From: "K4YZ" on Thurs,Apr 14 2005 2:40 am

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Wed,Apr 13 2005 1:16 am
wrote:
From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am

Regardless of how much you "believe" the above to be
true, for the purposes of argument in here you must reveal
the name of that person or PUT IT AWAY. I was visiting NADC
34 years ago as an employee of RCA Corporation and stayed
there a total of three months. The former Naval Air
Development Center, NOT NAS Warminster across the road.
I had daily contact with only three NADC engineers in
that group and NONE of them would be "your acquaintence."

Your freedom of speech allows you to verbalize any statement you
care to make, Lennie.

Saying it does not make it true.

You were useless to them. Period.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You don't know anything about what took
place on three successive R&D jobs where NADC was the test
agency for evaluation of SECANT (the RCA acronym for the
anti-collision system back then).

At NO time was I doing anything "for" NADC. NADC was the
federal test agency for that project and a similar one of
Minneapolis-Honeywell. My employer was RCA and that remained
so until 1975. As a field engineer I was representing RCA
for technical support of RCA equipment under test. NADC had
the aircraft and air crews available in 1971 and were directed
by Naval Air System Command to perform the testing of RCA's
and Minny-Honey's systems. USN was requested by the U.S.
government to do the testing (as a disinterested third-
party) and the USN passed that to Systems who passed it to
NADC.

SECANT (SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non-
synchronous Techniques) performed well on the air-to-air
testing, as did the Minneapolis-Honeywell system. The data
acquisition and data-reduction by NADC was deemed costly (to
NADC) so that group was directed to employ tape-recording
of data instead of using the old-style (at the time) of
phototheater recording on synchronized motion-picure film.
The government and USN suggested some slight alterations in
threat logic used to provide avoidance manuever warnings as
well and both corporations agreed to do a second generation
of collision avoidance equipment to be tested in 1973. This
generation included bring-outs of signals and logic states
to be tape-recorded in a multi-channel tape unit. That
second generation equipment was successfully flight-tested
but I was spared having to be the on-site field engineer.
I did participate in some of the design on that generation
and did work with the principal NADC engineering crew that
visited Van Nuys (twice) before 2nd gen testing began.

Based on the results of that 2nd gen flight test, RCA was
requested to and awarded a contract for a third generation,
this time representing a "preproduction" airborne version.
A "prepro" is as close as can be to a final production
prototype and includes as many specialized circuits as
would be considered for a production model. That was done
by mid-1975 and I was responsible for the 8-channel (pulse)
receiver, front-end to video out (1.6 GHz RF band then) plus
co-designer of the (non-flyable) checkout set which presented
simulated air-traffic signals to evaluate crowded conditions.
Jim Hall, KD6JG, was immediate group manager and Al Walston,
W6MJN, was both my office cubicle sharer and the designer on
the transmitter (pulse) portion. Packaging shrunk from 3
full-ATR cases of generation 1 to the quarter-ATR single-case
of the 3rd generation. Three 3rd generation SECANTs were
done and checked out, ready for shipment to PA, when the
U.S. government (likely through FAA) canceled any further
work or testing on a new aircraft anti-collision system.
The government decided on adopting a relatively untried
hodge-podge system devised by MIT which supposedly fit
inside the RF spectrum of present-day ATCRBS frequencies.

Now suck it up and move along,
old man! You ran your mouth off about all your hot jobs.

Wasn't a "hot" job. Was an everyday kind of design job.

It was "hot" only in the SAW filters used to make it
possible to have "brick-wall" response matched filters
in a terribly small size in the 50 to 65 MHz region.
RCA corporate back east funded one of the labs there to
do the design and aluminum deposition on quartz plates
(first time I ever put a purchase order in on BLANK
quartz...kind of a novelty). In 1974 that was truly
state of the art. Once they were shipped in to Van Nuys
I had to mount them on something...RTV on epoxy PCB with
compression-bonding wires connecting aluminum film
contact ends to PCB lands. Luckily, Van Nuys had a
good thin-film lab at the time. Skirt response on the
filters was (to me) unbelievable...50 db drop in less
than 100 KHz at the edges, very nearly flat across the
top in the mid-VHF range.

You happened
to drop one name where I had an "in". I found you out.

Steve Robeson was *NEVER* "in" on either the RCA or
Minneapolis-Honeywell aircraft anti-collision systems.
Steve Robeson wan't even AT NADC in 1971 to 1975. He
was a jarhead who never got beyond Warminster NAS on
the other side of the road A DECADE LATER.


You are living in some fantasy again. Reset.

Reset yourself, old man. About 50 years worth.

No, just two hours worth...had a good sandwich for lunch
and it tasted like more. I'll settle for another cup of
coffee, though. :-)

Tsk. I have a copy of the FINAL report on SECANT. I
helped write it (name is on the cover). NOWHERE in there
is any mention of any "Steve Robeson" as part of the
government personnel at NADC. The document identifier is
VNES-74-TR-001 and was then marked "company confidential."
It's somewhere in the General Electric archives now.
Considering it is 31 years later, I doubt that presence
of the revealed document number is going to hurt the
RCA Corporation. :-)


That you try and redirect from YOUR misfortunes by making such
claims is ludicrous and transparent.

