About The Authors

 

 

In 1978, John Heibel (Masters Degree, Electrical Engineering, U. of Pittsburgh) was hired as lead engineer of a group of 50 scientists and engineers at the General Dymanics M1A2 design facility, Sterling Heights, MI, to conduct the ‘Battlefield Management’ program. The program goal was to create conceptual systems to make the tank survivable on the envisioned year 2000 battlefield. Mr. Heibel hired James Sosville as his co-lead in conceptual design. The primary output of that effort was the FBCB2 system design specification. The Electronic System design group at Fort Monmouth took the specification to Picitiny Arsenal and designed the system.

In 1999, the army conducted a wargames test of the system between two tank battallions. The blue battalion was given the FBCB2 system and the red battalion was given standard warfighting equipment. The results showed that the blue battalion killed twice as many enemy combatants/equipment in half the time. The ‘force-effectiveness improvement’ of the FBCB2 system was calculated at between 1.8 and 2.7. Any system whose calculated force effectiveness improvement is 0.2 or greater is considered for deployment. The FBCB2 number was so startlingly high that it was immediately deployed, and today is standard equipment in all army and marine vehicles, and many air force and navy vehicles.

The FBCB2 system has won many honors/awards, including ‘Most Innovative System’.

The point to be emphasized is that when John Heibel and James Sosville conduct system concept designs, something unexplainable happens. Mr. Sosville’s IQ is estimated at upwards of 135. Mr. Heibel’s is measured at 142 under moderate-to-severe brain damage as the result of an automobile accident. The doctor who consulted Mr. Heibel after the test, commented ‘I wonder what it would have been without the brain damage’. Mr. Heibel is now fully recovered and is currently working with Mr. Sosville on the brain simulation project.

The possible force effectiveness improvement of Mr. Sosville/Heibel’s concepts far exceeds that of the FBCB2 system.

 

About Their Neuroscience Work

Referring to Chapter Twelve of (Cognitive Neuroscience, 4th, 2014) by Gazzaniga.  It deals with the frontal cortex and “cognitive control”.  All notes reflect and repeat what is contained in the first three project papers.  Here is the message: we (authors) ARE amateurs: neuroscience amateurs.  We are experts in Systems Engineering.  We are experts in creating elegant systems to implement complex information processing tasks.  What our papers represent is a Systems Engineer asking “how” an engineer would implement “what” the brain does.  The papers are a blow by blow description of how a Systems Engineer decomposes a problem.  In this case it is a Neuroscience problem: HOW does the brain do things that logically need to happen?  It is a blow by blow description of decomposing WHAT needs to happen, and then formulating a Base Model Architecture to accomplish HOW the postulated WHAT can happen.  That is the contents of the first three papers.  The project has now moved into Phase Two: find out WHAT neuroscientists have concluded is happening based upon their research.  We are finding that the Neuroscience WHATs are remarkable similar to our Engineering WHATs. We are also finding that the Neuroscientists STOP after describing a WHAT and do NOT discuss HOW.  And finally, we are finding that our Engineering HOW Base Model is in large agreement with the WHATs that we are finding in textbooks.  Yes, we are Neuroscience amateurs.  But we are System Engineering experts.  And we are experts in designing systems that work.  Our preliminary research is showing that our engineering instincts are so far producing plausible explanations of HOW the Neuroscience WHATs occur.  Additional papers will detail the correspondence.  It is very important to stress that both Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychology do NOT offer HOW explanations.  Our work is the only HOW explanation that exists.  And it tracks very closely to WHAT the Neuroscientists CLAIM is happening.  Please note that the “working memory” postulated in Chapter Twelve that is necessary for Cognitive Control serves a function that correlates very closely to the Fourier coded “internal representation” of the Base Model Architecture.  This correspondence is only one of the mechanisms that remains to be spelled out in subsequent papers as we proceed with our literature search.  It is also necessary to note that the initial three papers represent the Systems Engineering top-down requirements decomposition methodology.  The papers represent a partial “concept of operation”.  Detailed low level requirements for implementation have not yet been documented.  Therefore, it is acknowledged that we ARE Neuroscience amateurs.  But as Systems Engineer experts, we are defining an architecture at a lower level than has ever before been described by Neuroscientists and yet is in broad agreement in many aspects and also reinterprets much research.  The Base Model Architecture reaches implementation details different from the details INFERRED by Neuroscientists.  Our Base Model Architecture is different from what they have INFERRED precisely because all they have are inferences without a working GESTALT low level architecture.

