Comment on “On the Barut-Vigier model of the hydrogen atom” by Samsonenko et al.

Contrary to the claim of Samsonenko, Tahti and Ndahayo [Phys. Lett. A 220 (1996) 297], it is found that the ground state energy for a hydrogen atom in the Barut-Vigier potential is E = 13.6 eV.     

Comment on “On the analytical solution of the optical Bloch equations”

In a recent paper [P.J. Colmenares and J.L. Paz, Opt. Commun. 284 (2011) 5171], analytical solutions of the optical Bloch equations are presented. This paper follows the same procedures as presented in the paper by the authors [H.R. Noh and W. Jhe, Opt. Commun. 283 (2010) 2353] but concludes that their results are substantially different from the results of the authors. We find that the discrepancy results from the wrong initial conditions employed by those authors for one of the Bloch vector components (w), whose initial value must be 1 not 0. We also find that if proper initial conditions are used, there are no discrepancies between the two results.     

Comment on “On the quantum Zeno effect” by Nakazato et al.

Recently, using a specific example involving neutron spin, Nakazato et al. [Phys. Lett A 199 (1995) 27] argued that the uncertainty principle would impose a remarkable limitation on the mathematical limit involved in the quantum Zeno effect. In this paper we show that it is impossible for Nakazato et al. to obtain this limitation by the uncertainty relation, because an unsuitable assumption has been used in their deduction process.     

Comment on¶“On the relationship between the entropy and enthalpy of interfacial segregation” by L. Rubinovich and M. Polak

The paper of L. Rubinovich and M. Polak [Eur. Phys. J. B 22, 267 (2001)] contains some controversial items. The notation “excess” in connection with various thermodynamic quantities describing solute segregation on the basis of the Langmuir-McLean isotherm is used in a meaning contradictory to general thermodynamics. The approach used to interpret the linear relationship between segregation entropy and enthalpy results in rather strange conclusions. These items are discussed, and it is shown how a formulation with standard terms is in accordance with general thermodynamics. Received 14 January 2002 / Received in final form 27 September 2002 Published online 14 February 2003 RID="a" ID="a"e-mail: lejcekp@fzu.cz