-investigators-pharmaceutical-industry/27/00006024.

Carome, M., 2014. Unethical Clinical Trials Still Being Conducted in Developing Countries. HuffPost. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-carome-md/unethical-clinical-trials_b_5927660.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Cook, J., 2017. Robots in real estate? GeekWire. Available at: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/robots-real-estate-theres-nothing-see-zillow-co-founder-says-agent-jobs-safe/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Curbow, B. et al., 2006. The role of physician characteristics in clinical trial acceptance: testing pathways of influence. Journal of health communication, 11(2), pp.199–218.

Emanuel, E.J., 2015. The Solution to Drug Prices. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/opinion/the-solution-to-drug-prices.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Esteva, A. et al., 2017. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), pp.115–118.

Glanville, J.M. et al., 2014. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 102(3), pp.177–183.

Hsu, J., 2017. Can a Crowdsourced AI Medical Diagnosis App Outperform Your Doctor? Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-a-crowdsourced-ai-medical-diagnosis-app-outperform-your-doctor/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Llamas, M., Big Pharma & Clinical Trials — Funding, Influence & Corruption. DrugWatch. Available at: https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Mukherjee, S., 2017. A.I. Versus M.D. The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/ai-versus-md [Accessed January 12, 2018].

National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, 2001. Cancer Clinical Trials: The In-Depth Program, Available at: https://accrualnet.cancer.gov/sites/accrualnet.cancer.gov/files/InDepth_Book_m.pdf.

Peart, A., 2017. Homage to John McCarthy, the father of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Natural Language Interaction | Artificial Solutions. Available at: https://www.artificial-solutions.com/blog/homage-to-john-mccarthy-the-father-of-artificial-intelligence [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Petersen, S., Heesacker, M. & deWitt Marsh, R., 2001. Medical decision making among cancer patients. Journal of counseling psychology, 48(2), pp.239–244.

Publlic Eye, 2016. Industry-sponsored clinical drug trials in Egypt: Ethical questions in a challenging context, Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/Klinische_Versuche/Public_Eye_Report_Clinical_Drug_Trials_Egypt_12-2016.pdf.

Revell, T., 9 January 2018, updated 10 January 2018. AI listens in on emergency calls to diagnose cardiac arrest. New Scientist. Available at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2158073-ai-listens-in-on-emergency-calls-to-diagnose-cardiac-arrest/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Silver, D. et al., 2017. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550(7676), pp.354–359.

Stone, K., 2017. What is the Role of Contract Research Organizations in the Pharma? The Balance. Available at: https://www.thebalance.com/contract-research-organizations-cro-2663066 [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Strickland, E., 2017. AI Predicts Heart Attacks and Strokes More Accurately Than Standard Doctor’s Method. IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Available at: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/diagnostics/ai-predicts-heart-attacks-more-accurately-than-standard-doctor-method [Accessed January 12, 2018].

University of Adelaide. 2017, June 1. Artificial intelligence predicts patient lifespans. ScienceDaily. Available at: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170601124126.htm [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Vijayananthan, A. & Nawawi, O., 2008. The importance of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and its role in clinical trials. Biomedical imaging and intervention journal, 4(1).

Yang, Z.J. et al., 2010. Motivation for health information seeking and processing about clinical trial enrollment. Health communication, 25(5), pp.423–436.

Zimwara, T., 2015. Clinical Trials Realities In Zimbabwe Dealing With Possible Unethical Research, Wemos. Available at: https://www.wemos.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/report-Clinical-Trials-Realities-in-Zimbabwe-Dealing-with-Possible-Unethical-Research.pdf.

Bloom, E., 2017. Here’s how much the average American spends on health care. CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Blumen, H., Fitch, K. & Polkus, V., 2016. Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. American health & drug benefits, 9(1), pp.23–32.

Hankin, A., 2016. U.S. Healthcare Costs Compared to Other Countries. Investopedia. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/072116/us-healthcare-costs-compared-other-countries.asp [Accessed January 12, 2018].

Deveau, D., 2018. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer on Mother’s Day. Now, 15 years later, this mom is still fighting. National Post. Available at: http://nationalpost.com/sponsored/patient-diaries-sponsored/she-was-diagnosed-with-stage-4-cancer-on-mothers-day-now-15-years-later-this-mom-is-still-fighting [Accessed January 20, 2018].

[1] Emanuel, E.J., 2015. The Solution to Drug Prices. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/opinion/the-solution-to-drug-prices.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[2] Anon, 2015. Biopharmaceutical Research & Development: The Process Behind New Medicines, PhRMA. Available at: http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rd_brochure_022307.pdf.

[3] Anon, 2015. The Basics. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Available at: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/basics [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[4] [4] Anon, 2015. Biopharmaceutical Research & Development: The Process Behind New Medicines, PhRMA. Available at: http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rd_brochure_022307.pdf.

[5] Anon, 2015. The Basics. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Available at: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/basics [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[6] Anon, Background. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/background [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[7] Yang, Z.J. et al., 2010. Motivation for health information seeking and processing about clinical trial enrollment. Health communication, 25(5), pp.423–436.

[8] National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, 2001. Cancer Clinical Trials: The In-Depth Program, Available at: https://accrualnet.cancer.gov/sites/accrualnet.cancer.gov/files/InDepth_Book_m.pdf.

[9] Yang, Z.J. et al., 2010. Motivation for health information seeking and processing about clinical trial enrollment. Health communication, 25(5), pp.423–436.

[10] Petersen, S., Heesacker, M. & deWitt Marsh, R., 2001. Medical decision making among cancer patients. Journal of counseling psychology, 48(2), pp.239–244.

[11] Curbow, B. et al., 2006. The role of physician characteristics in clinical trial acceptance: testing pathways of influence. Journal of health communication, 11(2), pp.199–218.

[12] Anon, Trends, Charts, and Maps — ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resources/trends [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[13] Glanville, J.M. et al., 2014. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 102(3), pp.177–183.

[14] Ballenger, B., 7 Things to Know Before You Join a Clinical Trial. Money Talks News. Available at: https://www.moneytalksnews.com/7-things-to-know-before-you-join-a-clinical-trial/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[15] Anon, Trends, Charts, and Maps — ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resources/trends [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[16] Anon, Clinical Trials — Public Eye. Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics-background/health/clinical-trials/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[17] Lechleiter, J., 2015. Pharmaceutical Companies Sponsor Clinical Trials, But Don’t Directly Conduct Them. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2015/07/21/clinical-trials-part-1/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[18] Bodenheimer, T., 2000. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. The New England journal of medicine. Available at: http://insights.ovid.com/new-england-medicine/nejm/2000/08/170/clinical-investigators-pharmaceutical-industry/27/00006024.

[19] Anon, European Medicines Agency — Research and development — Clinical trials in human medicines. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000489.jsp [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[20] Llamas, M., Big Pharma & Clinical Trials — Funding, Influence & Corruption. DrugWatch. Available at: https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[21] Lechleiter, J., 2015. Pharmaceutical Companies Sponsor Clinical Trials, But Don’t Directly Conduct Them. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2015/07/21/clinical-trials-part-1/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[22] Stone, K., 2017. What is the Role of Contract Research Organizations in the Pharma? The Balance. Available at: https://www.thebalance.com/contract-research-organizations-cro-2663066 [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[23] Formerly known as Quintiles.