 

Another example of our approach concerns the question of whether short term memory and long term memory occupy in same or different structures.  We follow (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1971): ” Our account of short-term and long-term storage does not require that the two stores necessarily be in different parts of the brain or involve different physiological structures.  One might consider the short-term store as being a temporary activation of some portion of the long-term store”.  We classify this quote as a “what” without mention of a “how”.  Our Base Model supplies the “how” in terms of an engineering approach to “process to only be revealed to our research team” via either strengthening or weakening of synaptic bindings.  If the bindings are strengthened the traces become long term memory.  If the bindings are not strengthened they fade providing an Occam’s Razor mechanism for selecting which short-term memories become long-term memories and which short-term memories are discarded.  Once again, it is emphasized that our draft Base Model at this time is merely an instrument for intelligent exploration of the neuroscience of the brain.

 

(1) Both authors are professional Contract Systems Engineers;

(2) Our combined professional experience totals more than 110 years;

(3) We are specifically applying our “engineering” experience to solving the neuroscience problem of “situational awareness”;

(4) We are following the professional engineering methodology of “top down” requirements decomposition to set objectives;

(5) That has resulted in a postulated Base Model Architecture that makes sense from an engineering perspective;

(6) We are now engaged in a long term effort to provide “bottom up” evidence that the Base Model makes sense neurologically.

(7) We are restricting our current investigation to “primary awareness”: evaluation of perception, emotion, and prediction based upon experience.  We further restrict our investigation to mechanisms that are required to occur after receipt of a stimulus and before an observable behavioral response.  These are mechanisms required to convert data into information.

(8) We are currently documenting that our Base Model is consistent with Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning;

(9) We are doing literature search for research such as (Nadel and Hardt, 2011) that memory recall “allows us to guide our actions when confronted in the future with same or similar situations” (Gazzaniga, 2014).  We maintain that statements such as these establish “what” is happening.

(10) We then use our professional Systems Engineering experience to explore mechanisms by which we may determine “how” the “what” occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Provide the following information for the key personnel and other significant contributors.
Follow this format for each person.  DO NOT EXCEED FOUR PAGES.

 
NAME

John Heibel

POSITION TITLE

Vice President

eRA COMMONS USER NAME

BIGHEIB

 

EDUCATION/TRAINING  (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education, such as nursing, and include postdoctoral training.)
INSTITUTION AND LOCATION DEGREE

(if applicable)

YEAR(s) FIELD OF STUDY
University of Pittsburgh MSEE 1965 Electrical Engineering
Michigan Technological University BSEE 1961 Electrical Engineering
       
       
       

Positions and Honors

 

JHC Vice President, Engineering – John Heibel
Mr. Heibel, the inventor of the failure predictor and pattern recognizer, is the Chief Engineer of JHC Corporation of Lowell, Mi.  JHC is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and selling the pattern recognition tchnology, used in the company’s monitoring products. Mr. Heibel has worked as a contract engineer for over 30 years. During that time, he has worked part time designing and applying JHC’s machine monitors.

 

Mr. Heibel has managed a group of over 100 engineers, technicians, production managers, and technical writers, in the development of the world’s first flight performance system for Lear Siegler, Inc.

He worked with Boeing and Lufthansa engineers to certify the system with the USA Flight Aviation Authority (FAA) and the German LBA.

 

He led a group of 30 system engineers to define the “battlefield 2000” system performance specifications for the army’s new M1A2 battle tank.  This exposure led to the development of the pattern recognition technology used in the company’s vital signs surveillance system.

 

Prior to this he worked with a staff of engineers to develop the test system for the military’s Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS).

Other relevant experiences include radio transmission spread spectrum techniques, including error correction, interleaving, security, and the managing of hundreds of simultaneous users, all of which will prove invaluable in the task of managing radio data for large numbers of machines.

Familiar with C and Fortran programming languages

Intimate familiarity with (Matlab) & Simulink Simulator

Intimate familiarity with CADENCE tools; SCHEMATIC CAPTURE,  PSPICE and ANALOG WORKBENCH, DOORS, LABVIEW and most methodologies for structured analysis/decomposition of real time systems (DODAF, Yourden & Hatley)

Familiar with all aspects of System Engineering.

Systems Engineering: Extensive.

Avionics/Vetronics Systems Engineering: extensive experience with most avionics systems, both commercial and military.

Communications Systems: Familiar with most military communication systems.

