Background The authors (Janicke and Janicke (2002). Development of a model-based assessment system for machine-related immission control. IB Janicke Dunum) developed an expansion model under the name AUSTAL2000. This becomes effective in the Federal Republic of Germany with the entry into force of TA Luft (BMU (2002) First general administrative regulation for the Federal Immission Control Act (technical instructions for keeping air TA air clean) from July 24, 2002. GMBL issue 25–29 S: 511–605) declared binding in 2002. Immediately after publication, the first doubts about the validity of the reference solutions are raised in individual cases. The author of this article, for example, is asked by senior employees of the immission control to express their opinions. However, questions regarding clarification in the engineering office Janicke in Dunum remain unanswered. In 2014, the author of this article was again questioned by interested environmental engineers about the validity of the reference solutions of the AUSTAL dispersion model. In the course of a clarification, the company WESTKALK, United Warstein Limestone Industry, later placed an order to develop expertise on this model development, Schenk (2014) Expertise on Austal 2000. Report on behalf of the United Warstein Limestone Industry, Westkalk Archives and IBS). The results of this expertise form the background of all publications on the criticism of Schenk’s AUSTAL expansion model. It is found that all reference solutions violate all main and conservation laws. Peculiar terms used spread confusion rather than enlightenment. For example, one confuses process engineering homogenization with diffusion. When homogenizing, one notices strange vibrations at the range limits, which cannot be explained further. It remains uncertain whether this is due to numerical instabilities. However, it is itself stated that in some cases the solutions cannot converge. The simulations should then be repeated with different input parameters. Concentrations are calculated inside AUSTAL. In this context, it is noteworthy that no publication by the AUSTAL authors specifies functional analysis, e.g. for stability, convergence and consistency. Concentrations are calculated inside closed buildings. It is explained that dust particles cannot “see” vertical walls and therefore want to pass through them. One calculates with “volume sources over the entire computing area” . However, such sources are unknown in the theory of modeling the spread of air pollutants. Deposition speeds are defined at will. 3D wind fields should be used for validation. The rigid rotation of a solid in the plane is actually used. You not only deliver yourself, but also all co-authors and official technical supporters of the comedy. Diffusion tensors are formulated without demonstrating that their coordinates have to comply with the laws of transformation and cannot be chosen arbitrarily. Constant concentration distributions only occur when there are no “external forces” . It is obviously not known that the relevant model equations are mass balances and not force equations. AUSTAL also claims to be able to perform non-stationary simulations. One pretends to have calculated time series. However, it is not possible to find out in all reports which time-dependent analytical solution the algorithm could have been validated with. A three-dimensional control room is described, but only zero and one-dimensional solutions are given. All reference examples with “ volume source distributed over the entire computing area ” turn out to be useless