[24] Anon, 2017. Top 10 Global CROs 2017. Igeahub.com. Available at: https://igeahub.com/2017/06/16/top-10-global-cros-2017/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[25] Anon, Clinical Trials — Public Eye. Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics-background/health/clinical-trials/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[26] Anon, Clinical Trials — Public Eye. Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics-background/health/clinical-trials/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[27] Publlic Eye, 2016. Industry-sponsored clinical drug trials in Egypt: Ethical questions in a challenging context, Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/Klinische_Versuche/Public_Eye_Report_Clinical_Drug_Trials_Egypt_12-2016.pdf.

[28] Berne Declaration, 2013. Clinical Drug Trials in Argentina: Pharmaceutical Companies Exploit Flaws in The Regulatory System, Available at: https://www.publiceye.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/Gesundheit/1309_ARGENTINA_Final_Report_ENG.pdf.

[29] Zimwara, T., 2015. Clinical Trials Realities In Zimbabwe Dealing With Possible Unethical Research, Wemos. Available at: https://www.wemos.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/report-Clinical-Trials-Realities-in-Zimbabwe-Dealing-with-Possible-Unethical-Research.pdf.

[30] Carome, M., 2014. Unethical Clinical Trials Still Being Conducted in Developing Countries. HuffPost. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-carome-md/unethical-clinical-trials_b_5927660.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[31] Anon, Clinical Trials and Human Subject Protection. FDA. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm.

[32] Anon, European Medicines Agency — Research and development — Clinical trials in human medicines. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000489.jsp [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[33] Vijayananthan, A. & Nawawi, O., 2008. The importance of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and its role in clinical trials. Biomedical imaging and intervention journal, 4(1).

[34] Anon, European Medicines Agency — Research and development — Clinical trials in human medicines. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000489.jsp [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[35] Peart, A., 2017. Homage to John McCarthy, the father of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Natural Language Interaction | Artificial Solutions. Available at: https://www.artificial-solutions.com/blog/homage-to-john-mccarthy-the-father-of-artificial-intelligence [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[36] Cook, J., 2017. Robots in real estate? GeekWire. Available at: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/robots-real-estate-theres-nothing-see-zillow-co-founder-says-agent-jobs-safe/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[37] Novet, J., 2017. Everyone keeps talking about A.I. — here’s what it really is and why it’s so hot now. CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/17/what-is-artificial-intelligence.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[38] Silver, D. et al., 2017. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550(7676), pp.354–359.

[39] Mukherjee, S., 2017. A.I. Versus M.D. The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/ai-versus-md [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[40] Esteva, A. et al., 2017. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), pp.115–118.

[41] Strickland, E., 2017. AI Predicts Heart Attacks and Strokes More Accurately Than Standard Doctor’s Method. IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Available at: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/diagnostics/ai-predicts-heart-attacks-more-accurately-than-standard-doctor-method [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[42] University of Adelaide. 2017, June 1. Artificial intelligence predicts patient lifespans. ScienceDaily. Available at: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170601124126.htm [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[43] Mukherjee, S., 2017. A.I. Versus M.D. The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/ai-versus-md [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[44] Revell, T., 9 January 2018, updated 10 January 2018. AI listens in on emergency calls to diagnose cardiac arrest. New Scientist. Available at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2158073-ai-listens-in-on-emergency-calls-to-diagnose-cardiac-arrest/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[45] Hsu, J., 2017. Can a Crowdsourced AI Medical Diagnosis App Outperform Your Doctor? Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-a-crowdsourced-ai-medical-diagnosis-app-outperform-your-doctor/ [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[46] Bloom, E., 2017. Here’s how much the average American spends on health care. CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[47] Blumen, H., Fitch, K. & Polkus, V., 2016. Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. American health & drug benefits, 9(1), pp.23–32.

[48] Hankin, A., 2016. U.S. Healthcare Costs Compared to Other Countries. Investopedia. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/072116/us-healthcare-costs-compared-other-countries.asp [Accessed January 12, 2018].

[49] Deveau, D., 2018. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer on Mother’s Day. Now, 15 years later, this mom is still fighting. National Post. Available at: http://nationalpost.com/sponsored/patient-diaries-sponsored/she-was-diagnosed-with-stage-4-cancer-on-mothers-day-now-15-years-later-this-mom-is-still-fighting [Accessed January 20, 2018].

Benchmarking the value of human life – Cultural, Economic & Geographic Considerations

Centuries ago, Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith attempted to assign a concrete value to human life. He, ultimately, landed on a wage-based valuation because, in his mind, this wealth represented “the ease or hardship, the cleanliness or dirtiness, the honorableness or dishonorableness of the employment.”

Though many still prescribe to the wage-based view of human valuation, the debate continues with, likely, no real answer. How can a person, group or economic indicator truly assign an accurate “price tag” to a single human’s life? And, more importantly, how could these individuals or parameters indicate this person’s life has more value than that person’s life?

Anchoring the Conversation: Wealth vs. Health vs. Location

Despite the seemingly endless loop of the human life valuation conversation, countless thought leaders have attempted to frame the back-and-forth in tangible, tactile terms. While arguments abound about how to value one human’s life from another’s, many of the most prominent debates are anchored in wealth — how much a person has or could have versus another — health and age and, finally, geographic location.
Valuing Life in Dollars and Cents
The wealth debate is fairly straightforward because quantifying values are relatively black and white. By this benchmark, a billionaire’s life would be worth exponentially more than someone living below the poverty line. For example, consider billionaire Warren Buffett and a minimum wage worker in Malawi:

WARREN BUFFET

$77.6 billion net worth

$12.7 billion annual revenue

MALAWI MINIMUM WAGE WORKER

$0 net worth

K15,000 per month (based on a six-day work week) = $248.16 annual salary

By this measure, at any given moment in time, Buffett’s life would be valued exponentially higher than the minimum wage worker. In a given year, the latter has no more than 2/1,000,000% value of Buffett based purely of their respective — and projected — earning potential. Layer in existing wealth or lack thereof and the balance is skewed even more.

Health & Age Considerations

That said, there’s also the health and age considerations which many weigh heavily when assessing the value of human life. While Buffett is a billionaire he’s also, currently, 86 years old, already exceeding the U.S. life expectancy by close to eight years. Side-by-side with a younger billionaire or, even, high momentum entrepreneur, investor or business leader, it’s hard to say his life has more value.

For example, Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg has a net worth of $70.5 billion — about 10% less than Buffett. However, Zuckerberg is 53 years younger than Buffett and, based on published accounts, in very good health. Because, presumably, Zuckerberg has decades longer to live and generate wealth than Buffett, one could make the leap that his life has greater value despite the elder’s economic superiority.

And it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who fall into these consideration sets. When thinking age and the value of life, many physicians, ethicists and academics have long debated the value of a terminally ill elderly patient versus a terminally ill child. One seems inherently more devastating as we console ourselves with reminders than the former “lived a good life.” It’s as if someone in their 60s, 70s or 80s life no longer holds the same value of a child or 20something.

Perhaps it’s the fact that they’ve already “spent” their years or, from a purely value perspective, that their earning potential and quantifiable value seems to be winding down or, even, obsolete. A child, on the other hand, is just getting started. Their life holds seemingly limitless possibilities and potential — potential to create tangible value for themselves and the world around them.