Digital & Analog Circuit Design-extensive in both disciplines

Servo System Design – extensive

Power Supply Design – extensive

Filter Design – extensive

EMI avoidance and noise reduction design techniques – extensive

Extensive experience in design/test/integration of flight management/control systems.

Systems Integration/test: in-depth experience integrating/testing avionics/vetronics systems

Avionics System Analysis: Extensive experience.

Embedded Training  Concept Development – Extensive.

 

Contract Engineering Employment History

Mar 2009 to Present

Design DAQ system for JHC Inc new failure prediction and pattern recognition technology.

Design includes programmable preamps and charge amp, Ethernet interface, CPLD and power supplies.

Jan 2008 to Mar 2009

Established Built-In-Test (BIT) concept for AAR airdrop system (new A400M airbus).

July 2007 to Jan 2008

For JHC Inc, designed; a) an 8 channel data acquisition system, b) charge and programmable gain pre-amplifiers, c) low noise power supplies. Wrote performance specification for the JHC failure prediction system.

Jan 2007 to July 2007

Programmed Matlab/Simulink for Smith Industries Land Navigation System.

June 2006 to Dec 2006

Derived system requirements for, and coordinated efforts of 4 companies to bid the Boeing Centrallized UAV/UGV Controller.

May 2006 to June 2006

Developed concepts and then the system requirements for Embedded Instrumentation in FCS MGV.

March 2003 to May, 2006

JHC Inc, leading a staff of 12 engineers (eventually, a staff of 50+) developing system requirements for the FCS embedded trainer.

Jan 2001 to April 2001

Savannah River (nuclear power) Site, South Carolina. Develop system requirements for the new facility which will convert plutonium and enriched uranium into fuel rods for nuclear power sites throughout the country.

1994 to 2001

Chief Engineer, GenIAS Corp, Lowell, MI.

Developed system requirements for a new line of digitally-controlled systems for vibration and machine monitoring, voice recognition/compression, and medical vital signs monitoring.

May 2000 to Jan 2001

JHC, Grand Rapids, MI. Lead systems engineer of a group of 5 system engineers for Phase II design of the mobility system functions of the light weight Crusader (artillery) Vehicle.

Feb 2000 to May, 2000

Textron Land & Marine Systems, New Orleans.

I999 to Feb, 2000

Consultant to O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Up-Armoring Company..

Aug 1991 to 1993

Contract engineer, JHC, Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich., for a classified project.

Aug 1989 to Aug 1991

Contract engineer, JHC, Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich.

Apr 1987 to July 1989

Contract engineer, JHC Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich., for GE, Huntsville, Ala.

Chief architect of the spread spectrum test control section of the Navy’s new Consolidated Automated Support System (CASS).

Specified design requirements for; 1) spreading code modulator/demodulator, 2) COMSEC (KGV-8) simulator, 3) digital and analog spread spectrum control section. Generated test requirements for the JTIDS communications receiver and control processor. Gained intimate familiarity with data encryption and error correcting techniques, and with RF frequency hopping design.

Feb 1985 to Feb 1986

Contract engineer, JHC Inc., Grand Rapids, Mi., for JHC.

Lead systems engineer in the architecture development of the Battlefield Management System for the M1A2 battle tank. Conducted army crew operations study using army doctrine training manuals. Headed a 22 man design team which wrote the system requirements and specified hardware and man-machine design requirements. Prepared 10 year pre-planned product improvement report for the system, including full battlefield communications coupled with sensor fusion plan. This system eventually became known as the Force Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) system.

Prior to 1985

Technical director at Lear Siegler Inc, responsible for the development and FAA certification of the Performance Data Computer system (forerunner of today’s flight management systems).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JAMES M. SOSVILLE       sos3100@aol.com                         865-776-1104

CONTACT DATA:                5330 Beverly Oaks Drive, Knoxville, TN 37918

 

PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE:

Contract Position on a Systems Engineering Team

 

TOOLS:         DOORS, ROSE, UML

INPUTS:        PCD, PIDS, CIDS

OUTPUTS:    OCD, SADD, SRS, IRS IDD, SIP

 

BEST UTILIZATION:

I am best utilized (a) on a military project, (b) as a member of a Requirements Management Team, (c) utilizing DOORS and UML, (d) so that my software background will complement the hardware orientation of the other team members.  (Note: It is normal for my contract to be extended if work is available.  I have had many call-backs.)

 

SUMMARY OF CAPABILITIES:

Over forty years of participation in development of most aspects of very large computer based systems.  The first 20 years involved heavy software development; the last 20 were primarily assignments as a member of various Systems Engineering teams.

