Reply to the article "Response to Schenk's criticism of AUSTAL2000 in Immissionsschutz 01/2015"

Using individual examples in Schenk (2014), Schenk (2015) and Schenk (2015f) for AUSTAL2000 it was shown that the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass are violated. In Trukenmüller et al. (2015) contradicts this and states that AUSTAL2000 is nevertheless verified and validated. This article shows that the in Trukenmüller et al. (2015) given derivation of the reference equation is nevertheless incorrect. It is a falsified trivial solution. The correct and non-trivial solution is given. Furthermore, the general validity of the objections raised earlier against AUSTAL2000 is proven by means of valid integral sentences. They are therefore not only applicable to the individual cases described. In connection with further inconsistencies in the comparative calculations that were carried out with the incorrect reference solution, the author comes to the conclusion that the sedimentation and deposition tests specified by Janicke & Janicke could not have taken place.