The valuation gap widens when health gets layered in. The terminally ill elderly patient versus the young, healthy child — most would argue the healthy child’s life has greater value when put head to head. This child not only has health on their side by, also, decades of potential contributions, earnings and more. The value, in this example, seems to far outpace the ill senior.

Geographic Value

Finally and, often, in conjunction with financial, age and health considerations, is the notion of geography and the role in plays in valuing a human’s life. More stable, wealthy countries tend to have citizens with higher household incomes and overall net worth.

Presently, the U.S. has the highest average salaries at $42,050. This high income is paired with the highest disposable income in the world, giving Americans’ lives significantly high tangible value. After the U.S. is Ireland ($41,170) where a well-educated workforce and relatively low tax rate contributes to their earning power and then Luxembourg ($37,997) anchored by a massive investment fund center that fuels the economy.

On the other end of the spectrum Malawi, again, has the lowest gross net income at approximately $250 per year followed by Burundi ($270), Central African Republic ($320), Liberia ($370) and the Democratic Republic of Congo ($380). Using geography and the economics that come with, the average Liberian’s life would be valued at 0.9% of an average American’s life.

Layer into this valuation other geographic considerations such as safety and security, freedom, opportunities for growth and development, education and general happiness/satisfaction and that number would, likely, adjust. For example, Liberia has a higher happiness score than the U.S. — 22.2 versus 20.7 — while the U.S. outpaces Liberia in life expectancy, well-being and equality. All of these geographic qualities would, then, adjust the valuation even more, likely giving U.S. lives even greater value over their Liberian counterparts.

Another potential geographic valuation point? The Fragile State Index. These countries are rife with political, social and economic challenges, with low GDPs, high unemployment and overall upheaval from war, famine and government unrest.

Top 10 States, Fragile States Index:

1. South Sudan
2. Somalia
3. Central African Republic
4. Yemen
5. Sudan
6. Syria
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Chad
9. Afghanistan
10. Iraq

For comparison purposes, the United States ranks 158th out of 178 countries on the index, meaning it’s economic and foundational elements are strong.

Cultural Considerations

In the geography vein, there’s also the notion of different regions and cultures and the value they traditionally place on human life. A good example? The divide between men and women in some nations. In Nepal, for example, young women who aren’t married may be sold to traffickers in their teen and, even, pre-teen years. In Saudi Arabia, women are seen as lifelong dependents of their husband or close male relative. They can’t drive and can’t publically interact with men outside their families.

Given these existing frameworks, it’s clear the value of a woman’s life in these countries is significantly less than a man’s life — granted, this may be seen as extreme or, even, inappropriate benchmarking considering the human rights violations that surround.

On the other end are the wealthy nations where women are not only social equals but, also, outearn their male counterparts. In Ireland, Australia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, happiness ratings are high and childless women outearn men by upwards of 17%. One could argue the value of a woman’s life in these countries exceeds that of a woman in segregated societies. This, though, would be purely based in cultural considerations and regional inequalities in these nations.

Putting it Together: How the World Values Life

In the U.S., for example, many agencies have attempted to assign a value to human life. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) values human life at $9.1 million, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) puts a $7.9 million price tag on a single life and the Department of Transportation lands around $6 million. Each bases their calculations on economic theories of cost-benefit analysis surrounding wages and the value workers place on avoiding the risk of death. By these standards, those in more dangerous, more developing and less wealthy nations would, still, have much lower values assigned to their lives.

This debate is, likely, one that will wage on for generations, with some arguing putting a concrete value on a person’s life is impossible — it’s the “priceless” argument, which many continue to hold onto. However, as New Scientist explains, “Your life might feel priceless to you and your loved ones, but society needs to know its value.” Why? Because, simply, “If we were to embrace the idea that life has immeasurable value,” they write, “there would be no ceiling on how much we would be prepared to spend to reduce the chance of dying, even by an infinitesimal amount. That may seem morally right, but it is economic madness.” So, for now, the discourse and debate continues, as economists, academics, philosophers and countless others weigh the factors that contribute to our individual lives and their valuations.

Thermal Power Station: A thermal power station is a power plant in which heat energy is converted into electric power. In most part of the world the prime mover is steam driven. Water is heated, turns into steam that spins a steam turbine which drives an electrical generator.

The process seems simple, let us heat some water and create steam to turn turbines. Thanks to this simple enough sounding process as per pro-coal agencies websites, we are skeptical of consuming seafood that are on the top of the food chain because they are laced with mercury and lead.

Coal is not the only emitter. We have natural carbon emitters such as wildfires that pump million of tons of CO₂ into our atmosphere. According to Natural Resource Canada, large wildfires average 27,000,000 million metric tons of CO₂ annually. United States and Alaska wildfires release 290 million metric tons of CO₂  annually.  Have you considered how much CO₂ is emitted from a standard coal power plant? lets use the state of Texas for comparison only. Texas, which is ranked third in the nation in coal-fired power production. Texas is also ranks as the highest-emitting state or province in the world for CO₂ emissions, producing 290 million tons of the greenhouse gas per year alone, just one state, on its own.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/climate-change/forest-carbon/13103

GRAPH http://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/

 

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to a space elevator for transporting payload, goods and people from earth’s surface to outer space, and more particularly relates to a space elevator assembly supported from its base grounded on earth’s surface.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The key concept of space elevator was first published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who proposed a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of Earth to the height of geostationary orbit. Similar to high-altitude buildings and towers, Tsiolkovsky’s structure was under compression, supporting the tower’s own weight from below. However, since 1959, most ideas for space elevators have focused on tethering using purely tensile structures, with the weight of the elevator system being held up from above. A space tether reaches from a large mass or a counterweight stationed beyond geostationary orbit to a base support anchored on the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like an upside-down plumb bob.

Earth-based space elevator would typically consist of a cable with one end attached to the surface near the equator and the other end in space beyond geostationary orbit. The competing forces of gravity, which is stronger at the lower end, and the upward centrifugal force, which is stronger at the upper end, would result in the cable being held up under tension, and stationary over a single position on Earth.

Once the space elevator is installed, climbing devices will clamp on to the tether and will be driven up or down the tether to deliver a payload to a desired altitude using a driving means such as electric or mechanical drive. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, and orbital elevators.

Current space transport and launch systems, with the advent of chemical rockets and improved guidance systems facilitates in overcoming the primary technical inability to transport materials and payload from the surface of the earth to the outer space. However, factors including huge costs, propellant energy resources, and safety during launch, still prevails as major concerns. In addition, the need for, countering gravity during flight, overcoming atmospheric drag and robust propulsion system poses further limitations to the existing rocket systems.

Since 1971, NASA has launched 135 missions, with each mission costing approximately $1.3 billion. Rockets have been an expensive undertaking and unlike any other mode of transportation, a rocket has a 40% vehicular failure rate and 1.5% flight failure rate.

Throughout the years there have been concepts of a space tether made of carbon nanotubes while sending a counterweight far beyond the geostationary orbit. Although the nanotubes technology is still in its infancy, it would require cables with widths of several miles to reach heights of 144,000 kilometers (89,000 miles) into space for a counter weight, the cost of which would be enormous.

