The authors of AUSTAL claim to have calculated time series, according to which the stationary concentration distribution should have set uniformly for all test cases after 10 days. But they were unable to calculate time series and are misleading the public.
Fraud and falsification in science Fraud and falsification in science are untrue claims, invented or falsified research results that are published intentionally, i.e. with fraudulent intent, by scientists. This includes, in particular, falsification of data and measurement results, for example the removal of outliers in regression processes as well as untruthful reports and publications. Not wanting to be aware of research results that contradict the prevailing opinion or appear to be contradictory, and tendentious reporting as well as the omission of data constitute less serious behavior ", Deliberate manipulation of measured values) as well as cooking (" fining "of results by leaving out deviating measured values) a classification of the forms of fraud that is still valid today. Fraud in science also includes plagiarism and the publication of the work of ghostwriters under their own names. In these cases, the information published may still be correct. Universities and research institutions try to counter such incidents by adopting “principles of good scientific practice” and measures to “deal with scientific misconduct”. Fraud and counterfeiting in science has also been made an issue in the history of science in recent years.
Those 2021: Wikipedia
AUSTALISMUS
From 2002 onwards, the author of this homepage occasionally deals with the validity of the reference solutions of the dispersion model for air pollutants AUSTAL2000 and from 2014 onwards. The authors of AUSTAL2000 include the plasma physicist Lutz Janicke, who received his doctorate in 1970, and the atomic optician Ulf Janicke, who also graduated in 1997. At the University of Konstanz, they receive basic and specialist training in mathematics and natural sciences. University graduates are able to familiarize themselves with related disciplines. Only a few graduates fail to do this.
* 1It is known that the development of dispersion models requires in-depth knowledge in the areas of momentum, heat and mass transfer as well as numerical fluid mechanics. But the fact that no graduate of these sciences was among the authors of the AUSTAL2000 had always been regarded as strange. Graduates like to take advantage of this opportunity to graduate. In this way, the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), which commissioned the AUSTAL2000, could have had the results of this non-university research assessed academically. The Federal Environment Agency decides differently and does without university standards. This decision is remarkable, because one should have made sure that plasma physicists and atomic opticians have the necessary knowledge to develop propagation models. This procedure would have been common, because in other cases of the award of contracts it is a matter of course that the contractor has to prove professional competence, skills and abilities to the client. One could also have expected that the later authors of the AUSTAL2000 would have acquired the relevant knowledge on their own. The author of this website must, however, certify that these efforts by the authors of the AUSTAL2000, including their specialist guides, have not yet been successful. But if the UBA believed that the authors of the AUSTAL2000 had come to terms with the work Axenfeld et al. (1984) already qualified for this, one should at least later have recognized in an in-depth examination that there was no reason for a leap of faith. On the contrary, the authors of AUSTAL, as plasma physicists and atomic opticians, have not yet succeeded in familiarizing themselves with the field of knowledge of the spread of air pollutants. Two academics who are not very competent in these fields claim that they can model the spread of air pollutants in the atmosphere, and an even less competent UBA supervisor attests to the pseudoscientific views of these career changers with the highest level of science. This circumstance would hardly be worth mentioning if the UBA had not pursued the intention with broad expectations and great confidence to harmonize all procedures and methods of air pollution control in the Federal Republic of Germany. With these far-reaching claims, one could have expected more care. Any critical expressions of opinion are justified and not objectionable.
* 2 With the non-university UFOPLAN research, the UBA would like to achieve that the European air pollution control policy is transferred into national law. This includes standardized standards, methods and procedures with which the air quality can be assessed diagnostically and prognostically. The intention to develop a national dispersion model for this purpose, which sets standards for all authors of model developments, is to be welcomed, but it must be ensured that the algorithms required for this have to take into account the state of science and technology. As the organizers of non-university research, you bear all responsibility for this. But if the authors of the AUSTAL2000 in Axenfeld et al. (1984) can claim against all doctrines that “... a pillar standing on the surface of the earth, which contains the material suitable for deposition, runs dry by deposition”, they confirm that they have not understood the physics and mathematics of the spread of air pollutants. With this view of the authors of the AUSTAL2000 that deposition means loss and not retention, it cannot be asserted that they are capable of carrying out work in the field of modeling and calculating the spread of air pollutants. Today, after 31 years, only a few can quantify the research effort for AUSTAL2000. However, the time has already progressed too far for one to be able to cast around without a loss of authority and competence. In this way, one opposes any criticism in an authoritarian manner using all means and becomes increasingly entangled in contradictions.
