<< FOR j&=1 TO _numTrials
would have been faster than a multiply, no?
Its faster if the number was *2 or 4, 8 etc. But you can't bitshift to multiply something like 9 * 3 (okay probably Mars could, but I'm not going to). Thanks to Roberts SQR function and some customizing of my own, the routine is whizzing along so that the end user doesn't even know the difference when using or not using this option.
I'm sure it would be faster, but it would also give very different results (except when diffh = 2). "diffh<<1" is the same as diffh*2, not diffh^2. 8)
<< But you can't bitshift to multiply something like 9 * 3 (okay probably Mars could, but I'm not going to).>>
This is roughly 13 times slower than ordinary multiplication. It might be marginally faster if written in assembly language.