Therefore, there still exist a need for an improved space elevator system, which can be used for transporting payload, materials and people from earth’s surface to outer space or planetary surface.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a space elevator assembly supported from a base grounded on surface of the earth, the space elevator can be used for transporting payload, goods and people from earth’s surface to outer space.

The space elevator assembly of the present invention comprises an inner shaft comprising a plurality of interlocking segments composed of cylindrical bits vertically stackable to a plate, to form a rigid structure and an outer shaft comprising a plurality of telescoping cones extendable synchronously with the inner shaft, in order to elevate a platform attached to an upper end. The space elevator assembly further comprises a drive system consisting of an actuator for extending the inner shaft by enabling stacking of the plurality of interlocking segments.

In an embodiment, the inner shaft comprises a plurality of interlocking segments, wherein the each interlocking segment comprises a combination of cylindrical bits stackable on a rigid plate, which interlocks the bits in place and also prevents buckling effect during extended position. The number of bits per interlocking segment progressively increase during extension of the inner shaft from the base.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

Fig.1 Illustrates a perspective view of the space elevator assembly according to an embodiment of the present invention.

 

Fig.2 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft according to an embodiment of the present invention.

 

Fig.3 Illustrates a base frame with stay cables attached to a support rail according to an embodiment of the present invention.

 

Fig.4 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft comprising the inner shaft in a vertically stacked position.

 

5A-5C Shows interlocking segments of the inner shaft.

Fig 6. Schematically illustrates exemplary lift stages for extension of inner shaft in conjunction with outer shaft.

 

9 Illustrates lift stage four during extension of inner shaft in conjunction with outer shaft.

15 Illustrates lift stage ten during extension of inner shaft in conjunction with outer shaft.

 

16 Shows an image illustrating self-weight of bottom cones.

17 Illustrates a shows a seismic hazard map. 

 

 18 Shows a model of dynamic earthquake testing.

 

19 Illustrates modelling of earthquake force on the X direction using ETABS software.

20 Illustrates ETABS Building model for natural period.

21 Illustrates a graph showing change in shear forces with number of lift stages.

22 Illustrates distribution of seismic lateral forces.

23 Shows non-cumulative distribution of seismic forces.

24A Shows the latitude angle of rotation of object from earth’s centre of matter.

24B Shows a graph of gravity force in relation to centripetal force and component force.

25A-25L Shows images of finite element method modelling of the tower structure using ETABS software.

 

    

 

26A-26E Shows a second model of the tower structure at different elevations.

   

 

 27A Illustrates axial forces in the lowest cone.

27B Shows bending moment in the lowest cone during simulation of a minor earthquake.

27C Shows axial force in one of the bits at the bottom of the tower structure.

28 Illustrates distance calculation for tower axis from the point of cable ground support.

29A Shows cable supporting the tower structure until 6^th storey or level.

29B Shows seismic deformation of the tower structure.

 

29C Shows moment diagram in the tower structure.

30 Illustrates deformation due to bending moment in the tower structure.

31A Illustrates Columns made by interlinked bits.

 

31B. Shows deformation due to buckling and internal forces appear in the connection between bits.

31C And FIG. 31D =Illustrates anchors expending from the bit core in to the bit notch.

 

 32 Shows force distribution in the joint between bits.

 

33A And FIG. 33B Shows extra lateral anti-buckling support provided by the columns joined to the cons.

 

 34 Shows connection between supporting bits.

 

 35 Shows buckling stability from both anti-buckling support and connection between supporting bits.

 

 36 Shows an interlocking segment comprising cylindrical bits interlocked in position by a rigid plate.

 

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The following detailed description of the preferred embodiments presents a description of certain specific embodiments to assist in understanding the claims. However, the present invention is intended to cover alternatives, modifications and equivalents, which may be included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, in the following detailed description of the present invention, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details.

Referring to 1, which shows a space elevator assembly 100, comprising an inner shaft 110 comprising a plurality of interlocking segments 112 consisting of cylindrical bits vertically stackable on a rigid plate in order to extend into a tower like structure. An outer shaft 120 comprising a plurality of telescoping cones 122 extendable synchronously with the inner shaft 110, in order to elevate a platform 130 which is attached to an upper end of the inner shaft 110 and outer shaft 120. The space elevator assembly 100 further comprises a drive system consisting of an actuator 140 for extending the inner shaft 110 by enabling stacking of the plurality of interlocking segments 112 from a winded position.

Each interlocking segment comprising a plurality of cylindrical bits stackable on a rigid plate as shown in 36. The number of bits progressively increase in numbers for each segment during extension. The rigid plate helps to hold the bits in interlocked position after extension and prevents buckling effect, which is described further in later part of this specification.

The space elevator assembly 100, further comprises a base frame structure 150 comprising a plurality of stay cables 160 for supporting the outer shaft 120 in an extended position. More particularly, the stay cables 160 are adapted to support not all but some successive telescoping cones 122 from the bottom. The rest of the top telescoping cones 122 do not require the support of the stay cables 160. The stay cables 160 are winded on a stay cable support rail 152 of the base frame structure 150 in a retreated position wherein, the stay cables 160 are extended as the outer shaft is upwardly extended.

In an embodiment, interlocking segments 112 are winded on a spool in the retreated coiled position 114 and stacked to form a vertically rigid shaft in the extended position. The spool can be positioned above ground or underground in a coiled structure, providing access to the drive system comprising an actuator 140 to enable extending of inner shaft 110 by stacking of numerous interlocking units during different stages of extension. The actuator 140 is driven by a controllable motor comprising electrical engine or a mechanical or hydraulic driving means. The actuator 140 uploads the bits or interlocking units 112 and locks them and then it unloads them and unlocks them to be stored in any position such as stored vertically or coiled up once again.

In an embodiment, the interlocking segments 112 of inner shaft comprises a plurality of bits which are unlocked and stacked to form a rigid inner shaft during extension from a winded position. The number of bits for each telescoping cone substantially increases with vertical extension of telescoping cones. For example during 1st expand: first extended cone comprises 1 bit; 2^nd expand: second extended cone comprises 2 bits; 3^rd expand: third extended cone comprises 3 bits. The bits can be stacked in different combinations during further extension of telescoping cones, as exemplified above.

The platform 130 at the upper end is supported by the inner shaft 110 and outer shaft 120 extending from the ground, the platform allows payloads or materials or people to be elevated to outer space or earth orbit or any level of elevation lower than the geostationary orbit. In an embodiment, the top platform weighs 5 tons and comprises 2500 square meter area.

2 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft according to an embodiment of the present invention. The outer shaft 120 comprises a plurality of telescoping cones 122, also known as telescopic exo shell constructed with cylindrical cones of progressively decreasing diameters, with the outermost cone having a greater diameter and the inner most cone at the core having a lowest diameter. The telescoping cones 122 are configured to extend to a predetermined height and are made of atmospheric drag resistant material, which confers greater stability to the overall structure.

The inner shaft 110 forms a rigid structure due to vertically stacking of interlocking segments. The outer shaft provides exoskeletal support by extending synchronously with the inner shaft in order to elevate the platform fixed at the upper end of the shafts. Similarly, the outer shaft comprising telescoping cones retreats synchronously along with the inner shaft.