* 3With the assertion that by deposition one understands loss and not storage, one wanted to describe the dispersion calculations for air pollutants, deposition and sedimentation and to harmonize them in the Federal Republic from the beginning. However, it turns out that the authors of the AUSTAL2000 hold incorrect views on the spread of air pollutants. As can be seen today, the harmonization of all dispersion calculations with the unreliable theories of the authors of the AUSTAL2000 has had disastrous consequences. The level of science that existed back then is still denied today. The wrong theories are still being propagated at present by a federal environmental agency endowed with all state authority. The negative consequences of the harmonization demanded by the UBA include, for example, undesirable developments in the field of non-university research due to the lack of scientific and thoroughness, loss of quality in guideline work as well as questionable issues in the work of experts and jurisprudence.
4 * The focus of all publications of the UBA in the following period is the description and dissemination of the fateful pseudoscientific propagation theory of the authors of the AUSTAL2000. This false theory formed the scientific basis for developing their propagation model. This algorithm should be able to determine the distribution of all possible air pollutants, such as dust, traffic emissions, industrial emissions, odors, heavy gases, aviation pollutants and radionuclides, in the atmosphere. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 do not leave out any pollutants for which their model should not be responsible. However, they ignore physical peculiarities, such as the interaction between atmosphere and heavy gas in the case of heavy gas spread, the odor-specific diffusion of the spread of odors, the balancing of all decay products in the case of the distribution of radionuclides and the time-dependent emission and spread behavior of moving point sources in the case of aviation pollutants . The physical basics are not described in any publications or program descriptions. Because you know that you are being sponsored by the state, the authors of AUSTAL2000 care little about scientific thoroughness.
5 * Occasionally, concerns about the validity of the AUSTAL2000 become known early on, but the authors of the AUSTAL2000 and the UBA can successfully reject them. The situation will only change in 2014. It is recognized that all reference solutions of this model development are wrong, Schenk (2014a). All objections to AUSTAL2000 are published extensively by the author of this website. The Federal Environment Agency vigorously contradicts this. At least after this point in time, the UBA wrongly counts itself among the authors of the AUSTAL2000 after 31 years. In particular, he is the author of the UBA publications Trukenmüller (2016) and Trukenmüller (2017). The suspicion that the weight of state authority is trying to silence critics has not yet been dispelled. The author of Trukenmüller (2016) and Trukenmüller (2017), who also works as a specialist guide for the AUSTAL2000, raises considerable doubts about his claim. It is unbelievable that he could somehow have been involved in the development of algorithms for calculating the spread of air pollutants in the past and present. Either you are responsible for dispersion calculations in the UBA and cannot be one of the authors of the AUSTAL2000, or you are a co-author of the AUSTAL2000 software development and can only fulfill your tasks in the UBA to a limited extent. Other constructions are also conceivable. In fact, he takes on the task of defending the pseudoscientific theories of the actual authors of the AUSTAL2000 and their bad reputation with the weight of his office. Critics should understand that they not only scold the actual authors of the AUSTAL2000, but also have to reckon with UBA sanctions. For example, in Trukenmüller (2017) the author of this website is asked to recognize the Janicke Convention, otherwise any further discussion is declared over. "Well! They know what's going on," one rudely implies. The author of this homepage does not claim, however, that he should have understood this request that it would be better to join the protagonists of the AUSTAL2000.
6 * The events around AUSTAL2000, its emergence and distribution as well as the formulated claims and assigned importance can rightly be described as Austalism. The following features prove that this is a deceptive Austalism:
Denial of the state of science,
such as Berljand's theory for modeling the spread of air pollutants, and the advocacy of Janicke's theory of propagation, according to which deposition means loss and not retention.
Decades of unhindered dissemination of pseudoscientific views,
For example, with the period of more than 31 years in which the authors of AUSTAL2000 and editors of their own journals in it and in VDI guidelines as well as in the context of a large number of research projects and model developments funded by the UBA spread their false propagation theory and as organizers of a non-university UBA Research were able to continue their pseudoscientific theories.
