February 28, 2001


Mr. Gustav A. Nystrom

Amador Newtonian Engineering

11875 Dublin Boulevard, Suite C242

Dublin, CA    94568



Dear Mr. Nystrom:


We are in receipt of your letter response today sent via Fax.


The best time for a luncheon meeting and/or discussion of the content of your paper would have been before you published your paper. Unfortunately, you went ahead with publication without properly assuring that the contents of the paper had a solid foundation in science. 


The semantic nuances you utilized in your paper to attempt to disassociate that your coding implementation of the “inelastic model” as somehow separate and apart from our “McHenry model” failed. Your paper attempts to shed doubts on the validity of the “McHenry model”. I again reiterate that had you contacted us in relation to your research we could have either provided an evaluation of your coding implementation or run some tests of our model for you or possibly provided you with a beta copy of our code.  As it stands, your paper is flawed and erroneous.


You assert that when you run the data from our report (SAE 970960) to replicate our Figure 10 that “your calculated results are in good agreement”. Shouldn’t this have been a clue to you that perhaps the inputs used to create your Figure 3b demonstrated that there are fundamental flaws in the inputs you used in your paper for our model?


Are you are aware of the term GIGO? The term is an acronym that if you put garbage inputs into any computer program you can get garbage outputs. If your coding is correct then the problem is with your inputs (e.g., Figure 3b).


Again, had you contacted us with your questions or problems then you possibly could have avoided the many errors and misstatements contained in your paper. As it stands, your paper is another demonstration that the SAE “peer review process” contains serious flaws and inconsistencies.



Very truly yours,



Brian G. McHenry


Cc:       SAE Session Chairmen, Brach, Varat, Husher, Thebert