3 Illustrates a base frame with stay cables attached to a support rail according to an embodiment of the present invention. The base frame 150 comprises a star-like or cross-like platform which supports the vertical tower structure and comprises a plurality of stay cables 160with one end attached to first few cones of the outer shaft and other end of the stay cable attached to a stay cable support rail structure 152.The stay cables 160 can be winded in a direction 104 during retreat and unwounded in a direction 102 during extension.

The stay cables 160 support the outer shaft and provides stability while in synchronously rotation towards or away from the overall vertical structure as required. The stay cables 160 can be independently coiled as an individual unit into a winded position or are supported autonomously by an overall coiling and uncoiling system for all the cables to work synchronously within the stay cable support rail 152.

4 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft comprising the inner shaft with interlocking segments in a vertically stacked position. The outer shaft comprises telescoping cones in an extended position, which supports the inner shaft 110 consisting of interlocking units 112 stacked to form a vertical rigid structure.

The inner shaft 110, when uncoiled from the spool, extends by stacking of interlocking segments 112 and provides lift to the space elevators by extending the overall vertical structure towards any elevation including lower Earth orbit or beyond geostationary orbit. Similarly the interlocking segments 112 are un-stacked and coiled during descending.

5A Shows interlocking segments 112 vertically stacked above each other to form a rigid inner shaft 110. FIG. 5B and FIG. 5C respectively shows stacking and un-stacking of interlocking segments of inner shaft.

In an embodiment, the base size would be 50% of the overall height. For example, if the structure extends up to 99 miles or 160 km, then it would be required that the base size should be half of that distance, approximately 49.5miles or 80km.

The space elevator would be constructed using super strong and lightweight metal alloys that would provide the structure immense strength-to-weight ratio. It would be constructed using materials such as Titanium alloys that are currently being used by the aviation industry.

The inner shaft is constructed from a material with an ultimate bearing strength preferably in the range of 170,000 to 200,000 PSI. Materials for manufacturing inner shaft can be selected from a group consisting of Titanium, Kevlar or other strong but relatively lightweight materials. In an embodiment, Titanium alloy Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al is used. Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al is a fully beta Titanium base alloy, which is harder and stronger than many Titanium alloys. It is a heat-treatable alloy, wieldable, easily formable and commonly used in compressor blades, airframe components, disks, wheels and spacers.

Ti 10V-2Fe-3Al being an all beta alloy, it is more difficult to machine than most of the Titanium alloys.The following Table. 1 shows structural properties of Titanium alloy Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al.

Compressive yield strength (fyc)	1200 Mpa
Ultimate Bearing Strength (fuc)	1700 Mpa
Compressive Yield Strength (fyc)	1080 Mpa
Ultimate Bearing Strength (fuc)	1530 Mpa
Modulus of Elasticity (E)	107 Gpa
Elongation at Break (εu)	10 %
Specific Weight (γ)	45.6 kN/m3

Table. 1

In another embodiment the inner shaft comprises of plurality of cylindrical bits or columns adapted to extend in progressive combinations according to height. The bits synchronously extend with outer shaft comprising telescoping cones, in progressive expand stages or lift stages during vertical extension. 6-15 schematically illustrates exemplary lift stages 1-10 showing progressive increase in the number of bits during extension of inner shaft in conjunction with telescoping cones.

Structural system: The main structural system has to be designed to carry the biggest load that is the self-weight of the system. The tower extension basically comprises of two steps: 1. Uplifting- during which the column takes the weight of the cones too; and 2. Fully expended locked structure- during which the columns will not take the weight of the cones.

Determining the height of the columns:

Exemplary calculations

Having only the axial force (compression or tension doesn’t matter), the axial stress, called sigma “σ” will be equal to:

[1]

Where, N – axial force and A- the cross section area

But when considering only the axial force from self-weight, the N will be:

[2]

Where, V – is the volume [meter cube] and the γ – specific weight

The Volume will be:

[3]

Where, A – cross section area and L – length

Now substituting [3] in [2]:

[2 ‘]

Substituting [2’] in [1]:

[1’]

And now, the ‘A’ will simplify and this is the formula for stress, when considering only self-weight.

To find the maximum length, from the [1’] equation:

[4]

Using the formula σ= γ*L, with known strength limit γ and weight factor L, Where is equal to “fy” =material tension design value, which is the ultimate tensile strength, the limit state design is assumed as 1500*1000. The maximum height of 1 bit can be calculated as:

In certain circumstances the maximum height of one bit for the inner shaft would be required to be 30 km in height in order to sustain its own weight. But the axial forces will have the Cones weight too and the top load.

Ultimate strength only from the axial force would mean that the tower would reach the strength capacity when ascending and would need to split the tower into 20 pieces for the length of 160 km:

With this above calculated length, the stress from self-weight can be calculated as:

Wherein is 22% of its capacity from self-weight,

1600*0.22 = 352, so about 364.

As mentioned above, the tower extension basically comprises of two steps: 1. Uplifting- during which the column takes the weight of the cones too; and 2. Fully expended locked structure- during which the columns will not take the weight of the cones. When the tower is fully expended and locked in, the telescoping cones and bits will carry the weight but during lifting process, the weight will have to be carried only by the bits, hence the bits are designed at full axial force.

The tower is being split into 20 parts, each part is calculated to sustain itself from the weight of other parts above it. Between the parts, a rigid plate is placed to form a support for bits and cones, and interlocked or glued to create a rigid joint.

 

Design of bits: In an embodiment, the cross-sectional shape of the bit is circular. The area of circle can be calculated as:

Area of the circle (A) = PI * D^2 /4

Choose the diameter (D) = 55000 [mm] or 55 [m]

Area (A) = 2.4E+09 [mm²] or 2375.8 [m²]

Volume = Area * height

=2.4*10^9 mm square * 8000*1000 mm

=1.92*10^16 mm cube

=19200000 meter cube

 

Self-weight of bits:

Self-weight is represented as Nself =volume * specific weight

The specific weight for Titanium is 45.6 kN/m cube

Hence, Nself = 19200000 m^3 * 45.6 kN/m^3

=866702581.3 [kN]

 

Compression force:

The stress from axial force σ = N / A

Height of the cone: 8000 [m]

For the maximum length of 160 km, the self-weight will be:

From the top platform 5 tones = 50 kN

Nself = 866702581.3  [kN]

Ntop plat=50  [kN]

 

Since σ = N self / Area

For 1.5 stress SUM: N₁ = 866702631.3        [kN]

Hence, the stress is calculated as: σ = N/A

= 866702631.3/2375.8

= 364.8 [MPa]

The rate of actual stress/allowable stress (design stress for um) =σ / fyc

= 364.8/1080

= 0.3378

 

CONE Material Properties:

Specific weight γ = 45.6 [kN/m3]

Exemplary dimensions of CONE are given in the following Table. 2.