Abuse of state authority,
in which one tries to silence critics with the weight of state authority, as for example with the publication Trukenmüller et al. (2015), in which 14 authors with officially appointed functions, such as those responsible for dispersion calculations at the UBA, sworn and non-obligated experts, senior employees in state environmental offices, former heads of cross-national working groups for immission control, representatives of trade supervisory offices, meteorologists and those responsible for immission control selected engineering offices, can falsely spread that deposition means loss and not storage, as well as the author of the publications, Trukenmüller (2016) and Trukenmüller (2017), with falsification and ignorance, tries to reject all objections to the validity of the AUSTAL2000 dispersion model.
Slander and disparagement,
For example with the publication UBA (2015), in which one knowingly assumes with all government authority that their correct solutions can be traced back to physical incomprehension, although one contradictingly wants to prove in the publication Trukenmüller (2016) that it would lead to the correct solutions According to Schenk (2015) there is an equivalence, and with the publications Trukenmüller (2017), in which an attempt is made to defame and belittle critics of the pseudoscientific views of the authors of the AUSTAL2000.
With the publication Trukenmüller et al. (2015) the UBA convincingly provides all evidence that the Prudoscientific views of the authors of the AUSTAL2000 are supported by a large number of offices, administrative bodies and research associations in the Federal Republic and are generally prescribed by the UBA for the service sector. The existence of Australianism cannot be denied.
AUSTAL's rise "The story of AUSTAL2000 began almost exactly 21 years ago. At the NATO-CCMS conference in San Francisco at the end of August 1981, I had just presented my approach to Lagrange modeling in inhomogeneous turbulence, at the same time as the corresponding work by Wilson and Legg & Raupach, and thus kept a promise that I had given Hanna at the previous year's conference in Amsterdam The preparations for the TA Luft 1983 were still ongoing, but those involved were already considering how the TA Luft should continue in the medium and long term.
So after the conference we sat down in the small town of Kirkwood, in the mountains east of Jackson, to put our ideas together in a workshop (as part of the UBA project "Handbook of Immission Forecast") We were: Werner Klug, Paul Lühring, Rainer Stern, Robert Yamartino and I. The key points of the long-term concept, which should extend 5 to 7 years into the future, were among others:
- Turning away from weather statistics, instead simulating individual situations from a time series; dispensing with classifications and switching to continuous meteorological parameters (e.g. Monin-Obukhov length); replacing the Gaussian model with a Lagrange model; taking topographical effects into account; modeling the conversion from NO to NO2. Better modeling of dust dispersion and deposition.
After more than 21 years, the new TA Luft, which came into force on October 1st, 2002, has implemented essential points of the concept at that time. Perhaps we should meet again in the mountains to consider how the TA Luft propagation model should be further developed over the next 20 years. "
Source 2021: Federal Environment Agency, Lutz Janicke, 09/30/2002
Consequences for Science
“With AUSTAL2000, the Federal Environment Agency is providing a public reference solution. It can be used for practical applications as well as for a review of other programs, which are assigned the property of implementing the calculation method according to Annex 3 of the TA Luft ”.
"In connection with the revision of Appendix 3, the computer program AUSTAL2000 ... was created (UFOPLAN project 200 43 256 - Development of a model-based assessment system for plant-related immission control", engineer - Janicke office on behalf of the Federal Environment Agency) ".
"This is to be understood as a service with which a quality-assuring and harmonizing effect in connection with the dispersion calculation should be developed right from the start".
Source 2021: Federal Environment Agency
* The AUSTAL2000 dispersion model is declared a reference program on which other model developments are to be validated and checked. The reference solutions provided in the VDI (2000) are used for this purpose. With the computer program AUSTAL2000 the intention is to harmonize all dispersion calculations in the Federal Republic from the beginning and to ensure a high quality. The claims formulated here to use uniform specifications with regard to comparability and standards are not objectionable. In the case of the AUSTAL2000 dispersion model, however, comparability, correct reference solutions and uniform standards require recognition of the state of the art in science. Neither is applicable in the case of AUSTAL2000. The reference solutions violate all basic laws of mathematics and mechanics, and the authors of the AUSTAL2000 deny the state of the art.
* In the years 2000 and 2001, two UBA workshops will be held, where this new model development will be presented to participants from universities and colleges, state offices for environmental protection and selected engineering offices. It should be noted here that other high-quality model developments in the Federal Republic of Germany are basically the result of university research with simultaneous graduation. But the situation is different here. Academic assessment and university standards are dispensed with. Obviously, at the end of the workshop, the authors of the AUSTAL2000 were satisfied with a note in the minutes that none of those present had raised any objections to their model development. Attempts to harmonize the auditorium in this way are preferably only known from major events with a large presidium and directional speeches.
