转折词语.doc

Mobile to Mobile: The Primary Energy Costs for Cellular and Landline Telephone I think one of the most important features of this article is simplicity. The authors also mention it in the strengths part. Comparing with us, I find that the authors neglect many factors in modeling and solving this problem. In Part 1, they use a differential competing-species model to forecast the number of cell phones and landlines as what we did. However, comparing with us, they only use the penetration level as the variable of this model, which will make the model simpler. On the other hand, they predict the total number of cell phones and landline telephones in the future without changing the coefficients of the differential equations. In part 3, they calculate the energy consumed by the simplest way, i.e. . In part 4, they don’t analysis the energy consumed by different types of rechargers, instead they only consider the total energy consumed. They split phones into three categories and use an assumption to get the ration of cordless and corded landline phones. This is very important for the second question. I think this is very interesting because it tells us that we can assume some data if we can’t obtain it from other methods. In part 5, they compare their prediction of population with the Census Bureau’s predictions, which will become convincing. Question: How did they get the coefficients of the differential equations? There are too many assumptions and some data can obtain by searching the Internet. How should we do? Energy Implications of Cellular Proliferation in the U.S. I think this paper is very comprehensive. When considering the transition period, this paper first give a model according the data. Then the authors take into account of the resistance and get another model which is closer to reality. Similarly, when predicting future energy needs for pseudo U.S., there are also two models in this paper. The first is very simple and the second is obtained on the base of t