 

Thickness (t)	10000 [mm]
Height (H)	7000 [m]
Outside diameter D’	68000 [mm]
Volume of the cones (V)	12754866.2 [mc]

Table. 2

 

Here volume is Area * Height

Area = πR^2-πr^2

= π (34^2-29^2)

=1980 m^2

Hence V = area*height

= 1980*7000

V=13860000 m^3

 

Self-weight is represented as Nself = volume * specific weight

Nself=13860000 m^3*45.6 kN/m^3

Thus, the self-weight of the cone is calculated as, Ncone = 632016000[kN]

Total weight for the cone:

For example, during lift stage 1, there will be only one column and there is no axial force exerted from the above columns. Whereas from lift stage 2, axial force from first column will have to be added. Similarly during lift stage 5, there will be more columns (5 columns), the axial force calculated from weight of the cone and the whole weight from above columns should be split by the number of column, i. e. divided by 5 in this case.

So the stress will be: σ = Ncone/Area

=632016000 * 10^3 N / (1980 * 10^6 mm^2)

=319.1 Mpa, which is the stress from weight of the cone.

 The total stress in the cone can be calculated using:

1. Adding the two axial forces for finding σ.
2. Finding σ from self-weight (weight of the column) and then find σ from the weight of the cone and then adding both the stress to calculate total stress as shown below:

When the tower is uplifting, the weight of the cone will also be supported by the bits, so for a predesign dimension of the bits, the stress from the cone is added.

Total Stress=stress from the self-weight + Stress from the Bit’s Weight

=319.1 Mpa + 364.8 Mpa

= 683.9 Mpa

The rate actual stress/allowable stress (design stress for Titanium): σ / fyc

=683.9/1080

= 0.63324

The axial force for different levels of the vertical tower during each stage of extension is given in the following 3, where

D = the diameter of the cone,

V = volume of the cone,

Ncon = the axial force given by the cone weight,

Nr BITS = number of bits inside the cone,

N BITS = axial force given by the bits weight,

N TOTAL = the total axial force (bits + con),

Area cone = area of the cone section,

Area total = area of the cone section plus the bits section;

σ= N/A (axial stress in the bits); and

stress/fyc shows percent capacity of the bits used when the tower structure is lifted (for example 0.425 means 42.5% is used)

 

Level	D[mm]	V [m3]	N cone [kN]	Nr. BITS	N BITS [kN]	N total [kN]	Area cone [m2]	Area total [m2]	N/A [Mpa]	stress/fy
20	105000	3259402	148628748	1	458421200	607049948	407.425297	1256.637061	483.075	0.40256
19	135000	16336282	744934450	5	2292106000	3.037E+09	2042.03522	6283.185307	483.36	0.4028
18	165000	20106193	916842400	5	2292106000	3.209E+09	2513.27412	6283.185307	510.72	0.4256
17	195000	23876104	1.089E+09	5	2292106000	3.381E+09	2984.51302	6283.185307	538.08	0.4484
16	225000	27646015	1.261E+09	5	2292106000	3.553E+09	3455.75192	6283.185307	565.44	0.4712
15	255000	31415927	1.433E+09	9	4125790800	5.558E+09	3926.99082	11309.73355	491.46667	0.40956
14	285000	35185838	1.604E+09	9	4125790800	5.73E+09	4398.22972	11309.73355	506.66667	0.42222
13	315000	38955749	1.776E+09	9	4125790800	5.902E+09	4869.46861	11309.73355	521.86667	0.43489
12	345000	42725660	1.948E+09	13	5959475600	7.908E+09	5340.70751	16336.2818	484.06154	0.40338
11	375000	46495571	2.12E+09	13	5959475600	8.08E+09	5811.94641	16336.2818	494.58462	0.41215
10	405000	50265482	2.292E+09	13	5959475600	8.252E+09	6283.18531	16336.2818	505.10769	0.42092
9	435000	54035394	2.464E+09	17	7793160400	1.026E+10	6754.42421	21362.83004	480.14118	0.40012
8	465000	57805305	2.636E+09	17	7793160400	1.043E+10	7225.6631	21362.83004	488.18824	0.40682
7	495000	61575216	2.808E+09	17	7793160400	1.06E+10	7696.902	21362.83004	496.23529	0.41353
6	525000	65345127	2.98E+09	21	9626845200	1.261E+10	8168.1409	26389.37829	477.71429	0.3981
5	555000	69115038	3.152E+09	21	9626845200	1.278E+10	8639.3798	26389.37829	484.22857	0.40352
4	585000	72884950	3.324E+09	21	9626845200	1.295E+10	9110.6187	26389.37829	490.74286	0.40895
3	615000	76654861	3.495E+09	25	11460530000	1.496E+10	9581.85759	31415.92654	476.064	0.39672
2	645000	80424772	3.667E+09	25	11460530000	1.513E+10	10053.0965	31415.92654	481.536	0.40128
1	675000	84194683	3.839E+09	25	11460530000	1.53E+10	10524.3354	31415.92654	487.008	0.40584

 

Table. 3

Design checking of the cones:

1. Bottom cone design check:
2. i) Axial force from self-weight at the bottom of the tower, estimated from the ETAB modelling software as shown in 16.

Axial force in the bottom cone, Nbase = 7.26E+10 kN or 7.26E+13 N

1. ii) Cone dimensions:

Outer diameter D = 6800 m

Wall thickness t = 10 m

Thus, Area A= 106735.6104 m2 or 1.06736E+11 mm2

iii) Stress check: Stress σ = 680.19 MPa

1. iv) Material Properties: Titanium Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al

Compressive Yield Strength fyc = 1200 Mpa

Ultimate bearing strength fuc = 1700 Mpa

Here, the condition for the checking cone dimensions is that calculated stress should be less than strength of the cone material.

Simulating a small earthquake:

FIG. 17 Shows a seismic hazard map of Canada. When such a tower is designed for real construction, an advanced analysis should be done such as machete on scale (like wind in turbine analysis), model that will be subjected to dynamic earthquake tests, as illustrated in FIG. 18. The intent for the small structural analysis is to simulate a small earthquake (because, in Canada the tower can be built in 0 seismic region, but just in case the seismic hazard changes or a new fault plane form in that zone) and to see how the structure manifest.

FIG. 19 Illustrates modelling of earthquake force on the X direction using Etabs software. From the figure, the coefficient of 0.01 mean that the seismic force will be only 1% of the structural mass, a coefficient that is very small compared with a medium earthquake in active seismic zone. For example, in zone near a fault, medium seismic activity means an acceleration of the ground of 0.2..0.35 g and for usual buildings that give an seismic coefficient of 0.1-0.2 (compared to 0.01) -> 10..20% of the mass.

NATURAL PERIOD:

Another very important characteristic of earthquake waves is their period or frequency, that is, whether the waves are quick and abrupt (or) slow and rolling. This phenomenon is particularly important for determining the building seismic forces. All objects have a natural or fundamental period; this is the rate at which they will move back and forth if they are given a horizontal push. In fact, without pulling and pushing it back and forth, it is not possible to make an object vibrate at anything other than its natural period.

For example, when a child in a swing is started with a push, to be effective this shove must be as close as possible to the natural period of the swing. If correctly gauged, a very small push will set the swing going nicely. Similarly, when earthquake motion starts a building vibrating, it will tend to sway back and forth at its natural period.

Period is the time in seconds (or fractions of a second) that is needed to complete one cycle of a seismic wave. Frequency is the inverse of this, i.e. the number of cycles that will occur in a second, and is measured in “Hertz”. One Hertz is one cycle per second.