* The engineering office Janicke from Überlingen was commissioned by the UBA to develop this model, although the responsible department of the UBA should have known that plasma physicists and atomic opticians do not have the textbook knowledge required to model and calculate the spread of air pollutants. Despite all reservations, this engineering office has been entrusting all development work to the AUSTAL2000 from 1984 to the present. The decision to leave quality assurance to the authors of the AUSTAL2000 at the same time proves to be disastrous. Development and quality assurance are absurdly in one hand. Because the UBA is convinced of the correctness of the decision made and feels above all doubt, it is not surprising that the unsuitability of this model development only becomes public after about 30 years. Due to the requirement that all model developments in the Federal Republic of Germany have to prove that they are equivalent to the AUSTAL2000 dispersion model developed in this way, any non-university research in the field of modeling the dispersion of air pollutants has been blocked since 2002. How should other model developers be able to prove equivalence when all reference solutions of the AUSTAL2000 are wrong and contradict all recognized principles of mathematics and mechanics. The demands of the UBA for equivalence require all model developers to recognize Janicke's false propagation theory. The author of this website is also asked to do so in Trukenmüller (2016).
Not all engineering offices can be harmonized from the start and willingly accept sanctions. The Austalism of the UBA calls into question all science in the field of dispersion calculations.
Suspected Austalism Fraudulent Features
In the case of the AUSTAL2000, all characteristics of fraud and forgery are presumably applicable. This includes:
Alleged use of pseudoscientific theories
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 are creators and advocates of pseudoscientific theories that contradict the state of the art, such as the Janicke Convention. The validity of Berljand's theory of propagation, sedimentation and deposition is denied. The term deposition is misunderstood as loss and not storage, Schenk (2018b).
Alleged purposeful deception and cover-up
In 1984 the Janicke Convention was written down as a pseudoscientific doctrine, according to which “... a column standing on the surface of the earth, which contains the material suitable for deposition, runs dry through deposition”, Axenfeld et al. (1984). 37 years will have passed by 2021. Even today you can read in the responsible VDI (2000) how the authors of the AUSTAL2000 wrote down their pseudoscientific theory and disseminated it publicly. With unprecedented determination, a building of deception, manipulation and trickery was built presumably over 37 years, as was demonstrated in Schenk (2020). With the weight of state authority and skill it is secured against all criticism. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 write their own VDI guidelines themselves in order to be able to refer to them later as if it were textbook knowledge, Trukenmüller et al. (2015).
Alleged abuse of state authority and defamation
Dress, the authors of the AUSTAL2000 were able to convince the UBA that plasma physicists and atomic opticians know very well about the modeling and spread of air pollutants. In all reports and publications, the authors of the AUSTAL2000 give the impression that they have established themselves well at the UBA. They declare that they do not carry out any dispersion calculations themselves. You don't want to compete with other engineering firms. Why should thermodynamicists and fluid mechanics believe that plasma physicists and atomic opticians could compete with them in the field of modeling and calculating the spread of air pollutants? Thermodynamics and fluid mechanics would not presumably pretend that they can describe the movement of atoms in light fields and toroidal equilibrium states in plasmas. The authors of the AUSAL2000 lose all standards. The question must also be answered, why do model developers not want to use their own algorithms? You should have the greatest interest in gaining experience and practical knowledge with your own model development. The Federal Environment Agency does not accept any orders to carry out dispersion calculations. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 like to do the same. The UBA becomes jointly liable at an early stage. When in 2015 strong criticism of the AUSTAL2000 dispersion model became public for the first time, the UBA employee responsible for dispersion calculations and specialist supporter of AUSTAL2000 declared himself to be co-authors of AUSTAL2000. Here, too, the intention is presumably to intimidate critics. State authority is allegedly abused. Doubters are slandered and belittled, UBA (2015).
Presumably unlimited government funding
Because of the high priority and state expectations in the field of air pollution control, one can count on unlimited donations.
