1 Team Shizuoka for Optimizing, Shizuoka, Japan
2 Team Shizuoka for Optimizing, Miyagi, Japan
3 Team Shizuoka for Optimizing, Iwata, Japan.
4 Team Shizuoka for Optimizing, Numazu, Japan
5 Saitama Forum, Japan
1PG Scholar (3rd Year), Department of Rog Nidan Evum Vikruti Vigyan, Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Ayurved Charak Sansthan, Khera Dabar, New Delhi – 110073, India
2Professor, HOD, Department of Rog Nidan Evum Vikruti Vigyan, Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Ayurved Charak Sansthan, Khera Dabar, New Delhi – 110073, India
3Department of Rog Nidan Evum Vikruti Vigyan, Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Ayurved Charak Sansthan, Khera Dabar, New Delhi – 110073, India
*Corresponding Author: Teruo Mori, Team Shizuoka for Optimizing, Shizuoka, Japan.
Received: February 23, 2026; Published: March 22, 2026
JONES:DSD1) (C+, C-, C0) designs are known to prevent two-factor product terms and squared terms from confounding linear terms. However, the number of experiments required is roughly twice that of the conference (C) matrices alone. Therefore, when comparing the DSD design with the C matrices and [a,b] analysis2) using the same layout (Power supply3) circuit: 3 levels, 6 factors), the number of experiments was roughly the same. The response (output voltage: larger is better) characteristics were 21.11 and 31.69, respectively, and the latter (C matrices and [a, b] analysis) was superior, so we report this. Furthermore, the level combination response for the maximum factor effect of DSD was below the maximum value of the DSD response.
Keywords: Conference Matrices; DSD; Optimizing; [a,b] Analysis; Orthgonality
Citation: Teruo Mori., et al. “Comparison JONES-DSD and [a,b] Analysis at the Real Design Stage for Optimizing". Acta Scientific Nutritional Health 10.4 (2026): 04-11.
Copyright: © 2026 Teruo Mori., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.