When using the basic formula for the usual buildings, the natural period will be around:

H= 160*1000=160000m

T= 800 s

The above value is what we expect from the finite element program if the formula was true for special building like this. From the ETABS Building model the natural period is shown in FIG. 20. The value of 36755 s, is about 50 folds bigger than what was expected with the formula presented in the seismic building design. The following Table. 4 shows seismic lateral forces for 1-20 storeys or levels.

Story	Load	SHEAR FORCE       N	SEISMIC FORCE           N
20	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	17954249.89	17954949.9
19	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	60950641.7	179547600
18	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	141171227.7	145556577
17	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	254280141.1	113108913
16	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	375872165	121592024
15	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	522918417	147046252
14	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	691059068	168140651
13	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	859619149	168560081
12	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	1041777065	182157916
11	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	1233143584	191366519
10	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	1416774920	183631336
9	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	1602057454	185282534
8	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	1784570587	182513133
7	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	1951103614	166533027
6	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	2107249811	156146197
5	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	2248558096	141308285
4	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	2365550363	116992267
3	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	2456263879	90713516
2	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	2521234358	64970479
1	EARTHQUAKE COMBO	2555970364	34736006

Table. 4

21 Illustrates a graph showing change in shear forces with number of storeys 1-20. FIG. 22 Illustrates distribution of seismic lateral forces. FIG. 23 shows non-cumulative distribution of seismic forces.

Base Shear:

Seismic forces in the structure and stresses:

The following Table. 5 shows in the first column, the Moment M in every story given by the effect of overturning produced by seismic lateral forces. The second and third columns shows the section properties – moment of inertia I and the D/2 – that are involved in determining the stress in the section.

The formula from which the normal stress SIGMA deduced is:

With the value of sigma, we have to compare to the material design limit (fy for yield of fu – for rupture) and from the table. 5, it is clear that the structure will not hold (fy = 1200MPa). At a normal project bigger sections can be made as an iterative process, by choosing larger and larger dimension until this checks in (or change the material but clear this is not the case). The problem is that, lack any tools to verify these numbers, hence it’s only an approximate view. But with this approximate values, it can be see that the earthquake will be a big problem so, for installing such as structure in a seismic zone, additional support cables or stay cables can be used to help the structure to resist the lateral forces.

M3 [kN]	I	z	Sigma MPa
4.63E+09	5.48273E+17	52500	442.96
1.86E+11	4.32018E+18	67500	2910.82
3.29E+11	8.05033E+18	82500	3368.53
7.84E+11	1.34769E+19	97500	5672.63
1.51E+12	2.09181E+19	112500	8142.47
1.87E+12	3.06919E+19	127500	7755.88
3.04E+12	4.31164E+19	142500	10057.14
2.76E+12	5.85097E+19	157500	7432.23
4.11E+12	7.71899E+19	172500	9178.11
9.66E+12	9.94751E+19	187500	18208.08
7.97E+12	1.25683E+20	202500	12847.65
1.26E+13	1.56133E+20	217500	17524.51
1.04E+13	1.91141E+20	232500	12650.32
1.36E+13	2.31027E+20	247500	14516.14
1.41E+13	2.76109E+20	262500	13424.06
1.72E+13	3.26704E+20	277500	14618.07
2.11E+13	3.8313E+20	292500	16108.76
2.60E+13	4.45706E+20	307500	17937.83
2.94E+13	5.1475E+20	322500	18388.30
3.44E+13	5.9058E+20	337500	19641.51

 Table. 5

 

The Earth centripetal force:

Rotational velocity ω due to the Earth’s rotation :

Earth radius – the surface of the Earth :

 

 

 

=>

v =

465

[m/s]

On the top of the tower we will have the radius of R ‘= R + 160* 1000, as 160km height. The linear velocity for the surface of the Earth.

=>

v =

465

[m/s]

R’=

6530000

[m]

The linear velocity on the 160 km height will be :

v ‘=

477

[m/s]

Centripetal force Fc:

In the case of an object that is swinging around on the end of a rope in a horizontal plane, the centripetal force on the object is supplied by the tension of the rope. The rope example is an example involving a ‘pull’ force. The centripetal force can also be supplied as a ‘push’.

 

 

 

 

 

The distribution of centripetal force in the tower is shown in the following Table. 6. The tower can be built around the Canadian zone the angle of latitude will be around 50 degree. FIG. 24A shows the latitude angle of rotation of object from earth’s center of matter and FIG. 24B shows a graph of gravity force in relation to centripetal force and component force.

Story	Height [m]	Mass [kg]	R [m]	v [m/s]	Fc [kN]
20	160000	65745031.7	7E+06	476.69	2287.82
19	152000	165793859	7E+06	476.106	5762.29
18	144000	326487261	7E+06	475.522	11333.4
17	136000	487427443	7E+06	474.938	16899.3
16	128000	556729102	6E+06	474.354	19278.3
15	120000	718162844	6E+06	473.77	24837.8
14	112000	879843366	6E+06	473.186	30392.1
13	104000	949885366	6E+06	472.602	32771
12	96000	1112059448	6E+06	472.018	38318.6
11	88000	1274480310	6E+06	471.434	43860.8
10	80000	1345262649	6E+06	470.85	46239.4
9	72000	1508177071	6E+06	470.266	51774.8
8	64000	1671338273	6E+06	469.682	57304.8
7	56000	1742860953	6E+06	469.098	59682.8
6	48000	1906515715	6E+06	468.514	65205.7
5	40000	2070417257	6E+06	467.93	70723.2
4	32000	2142680276	6E+06	467.346	73100.2
3	24000	2215190076	6E+06	466.762	75479.6
2	16000	2379831958	6E+06	466.178	80988
1	8000	2544720620	6E+06	465.594	86490.9

Table. 6

The horizontal component that give the overturning moment is given in Table. 7

Angle	Fcentr [kN]	Fhoriz [kN]
50	2287.8199	1922.5
	5762.2879	4842.3
	11333.387	9523.9
	16899.34	14201.1
	19278.327	16200.3
	24837.813	20872.1
	30392.058	25539.5
	32770.994	27538.7
	38318.582	32200.5
	43860.835	36857.8
	46239.435	38856.7
	51774.841	43508.3
	57304.818	48155.3
	59682.799	50153.6
	65205.739	54794.7
	70723.155	59431.2
	73100.233	61428.8
	75479.558	63428.2
	80988.047	68057.2
	86490.886	72681.4

Table. 7

 

The following Table. 8 shows comparison between the seismic lateral forces and centripetal forces. The forces from earthquake are about 10,000x times bigger than the forces from moving the Earth. At this values of lateral forces and compared with the stresses analysis, it can be seen clear that the structure has no problem taking this extra overturning moment.

 

Story	Fcentr [kN]	Fseism [kN]
20	1922.5	17954249.9
19	4842.3	60950641.7
18	9523.9	141171228
17	14201.1	254280141
16	16200.3	375872165
15	20872.1	522918417
14	25539.5	691059068
13	27538.7	859619149
12	32200.5	1041777065
11	36857.8	1233143584
10	38856.7	1416774920
9	43508.3	1602057454
8	48155.3	1784570587
7	50153.6	1951103614
6	54794.7	2107249811
5	59431.2	2248558096
4	61428.8	2365550363
3	63428.2	2456263879
2	68057.2	2521234358
1	72681.4	2555970364

Table. 8

 

25A-25L Shows images of finite element method modelling of the tower structure using ETABS software. Similarly, FIG. 26A-26E shows a second model of the tower structure at different elevations such as levels or storeys 20, 17, 10, 5 and 1.