Alleged deception, manipulation and falsification
Research data to the contrary are presumably manipulated and falsified, as explained, for example, in the case of the calculation of sedimentation and deposition in Schenk (2018) and Schenk (2020). Because, due to Janicke's convention, for example, there are no calculation equations available for simulating soil concentrations, these are presumably determined by manipulation. Three-dimensional expansion spaces are defined, but only zero-dimensional solutions are given. Three-dimensional calculations are presumably faked. Although it is claimed that time series can be calculated, transient solutions are not given in a single case. Cheating, manipulating and tricking are presumably the preferred tools of the trade for the authors of the AUSTAL2000.
The following examples are intended to substantiate the alleged misrepresentation, manipulation and falsification.
In Janicke (2002), the authors of AUSTAL2000 claim to have taken S57 sources at a height of 200 m into account, but in the course of the concentration distributions it is not possible to identify high-altitude sources in a single case Janicke (2000), S33, Figure 8, for example. They falsify correct concentration distributions. *
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 want to validate their algorithm with a 3D wind field and use the rigid rotation of a solid in the plane, as can be read for example in Janicke (2002). They do not know the difference between frictionless potential flows and frictional wind movements. The authors of AUSTAL simulate a comparison of their solutions with a 3D wind field.
The authors of AUSTAL2000 claim that stationary concentration distributions only occur when there are no external forces acting, Janicke (2002). They confuse mass balances with force equations and presumably simulate solutions to the force equations.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 claim that vibrations occur at the area boundaries of a control room, but this does not allow the solution of stationary boundary value problems of the authors of the AUSTAL2000, Janicke (2002) and Janicke (2000). They do not care about the stability, convergence and consistency of their algorithms and presumably pretend to use a numerically stable procedure.
The authors of AUSTAL2000 claim that a linear combination of two wind fields results in a valid wind field again, Janicke et al. (2002). They do not know that wind fields are described by nonlinear differential equations of the second degree, which prohibits any linear combination. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 presumably manipulate three-dimensional wind fields at their discretion.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 lecture on Clausius and Boltzmann, but confuse process-technical homogenization with thermodynamic diffusion Trukenmüller et al. (2015) and Janicke (2002). They falsify thermodynamic knowledge.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 use "volume sources distributed over the entire calculation area" for a three-dimensional expansion space. They do not know that they are only describing the filling of any container in a zero-dimensional manner, Janicke (2002), Janicke (2000) and Schenk (2015b). The authors of the AUSTAl2000 cannot even consider material parameters. No doubt, however, it is claimed that three-dimensional dispersion calculations are carried out. The reader is presumably fooled into performing three-dimensional calculations
The authors of AUSTAL2000 explain that pollutant particles cannot "see" and therefore want to penetrate solid buildings Janicke (Internet, S13). They disguise their sloppy programming techniques and presumably falsify algorithms.
The authors of AUSTAL2000 define deposition speeds as desired, Truckenmüller (2016), Truckenmüller (2017). They do not know that the deposition speed is a material constant, as can be read in Schenk (2020). The authors of AUSTAL2000 presumably falsify Berljand's boundary condition.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 want to bring about an equivalence to the correct reference solutions according to Schenk (2015a), which is why they have to manipulate the deposition speeds, Trukenmüller (2016). But you explain beforehand in Trukenmüller et al. (2015) that the solutions according to Schenk (2015a) are wrong and can be traced back to a physical misunderstanding. The deceptive intent of the authors of the AUSTAL2000 is easy to see. One time they declare the solutions according to Schenk (2015a) to be wrong, and another time one tries to prove equivalence in a twisting manner to them. Deceiving, manipulating and tricking is presumably the preferred tool of the trade for the authors of the AUSTAL2000.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 abuse the reputation of nationally and internationally recognized scholars. For example, you claim in Tukenmüller (2017) that 22 authors would use Janicke's convention just like they do themselves. A study of all literature sources, however, brings the result that this assertion has not come true in a single case, Schenk (2020). The authors of the AUSTAL2000 presumably deceive the reader that their theory is recognized worldwide.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 use "volume sources distributed over the entire calculation area" and receive indefinite expressions for the calculation of soil concentrations. They do not recognize that one cannot calculate dispersion, sedimentation and deposition with Janicke's theory of propagation and manipulate their solution algorithm, Janicke (2002), S56 and Janicke (2000), S33, Figure 7. The occurrence of indefinite calculation equations always gives cause rethink the physics used. But they leave it to critics to elaborate on their hoaxes in Schenk (2018b). The authors of the AUSTAL2000 falsify their algorithm for calculating soil concentrations.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 want to provide reference solutions. But they do not know that their algorithms according to Schenk (2020) comparatively the III. Violate Newton's axiom. How are other model developers supposed to prove equivalence to AUSTAL2000 when Janicke's solutions violate all main and conservation laws and contradict all mathematics and mechanics. The authors of AUSTAL2000 deny the analogy to momentum, heat and mass transport.