 

Heavy experience on large DOD HW/SW projects requiring (a) team environment, (b) disciplined development, (c) conformance to Capability Maturity Model, (d) use of modern project development technology, (e) heavy interface with government personnel:

  • Development of layered, hybrid, hierarchical autonomous vehicle architectures,
  • Requirements Determination and Management using DOORS;
  • Customer Interface; Software Interface; Hardware Interface;
  • Use Cases and subsequent associated/decomposed UML artifacts;
  • Vehicle Hardware/Software System/Subsystem/Component Vetronics;
  • Layered Software Architecture for autonomous vehicles;
  • Iterative and Incremental Software Development;
  • Object Oriented Software Development.

Accustomed to constantly assimilating large quantities of information, working with diverse groups to determine path forward, and then producing timely product as required

 

Experience is widely varied rather than a few niche specialties:

  • Able to participate effectively on multi-discipline Integrated Product Teams;
  • Able to decompose system requirements thru multiple levels in DOORS;
  • Able to work with Hardware Design Engineers to develop subsystem hardware and software requirements and component software requirements;
  • Able to function effectively in hands-on hardware/software integration laboratory;
  • Able to work with members of  SEPG (metrics and methodology) for CMMI SPI;
  • Able to function as software development team leader.

 

Recent professional experience has been five varied assignments on the Army FCS:

  • System Architecture for Autonomous Navigation System (ANS),
  • Vehicle Management System requirements for Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV);
  • SMART requirements for Integrated Simulation & Test IPT (IS&T);
  • Training requirements for Non-Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C);
  • Vetronics requirements for Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV).

 

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE:

Experience since 1985 with real-time embedded software systems:

  • BCTM Autonomous Navigation System (ANS),
  • FCS Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV),
  • FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV),
  • FCS Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C),
  • Navy DDX Advanced Gun System (AGS),
  • Australian Navy SH2GA Helicopter,
  • European L159 Aircraft Weapons Stores Management,
  • Air Force F117A Upgrade Built-In-Test
  • Real-Time distributed Communications for Internet Service Providers,
  • Navy Consolidated Automated Support System (CASS),
  • Army M1A2 Abrams Tank Inter-Vehicle Information System (IVIS).

 

EDUCATION:

University of Tennessee, Graduate School (between assignments)

Kansas State University, BA Computer Science, 1978

Yale University (Institute of Far Eastern Languages, Korean)

Bowdoin College

 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (since February 1996):

 

University of TN         Knoxville, TN             Graduate Student       03/2010 – Present

  • Formally admitted to UT Graduate School.
  • Currently auditing mathematics classes.
  • Immediate goal is M.S. in Mathematics.

 

Five consecutive assignments on the DoD Army Future Combat System (FCS):

  • GD Robotic Systems Westminster, MD     System Architect    01/2009 – 03/2010
  • BAE Systems      Santa Clara, CA         Systems Engineer    01/2006 – 09/2007
  • SAIC      Vienna, VA                SMART Engineer   08/2005 – 12/2005
  • BAE Systems      Minneapolis, MN       Systems Engineer    04/2005 – 08/2005
  • GD Land Systems Sterling Heights, MI Systems Engineer    01/2004 – 04/2005

 

At GDRS (Westminster, MD), member of Software Architecture team for the BCTM Autonomous Navigation System (ANS) that provides planning, local environment understanding, and mobility guidance for the BCTM MULE vehicle.  Tasks involved use of DOORS, ROSE, and UML to analyze requirements and to prepare for LCA and CDR.

(Note: Contract was extended twice.  Project was defunded after CDR.  I was told by Asst Proj Mgr that our team actually increased productivity after one member retired.)

 

At BAE Systems GSD (Santa Clara, CA), member of Requirements Management team for the FCS Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV).  Duties were to interface with the Lead System Integrator to refine and decompose PIDS requirements in DOORS.  Assigned areas were the Vehicle Management Software (VMS) and Specialty Engineering (Embedded Logistics, Embedded Training, Safety, RAM-T and Integrated Vehicle Health Management).  Tasks involved use of DOORS to decompose requirements.

(Note: Contract was extended.  Project staffing was reduced from 110 to eight after CDR.  I was kept on for another nine months as one of the eight. )

 

At SAIC, as member of Integrated Simulation and Test (IS&T) IPT: assigned to Boeing supervisors (in Huntsville, AL) to develop simulation requirements for FCS Spin-Out 1.