Tsk. Lil Stevie can't name detail one on what went down
at NADC, has NO knowledge of the SECANT or Minny-Honey
System testing. You can't even name the military aircraft
at the NAS or which ones were used for anti-collision
testing. [one was shared with NAVSTAR...which would later
become GPSS...:-) ] Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I had all the "proof" I need, Lennie.

A third party with no allegience to protect. A man with a
professional reputation that I can bank on.

You have BOGUS "proof." Non-existant. That "acquaintence"
doesn't exist. You made him up.

Nope.

What I TRULY know is that YOU find it hard to believe that there
really are people in the world who didn't develop a life-long devotion
to your wisdom, knowledge and skill.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-) The only person "devoted to me" is my
wife...as I am devoted to her. Nothing else is requested in
life. The only "credential" needed is that marriage
certificate. :-)

He didn't know you "a decade after (you were) there". He knew
you
WHEN you were there.

Amazing. After a total of six trips to NADC and a total
time there of about three months, this (fantasy) person
"knows" me? 34 years AFTER the fact?!? :-)

Incredulosity uber alles! :-)


And I do not name him because I protect his privacy at his
request.

1. You can't name him because he doesn't exist.

I WON'T name him becasue I promised.

Total BULL****, bluffmeister! :-)


2. The ONLY thing you are protecting is your own
bragging LIE about that fantasy individual.

That is not a truthful statement. And no matter how many more
times you repeat it, Lennie, it STILL will NOT be true.

Sweetums, NOBODY can "prove" the non-existance of a
non-existant entity. NOBODY. :-)

All you have is a BLUFF. A LIE. :-)

3. "Protecting privacy" is totally bogus. Rationalization
expressed to attempt masking your own LIE.

No rationalization. A promise to a friend.

QUIT bull****ting us, Little Big Man. You tried a BLUFF.
You CANNOT BACK IT UP. :-)

Name the department this (fantasy) "friend" worked in at
NADC. Name some DETAILS that ONLY an NADC worker would
know. You have NOT revealed a thing.

I have no reason to doubt his assessment or opinion.

You probably believe your own fantasy. To you it is
"truth." To everyone else it is just your fantasy.

Again, Lennie, you may repeate that over and over if you think it
will salve your ego...But the bottom line is that people at NADC did
not find you very effective.

No problem! I WILL "repeate" it (better, I'll just repeat
it) that I could care less how "that [sic] people at NADC
did not find..." I never worked for NADC, never worked for
the USN as a civilian, never even applied for any job at
NADC. :-) I was an employee of RCA Corporation at the time
and REMAINED an employee until the RCA shut-down of the Van
Nuys, CA, Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems Division's
Position Locating Systems Group in November, 1975.

My "word" is bogus to YOU since claiming it is so is the ONLY way
you have of escaping the fact that you ran your mouth off one time too
many.

Your "word" is bogus. Period. You can't name a thing about
that (fantasy) "reference" individual...not a thing about
what went on at NADC in 1971-1975, not a thing about any
other projects under Naval Air Systems Command then.

You are FABRICATING a falsity. You have NO references
except what I reveal. YOU can't describe a damn thing
except your bogus "outrage" at "not being believed." :-)

Provide this "name." Without it you have a bogus
"reference" that means nothing.

Here's a name that is bogus and means nothing: Leonard H.
Anderson.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Emotionalism and name-calling.

Not to worry. Your buddies Jimmie Miccolis and Davie Heil
will support you. PCTA extra Double Standard MUST be
operative to you and them! :-)

You are SICK and need help. Go get some.

I am quite well, thank you. You, on the otherhand, still have
issues to deal with.

No "issues to deal with." Haven't submitted any
manuscripts to any publications having "issues" in the
last year. Not expecting any proofs on those. :-)

Accepting that not everyone thinks you're the
genius and expert YOU think you are is one of them.

Poor baby. Getting all petulant and snoddy again?

I COULD CARE LESS. :-)

Electrons, fields and waves don't much care for human
emotions like "love" or "personal desire." One works
by THEIR laws, not yours, not by somebody else's ideas.

Similarly, when trying to "prove" someone "wrong," you
have to REALLY PROVE them by REAL references, details,
information, VERIFIABLE sources. Trying to use some
unspecified, unnamed imaginary person is just bluffing
BULL****. Quit doing that. You will be better off
doing so.

You're outted, Lennie. Get over it.

Tsk. I was out this morning. Nice day. Still is.
Tomorrow will be a repeat of that. I will not "get
over it," since I like that kind of weather. :-)

Let me just repeat what your buddie Jimmie Miccolis
used to write in he "It ain't bragging if ya done
it!" Okay, I did it.

Not only that, I KNOW what was done and have valid
references as to what I did there. Not a problem to me.
Seems to be a helluva problem to you, though, and you
have your psychotic imagination in afterburner and you
can't get off the ground. Tsk, tsk.

Get some mental help. You need it.