The authors of AUSTAL2000 use "Volume sources distributed over the entire calculation area", Janicke (2000) and Janicke (2002). They do not understand that all of these cases are reduced to a zero-dimensional differential equation and that all of them describe useless trivial cases, Schenk (2015a). The authors of the AUSTAL2000 presumably simulate solutions for homogeneity, deposition and sedimentation.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 explain in a report that calculations cannot be carried out with so-called homogeneous turbulence and spatially variable step size, Janicke (2002), p.53. They confuse the reader, because such solutions are described in another report, Janicke (2000), p. 28, Fig. 2. The reader has to question the credibility of the authors of the AUSTAL2000. The authors allegedly manipulate their algorithms.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 want to describe dispersion processes without deposition. However, they do not recognize that their concentration courses force opposing conduction and deposition flows in the direction of the free atmosphere, as can be read, for example, in Schenk (2018a). The authors of the AUSTAL2000 presumably falsify the direction of deposition flows.
According to Schenk (2015a), the authors of AUSTAL2000 give four different solutions for homogeneity and a further deviating concentration distribution for deposition for one and the same clearly formulated boundary value problem according to Schenk (2015a), Janicke (2000) and Janicke (2002). The authors of the AUSTAL2000 presumably manipulate boundary value problems and solutions.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 claim for all test cases for homogeneity, sedimentation and deposition that for all test cases the steady-state concentration distribution was established uniformly after 10 days, although they could not carry out any time-dependent simulations. They mislead the public and want to make people believe that the differences in the boundary value problems have no influence on the stationary solutions, Janicke (2002), p. 52ff. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 falsify presumably transient simulation results.
The authors of AUSTAL2000 claim that they used three-dimensional Berljand profiles for validation Janicke (2000), p. 39, which cannot be seen in any comparative calculation. Instead, they use smoothed integral values, thus simulating that their solutions can be compared with Berljand's concentration distributions.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 explain in Trukenmüller (2016) that they welcome and encourage any scientific controversy, but threaten critics with sanctions if they do not recognize their pseudoscientific theories.
The authors of AUSTAL publish in Janicke et al. (2017) under the heading “Exact numerical solution and analytical approximation for the wind profile over level terrain” an attempt to validate AUSTAL with a wind field. Obviously, the authors of AUSTAL want to react to the criticism in Schenk (2015a), but they prove that in 2017 they still did not understand the difference between numerical and analytical solutions. The opposite is true. Numerical algorithms describe approximate solutions and not the other way around, analytical methods.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 write their own guidelines, such as VDI 3945, sheet 3. They publish their wrong reference solutions there. When critics speak up, they refer to their own guidelines and abuse the trust and credibility of the VDI to defend their Austalism.
The authors of the AUSTAL2000 have gambled away all credibility.
It is believed that false research results are knowingly published
Knowingly incorrect research results are published and sent to authorities and offices. In the publication Trukenmüller et al. (2015) explains that the derivation of the reference solutions in Schenk (2015a) is incorrect. Although one believes to have found fundamental errors and misunderstandings, one would like to twist another way in Trukenmüller (2016) to prove an equivalence to the reference solutions according to Schenk (2015a). However, it can be proven in Schenk (2020) that this is presumably a case of deception. Ignorance is veiled, as was also described in Schenk (2020).
Alleged abuse of scientific reputation
In scientific disputes one presumably misuses the reputation of nationally and internationally widely recognized scientists and claims that they also use the Janicke convention. In Trukenmüller (2017), 22 authors are cited in sequence. The study of these references exposes the author presumably as a deceiver. His assertions that they use Janicke's convention like the authors of the AUSTAL200 cannot be confirmed in a single publication. Although, for example, in Pasquill (1962) the basic knowledge in the field of modeling the spread of air pollutants is described in an understandable and detailed manner, it is not possible to formulate consistent tasks. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 have their false propagation theory declared as binding in VDI guidelines. Presumably with care, you erect a building yourself according to VDI guidelines and then adhere to the guidelines. Publication dates and content are well coordinated. When critics speak up, they refer to the validity of their self-written guidelines, Trukenmüller et al. (2015). Textbooks and textbook knowledge is interesting. The tradition, trust and reputation of the Association of German Engineers are allegedly being abused.