Axial forces in the lowest cone, for example axial forces at pier 20 is shown in 27A. Bending moment in the lowest cone during simulation of a minor earthquake is shown in FIG. 27B. Axial force in one of the bits at the bottom of the tower structure is shown in FIG. 27C. From the model figures, it can be seen that the axial load is smaller in the bits as cones take almost all of the axial weight.

Lateral forces from small seismic force:

1. Moment from lateral force: The seismic force will produce a moment that has maximum value at the base of the tower.

M= 8.04E+10 kNm, from small earthquake (seismic coefficient of 0.01)1% of its weight.

2. Moment of inertia:

I= 6.16E+11 [m^4]

3. Stress check (seism only):

Stress  σ = 887.05MPA

4. Stress check (seism + self-weight):

Seism + self-weight = σ t =1567.24 MPA

 

Design of Cables:

Cables will be added to add extra lateral stability for the tower. The cables are designed to carry their own weight at about 40% of capacity so the rest of 60% is purposed to be used in case of emergency situations, such as, an earthquake, or the like. The axial force in the outside cable is 2.72 * 10 ^11 units [kN] for only a 1m thick cable, so the use of the cable that goes from the ground to the top of the tower at 160 km it’s not possible. Because the stress will be bigger greater than design value, it might not hold.

Choosing the distance between the tower and cable support on the ground:

The distance between the tower axis and the point of cables ground support will be 2x the height of one story (8km X 2=16km). As shown in FIG. 28, distance calculation for tower axis and point of cable ground support.

From the figure, on decomposing the forces by the angle alpha, angle that depends on the X (the distance) and the height (H – the height is where the cables are fixed on the tower). The force in the cable “FCABLE” is the lateral force (the seismic force) divided by the sin of alpha:

The force in the tower (and by force I mean the extra axial force given by equilibrium):

Three different heights (8000, 16000 and 24000) are tested with three types of distance between tower and cable support (8000, 16000 and 24000) and the results are given in Table. 9.

X	Height	α [degree]	SEISM	FCABLE	FTOWER	Fc-Ft
8000	8000	45	1	1.4	1	0.4
	16000	27	1	2.2	2	0.2
	24000	18	1	3.2	3	0.2
16000	8000	63	1	1.1	0.5	0.6
	16000	45	1	1.4	1	0.4
	24000	34	1	1.8	1.5	0.3
24000	8000	72	1	1.1	0.3	0.7
	16000	56	1	1.2	0.7	0.5
	24000	45	1	1.4	1	0.4

Table. 9

 

From the table. 9, if X (the distance between the tower and the support for the cables) is equal to 8000m, then the cables will take 40% more than the tower, if X is chosen at 16000m, the cables will take 60% and for 24000m 70% . The more the distance between the tower and the cable support, the more force will be absorbed in the cable and thus the more use for them. However because of the extra cost for this, 16 km distance for X is preferred.

29A shows cable supporting the tower structure up until the 6^th storey or level. FIG. 29B shows seismic deformation of the tower structure. FIG. 29C shows moment diagram in the tower structure showing the decreasing slope and cables help with the overturning moment. From the pictures, it can be seen that the biggest axial force is in the topmost cable at it has the value of 9.8*10^8 kN.

Cable cross section:

The biggest axial force in the top most cable has the value of 9.8*10^8 kN. Aramid fibers which have high strength to weight ratio equal to force per unit area at failure/density can be used for stay cables.

Stress=force/area (1m diameter)

For determining necessary diameter,

So, for the cables to help and take the load from the earthquake, the cable diameter should be greater than 25m. In the event of a small 0.01 earthquake, an accidental earthquake in the zone were hazard maps indicates 0 seismic. It’s clear that this tower cannot withstand a large seismic event and for that reason there are tall buildings in Dubai, New York and not in California or Chile or Japan for that matter. It’s clear that the seismic zone determine the height of the buildings so this type of construction can be only made where seismic hazard is considered 0 and the structure can have extra cables that ensure stability to an hypothetical small earthquake C=0.01, Earthquake that is not on the hazard maps.

Buckling:

Buckling is caused by a bifurcation in the solution to the equations of static equilibrium. At a certain stage under an increasing load, further load can be sustained in one of two states of equilibrium: an un-deformed state or a laterally-deformed state. There is a need to prevent buckling in the tower bits (columns) when the structure is lifting (in this stage because it is here that the maximum axial force is applied to the columns).

Buckling is caused be geometrical imperfections of the column vertical ax, imperfections that when the axial force is applied will cause a bending moment and this bending moment will cause the deformation of the ax, more deformation will result in increasing the bending moment and so the column will lose stability and fail before the axial capability is reached.

Buckling in the main reason for structural columns failure so this matter is very important in the rising stage of the structure. In the usual structure’s buckling is prevented by decrease the height or adding extra support that prevent the buckling deformed shape to appear.

In present case bits (columns) are not made from a single material, is made from a lot of parts that adds up, bits.

 

Solution 1

As buckling appear because of the deformation given by the extra bending moment that forms in the column, but because the column is made by multiple parts joined together, use of a system that prevent forming the deformed shape from the start will cancel that bending moment that cause problems as shown in FIG. 30. Columns made by bits are shown in FIG. 31A.

When the buckling appear (the deformed shape) in the connection between bit internal forces will appear, as shown in FIG. 31B. As seen in the figure, the forces that counter the bending moment (this internal forces) are concentrated on small area (points) and this force concentration will lead to structural failure (force concentration will involve very high stress that will produce material failure). One of the solution for this is to spread or distribute these internal forces on more area so that it will decrease the stress by the use of anchors that expend from the bit core in to the other bit notch as shown in FIG. 31C and FIG. 31D. A new force distribution in the joint between bits can carry a lot more forces that came from bending moment produced by buckling effect is shown in FIG. 32.

 

Solution 2

The extra lateral support provided by joining all the columns together and “weld” the support that joins them to the cones as shown in FIG. 33A and FIG. 33B. This “anti-buckling supports” will be assembled on the height of the column having a step between them that will be the result of the buckling calculations. For example, there will be 20 supports with the height of 8000m => the step between them will be 8000/20 = 400m. Supporting bits connection is shown in FIG. 34. By combining solutions 1 and 2, as shown in FIG. 35, extra buckling stability can also be provided.

Using space elevators for deployment of space-related technologies would cost much less than rockets. The estimated cost of sending a pound of material into space using a rocket is estimated at $10,000 and a mere $100 using a space elevator (any kind). In an embodiment, the Space elevator towers extends up to the lower earth orbit at about 99 miles or 160 kilometres into space. The space elevator, once extended, provides a launch pad that allows large and heavy space materials to extend into orbit without the need to carry millions of gallons of fuel.

The present invention has been described with a preferred embodiment thereof and it is understood that many changes and modifications to the described embodiment can be carried out without departing from the scope and the spirit of the invention that is intended to be limited only by the appended claims.

 (Patent Pending..)