trivial cases. The AUSTAL authors believe that “ a linear combination of two wind fields results in a valid wind field ”. Obviously, one does not know that wind fields are only described by second-degree momentum equations, which excludes any linear combinations. It is claimed that Berljand profiles have been recalculated. In fact, one doesn’t care about three-dimensional concentration distributions. On the one hand, non-stationary tasks are described, but only stationary solutions are discussed. In another reference, non-stationary solutions are explained in reverse, but only stationary model equations are considered. Further contradictions can be found in the original literature by the AUSTAL authors. The public is misled. The aim of the present work is to untangle the absent-mindedness of the AUSTAL authors by means of mathematics and mechanics, to collect, to order and to systematize the information. This specifies the relevant tasks for the derivation of stationary and non-stationary reference solutions. They can be compared to the solutions of the AUSTAL authors. These results should make it possible to make clear conclusions about the validity of the AUSTAL model. Results Using the example of deriving reference solutions for spreading, sedimentation and deposition, the author of this work describes the necessary mathematical and physical principles. This includes the differential equations for stationary and non-stationary tasks as well as the relevant initial and boundary conditions. The valid initial boundary value task is explained. The correct solutions are given and compared to the wrong algorithms of the AUSTAL authors. In order to check the validity of the main and conservation laws, integral equations are developed, which are subsequently applied to all solutions. Numerical comparative calculations are used to check non-stationary solutions, for which an algorithm is independently developed. The analogy to the impulse, heat and mass transport is also used to analyze the reference solutions of the AUSTAL authors. If one follows this analogy, all reference solutions by the AUSTAL authors comparatively violate Newton’s 3rd axiom. As a result, the author of this article comes to the conclusion that all reference solutions by the AUSTAL authors violate the mass conservation law. Earlier statements on this are confirmed and substantiated further. All applications with “volume source distributed over the entire computing area” turn out to be useless zero-dimensional trivial cases. The information provided by the AUSTAL authors on non-stationary solutions has not been documented throughout. The authors of AUSTAL have readers puzzled about why, for example, the stationary solution should have set in after 10 days for each reference case. It turns out that no non-stationary calculations could be carried out at all. In order to gain in-depth knowledge of the development of AUSTAL, the author of this article deals with his life story. It begins according to (Axenfeld et al. (1984) Development of a model for the calculation of dust precipitation. Environmental research plan of the Federal Minister of the Interior for Air Pollution Control, research report 104 02 562, Dornier System GmbH Friedrichshafen, on behalf of the Federal Environment Agency), according to which one is under deposition loss and not Storage understands. In the end, the AUSTAL authors take refuge in (Trukenmüller (2016) equivalence of the reference solutions from Schenk and Janicke. Treatise Umweltbundesamt Dessau-Rosslau S: 1–5) in incomprehensible evidence. How