Suspected plagiarism
In seven reports and publications available, the authors of the AUSTAL2000 can prove no less than 146 pages of self-plagiarism. The authors of the AUSTAL2000 are presumably having these financed several times at high prices.
The examples described presumably prove that deception, manipulation and trickery are to be regarded as fixed components of the deceptive Austalism of the authors of the AUSTAL2000.
literature
Axenfeld F, Janicke L, Münch J
(1984) Development of a Model
to calculate the
Dust precipitation.
Environmental research plan of the
Federal Minister of the Interior
Air pollution control, research report
104 02 562, Dornier System GmbH
Friedrichshafen, on behalf of
Federal Environment Agency
Schenk R. (2015a) AUSTAL2000 is
not validated. Immission control
01.15 S: 10 – 21
Trukenmüller A, Bächlin W, Bahmann
W, Forester A, Hartmann U,
Hebbinghaus H, Janicke U,
Müller WJ, Nielinger J, Petrich R,
Schmonsees N, Strotkötter U,
Wohlfahrt T, Wurzler S (2015)
Reply to Schenk's criticism
an AUSTAL2000 in
Immissionsschutz 01/2015.
Immission control 03/2015 S:
114 – 126
Schenk
R (2020) Integral sentences
and numerical comparative
calculations for the validity of
the dispersion model for air pollutants
AUSTAL2000 Environmental Systems
Research 28 p: 1-28, Schenk
About Syst Res (2020) 9:28,
https://doi.org/10.1186
s40068-020-00181-6
Schenk R (2015b) replica to the
Contribution “Response to the criticism of
Schenk an AUSTAL2000 in
Immissionsschutz 01/2015 ".
Immission control 04.15 S: 189 - 191
Trukenmüller A (2016) Equivalence
of the reference solutions from Schenk
and Janicke. treatise
Federal Environment Agency Dessau-
Rosslau S: 1 – 5
Trukenmüller A (2017) Opinions
Federal Environment Agency from
02/10/2017 and 03/23/2017.
Dessau-Rosslau, IBS Archiv, S. 1–15
UBA (2015) https://
www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen
/ air / control strategies
1 / propagation-models-for-
system-related / faq # a13-as-is-
the-criticism-from-rchenk- in-"immission-protection"-012015-
to rate
Schenk R. (2014a) Expertise on Austal
2000. Report on behalf of
United Warsteiner
Limestone industry, Westkalk archive
and IBS
Janicke U, Janicke L (2017) Exactly
numerical solution and analytical
Approximation for the wind profile above
flat terrain. Reports on
Environmental Physics, Number 8 S: 1 - 19
VDI 3945 Blatt3 (2000)
Environmental meteorology -
Atmosphärisches
Propagation model - particle model. Beuth Verlag Berlin
Pasquill F (1962) Atmospheric
diffusion: The dispersion of
windborne material from industrial
and other sources. London van
Nostrand
Schenk R (2018b) Deposition Mans
Storage And Not Loss. Environmental
Systems Research16 p: 1-14
Janicke (Internet, S13)
http://www.austal2000.de/
de / history.html
(after publication in
IMIS 1-15 from the homepage
the authors of the AUSTAL2000
deleted)
Schenk R (2018a) Not Only AUSTAL2000
is Not Validated, Environment
and Ecology
Research 6(3): 187-202, 2018
http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189 / honor.2018.060306
Janicke U, Janicke L (2002)
Development of a model-based
Assessment system for the
Plant-related immission protection.
1IBJanicke DunumJanicke L (2000) IBJparticle A
Implementation of the
Dispersion model.
Berich tIBB Janicke, Dunum
VA 0000I VISITOR COUNTER
VAR 000II, https://www.gratis-besucherzaehler.de/#
VAR 000II, https://www.gratis-besucherzaehler.de/#
Friedrich the bitten
1257 to 1323
Henry the Illustrious
1218 to 1288
Konrad the
Size
1098 to 1157
Friedrich II. Elector of Saxony 1428 to 1464
The Wettins and their 1000-year family history of the European high nobility
