Click to see the list of links
Department of Mathematical Sciences Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043
% A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 P1 P2 P3 sqr(P3) 1 0 4.59e17 9.06e19 1.36e18 1.81e18 -2.04e15 4.54e17 1.52e31 3.90e15 10 0 4.53e17 9.61e17 1.39e18 1.91e18 -2.04e16 4.88e17 1.52e33 3.90e16 30 0 4.61e17 1.09e18 1.49e18 2.31e18 -6.14e16 5.65e17 1.36e34 1.17e17 60 0 4.71e17 1.27e18 1.62e18 2.82e18 -1.22e17 6.81e17 5.48e34 2.34e17 mx 0 5.51e17 9.82e17 1.36e18 1.85e18 -6.14e15 4.61e17 1.36e32 1.17e16 I see that P1 is negative in all sets. This might be due to the suspected typing error (ommision of A2 from the definition of P1). Journal of New Energy, as far as I know, does not filter publications through the peer review process. The last column shows square roots of P3. In the published paper that parameter is labeled as sigma; it does not differ from P2 by as much as P3 does. According to Bass, the experiment is successful when P1<<P2 and when sigma<<P2/2. I cannot comment on these inequalities without knowing that published definitions do not suffer from typing errors. For the time being I simply observe that, in the 60% set, sigma is NOT MUCH smoller than P2. I am confident that the trivial Monte Carlo code (shown below) has no errors. If I were asked to peer-review Robert’s paper I would first insist on the removal of the ambiguity from the definition of P3. Then I would ask for the confirmation that printed definitions of parameters P1 and P2 contain no typing errors. If I were assured that definitions of P1, P2 and P3, in the Monte Carlo code below, are consistent with the protocol then I would suspect that the protocol is not reliable. My recommendation (to the editor of the journal) would be to send the manuscript to a statistician able to examine the mathematical derivation of the protocol. 4) Final commentsa) My guess about the definition of P3, as used in the code, might not be valid. If this is true then I would like to receive the correct definition. It will not be difficult to modify my code and to generate a new table of simulated results. I would be glad to do this. b) Note that Robert’s protocol does not depend of explicit values of E0, E1, E2, E3 and E4. My results, on the other hand, show that relations between P1, P2 and P3 do depend on the imposed random fluctuations. This troubles me. But I cannot take anything seriously without being certain that definitions of P1, P2 and P3, in the Monte Carlo code, have no errors. c) My Monte Carlo code, in True Basic, should be readable by a person familiar with programming in any procedural language, such as Fortran or Pascal. That is why I am listing the code below. Be aware that in True Basic exclamation signs identify comments. The tiny code was written to emphasize readability, not compactness. Comments concerning simulations would be appreciated. Program robert_bass ! Coded by Ludwik Kowalski (July of 2005) ! *********************** dim A(0 to 4) ! place holders for A0, A1, A2, A3 and A4 dim D(0 to 4) ! for durations of five experiments in hours let E0=0.1 ! this means 10% let E1=0.1 let E2=0.1 let E3=0.1 let E4=0.1 let wattage=10 let D(0)=0 ! five durations (in hours) let D(1)=2 let D(2)=4 let D(3)=6 let D(4)=8 let rate=2.25e16*wattage ! expected atoms/hour for j=0 to 4 let r=rnd ! random number between -1 and +1 let A(j)=(rate+r*E0*rate)*D(j) ! simulated A0, A1, A2, A3 and A4 next j let P1=(3*A(0)+2*A(1)+A(2)-A(4))/5 ! P1 was dA in Robert’s paper let P2=(A(3)+2*A(4)-2*A(0)-A(1))/10 ! P2 was deltaA in his paper let P30 = (A(0) - P1 - 0*P2)^2 let P31 = (A(1) - P1 - 1*P2)^2 let P32 = (A(2) - P1 - 2*P2)^2 ! five components of the sum (to get P3) let p33 = (A(3) - P1 - 3*P2)^2 let P34 = (A(4) - P1 - 4*P2)^2 let P3=(P30+P31+P32+P33+P34)/3 ! P3 was sigma squared in the paper print "A0=";A(0);" A1=";A(1);" A2=";A(2);" A3=";A(3);" A4=";A(4) print "P1=";P1;" P2=";P2;" P3=";P3
Click to see the list of links |