Trukenmüller gets more and more involved in contradictions can be found in (Trukenmüller (2017) Treatises of the Federal Environment Agency from February 10th, 2017 and March 23rd, 2017. Dessau-Rosslau S: 1–15). Conclusion The author of this article comes to the conclusion that the dispersion model for air pollutants AUSTAL is not validated. Dispersion calculations for sedimentation and depositions cannot be carried out with this model. The authors of AUSTAL have to demonstrate how one can recalculate nature experiments with a dispersion model that contradicts all valid principles. Applications important for health and safety, e.g. Security analyzes, hazard prevention plans and immission forecasts are to be checked with physically based model developments. Court decisions are also affected.

中文翻译：

---

空气污染物扩散模型有效性的积分语句和数值比较计算 AUSTAL2000

背景 作者（Janicke 和 Janicke（2002）开发了一个基于模型的评估系统，用于与机器相关的排放控制。IB Janicke Dunum）开发了一个名为 AUSTAL2000 的扩展模型。随着 TA Luft（BMU (2002) 联邦排放控制法的第一条一般行政法规（保持空气 TA 空气清洁的技术说明）从 2002 年 7 月 24 日起生效，这在德意志联邦共和国生效。GMBL 问题25–29 S: 511–605) 于 2002 年宣布具有约束力。出版后立即在个别情况下首先对参考溶液的有效性提出怀疑。例如，这篇文章的作者被排放控制的高级员工要求发表他们的意见。然而，关于在杜努姆 Janicke 工程办公室进行澄清的问题仍未得到解答。2014年，本文作者再次被感兴趣的环境工程师质疑AUSTAL色散模型参考解的有效性。在澄清过程中，WESTKALK 公司，United Warstein Limestone Industry，后来下令开发此模型开发的专业知识，Schenk (2014) Expertise on Austal 2000。代表 United Warstein Limestone Industry、Westkalk Archives 和肠易激综合症）。这种专业知识的结果构成了所有批评申克 AUSTAL 扩展模型的出版物的背景。发现所有参考解都违反了所有主定律和守恒定律。使用特殊术语传播混乱而不是启蒙。例如，一种是将工艺工程同质化与扩散混淆。在均质化时，人们会注意到范围限制处的奇怪振动，无法进一步解释。尚不确定这是否是由于数值不稳定性造成的。然而，它本身声明在某些情况下解不能收敛。然后应使用不同的输入参数重复模拟。浓度在 AUSTAL 内部计算。在这种情况下，值得注意的是 AUSTAL 作者的出版物没有指定功能分析，例如稳定性、收敛性和一致性。浓度是在封闭的建筑物内计算的。据解释，灰尘颗粒无法“看到”垂直的墙壁，因此想要穿过它们。一种是用“整个计算区域上的体积源”来计算。然而，这些来源在模拟空气污染物扩散的理论中是未知的。沉积速度随意定义。应使用 3D 风场进行验证。实际使用的是平面中实体的刚性旋转。您不仅要交付自己，还要交付喜剧的所有合著者和官方技术支持者。扩散张量的公式化并没有证明它们的坐标必须符合变换定律并且不能任意选择。只有在没有“外力”时才会出现恒定的浓度分布。显然不知道相关模型方程是质量平衡而不是力方程。AUSTAL 还声称能够执行非平稳模拟。一个人假装计算了时间序列。然而，不可能在所有报告中找出可以验证算法的时间相关分析解决方案。描述了一个三维控制室，但只给出了零维和一维解。所有“体积源分布在整个计算区域”的参考示例都证明是无用的琐碎案例。AUSTAL 的作者相信“两个风场的线性组合会产生一个有效的风场”。显然，人们不知道风场仅由二阶动量方程描述，不包括任何线性组合。据称，Berljand 配置文件已重新计算。事实上，人们并不关心三维浓度分布。一方面，描述了非平稳任务，但只讨论了平稳解决方案。在另一篇参考文献中，对非平稳解进行了反向解释，但只考虑了平稳模型方程。进一步的矛盾可以在 AUSTAL 作者的原始文献中找到。公众被误导了。目前工作的目的是通过数学和力学来解决 AUSTAL 作者心不在焉的问题，收集、整理和系统化信息。这指定了推导平稳和非平稳参考解决方案的相关任务。它们可以与 AUSTAL 作者的解决方案进行比较。这些结果应该可以对 AUSTAL 模型的有效性做出明确的结论。结果 使用推导用于扩散、沉降和沉积的参考溶液的示例，这项工作的作者描述了必要的数学和物理原理。这包括固定和非固定任务的微分方程以及相关的初始和边界条件。解释了有效的初始边界值任务。给出了正确的解决方案，并与 AUSTAL 作者的错误算法进行了比较。为了检查主定律和守恒定律的有效性，开发了积分方程，随后将其应用于所有解。数值比较计算用于检查非平稳解，为此独立开发了算法。对脉冲、热量和质量传输的类比也用于分析 AUSTAL 作者的参考解决方案。如果按照这个比喻，AUSTAL 作者的所有参考解决方案都相对违反了牛顿第三公理。因此，本文作者得出的结论是，AUSTAL 作者的所有参考解都违反了质量守恒定律。此前关于此事的声明得到进一步证实和证实。所有“体积源分布在整个计算区域”的应用程序都变成了无用的零维琐碎案例。AUSTAL 作者提供的关于非平稳解的信息并没有完整记录。AUSTAL 的作者让读者感到困惑，例如，为什么每个参考案例的固定解应该在 10 天后设置。事实证明，根本无法进行非平稳计算。为了深入了解AUSTAL的发展，这篇文章的作者讲述了他的人生故事。它开始于 (Axenfeld et al. (1984) Development of a model for thecalculation of dustraining。联邦内政部空气污染控制部长的环境研究计划，研究报告 104 02 562，Dornier System GmbH Friedrichshafen，在代表联邦环境局），根据该规定，一个人处于沉积损失状态，而不是存储理解。最后，AUSTAL 的作者在难以理解的证据中避难于（Trukenmüller (2016) 来自 Schenk 和 Janicke 的参考解决方案的等效性。Treatise Umweltbundesamt Dessau-Rosslau S: 1-5）。Trukenmüller 如何越来越多地卷入矛盾可以在（Trukenmüller (2017) 2017 年 2 月 10 日和 2017 年 3 月 23 日联邦环境局论文）中找到。德绍-罗斯劳 S：1-15）。结论 本文作者得出的结论是，空气污染物 AUSTAL 的扩散模型未经验证。该模型无法进行沉积和沉积的扩散计算。AUSTAL 的作者必须演示如何使用与所有有效原理相矛盾的色散模型重新计算自然实验。对健康和安全很重要的应用，例如安全分析、危害预防计划和排放预测，将通过基于物理的模型开发进行检查。法院判决也受到影响。AUSTAL 的作者必须演示如何使用与所有有效原理相矛盾的色散模型重新计算自然实验。对健康和安全很重要的应用，例如安全分析、危害预防计划和排放预测，将通过基于物理的模型开发进行检查。法院判决也受到影响。AUSTAL 的作者必须演示如何使用与所有有效原理相矛盾的色散模型重新计算自然实验。对健康和安全很重要的应用，例如安全分析、危害预防计划和排放预测，将通过基于物理的模型开发进行检查。法院判决也受到影响。