 

At BAE Systems ASD (Minneapolis) Assigned to assist in development of Embedded Training Logical Architecture and Requirements for FCS NLOS-C.

 

At GDLS  member of “Vetronics Architecture and Diagnostics” section for FCS Core Vetronics (CV) Integrated Product Team (IPT).  Assigned to assist working groups for Platform Electronics, Embedded Training, Remote Interface Unit (RIU) Diagnostics, Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM), and PS-MRS.  Duties required knowledge of FCS ORD, FCS Integrated Concepts, FCS MGV PIDS, and FCS Training Common Components.  (Contract was extended.)

 

University of TN         Knoxville, TN             Graduate Student              10/07 – 12/2008

  • Formally admitted to UT Graduate School.
  • Audited various courses in Engineering.

 

Android Networks      Knoxville, TN             Principle Investigator          01/99 – Present

Long term research topic is “by 2034, TRL6 teams of autonomous systems that survive in battlefield situations not previously encountered”.  Premise is that real world dynamic vehicle feedback loop cannot be rigorously pre-planned but must be developed real-time by autonomous vehicles that “understand” static scenes, dynamic scenes, events, and scenarios.  This is to be realized by multiple echelon use of Autonomous Robotic Teams capable of imitation, socialization, understanding, and autogenous learning.  System architecture is a layered approach heavily influenced by 4D/RCS, breve, EINSTein, ECJ, and the works of Minsky, Parunak, and Ron Sun.  System architecture utilizes emergent properties coupled with pattern matching technology not documented in the literature.

 

UDLP                         Minneapolis, MN         Process Improvement    05/00 – 11/01

Supplied by GDAS (Burlington) to work with the AGS-Blue-Cell on proposal for the Advanced Gun System (AGS) for DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer.  Member of AGS-Core Software Process Improvement Team preparing for a CMM Level 3 CBA IPI.

(Note: Contract was extended.  I was kept on for one year after Blue Team disbanded.)

 

 

 

Litton GCS                 Los Angeles, CA          Design Engineer            08/98 – 12/99

On SH2GA Glass Cockpit Helicopter subcontract to KAMAN for Australian Navy, member of team to develop Operational Flight Program (OFP).  Duties required preparation of Use Cases, OOA and OOD using UML and Ada95.

 

Hamilton Standard     Windsor Locks, CT      Design Engineer            07/97 – 06/98

Use of Ada83 for L159 aircraft real-time Stores Management OFP.  On F117A Upgrade, design of architecture for Built-In-Test (SBIT, CBIT, and IBIT).

 

Racal-Datacom           Sunrise, FL                   Software Architect         02/96 – 06/97

Member of software architecture team for distributed development of real-time embedded communications server targeted at the Internet Service Provider market.

 

OTHER:

Lockheed-Martin Orlando, FL                          Design Engineer                   03/95 – 12/95

Simmonds Prec    Burlington, VT                     Design Engineer                   08/93 – 11/93

GDLS                     Sterling Heights, MI            Design Engineer                   02/92 – 04/93

Android Netwks   Knoxville, TN                       Principal Investigator          1991 – 1994

General Electric    Huntsville, AL                      Design Engineer                   11/87 – 05/91

GDLS                     Sterling Heights, MI            Systems Engineer                04/85 – 04/87

CIS                         Manhattan, KS                    Director, Spec Projects        10/83 – 04/85

ARAMCO             Saudi Arabia                        Systems Engineer                01/82 – 09/83

TVA                       Knoxville, TN                       Systems Engineer                12/80 – 01/82

Union Carbide      Charleston, WVA Software Engineer               04/80 – 12/80

TVA                       Knoxville, TN                       Software Engineer               09/78 – 04/80

Kansas State        Manhattan, KS                    Full Time Student                09/77 – 08/78

FACSO, NCBC    Port Hueneme, CA              Sole Source Contract          09/75 – 08/77

Ball State              Muncie, IN                            Full Time Student                09/74 – 08/75

Rand Info Sys      San Francisco, CA               Conversion Specialist         02/72 – 08/74

OICC/RVN           Saigon/Port Hueneme        GS-11 and GS-12                03/68 – 01/72

RMK-BRJ             Saigon, Vietnam                  Programmer                          07/66 – 12/67

 

Foreign assignments have included:

  • Two military tours in Korea (1961 – 1963),
  • Five years in Vietnam (1966-1970), and

Eighteen months in Saudi Arabia (1982