Abstract
The purpose of this discussion is to place in perspective the concept of entransy, in view of the critiques published by Grazzini et al. (2013, “Entropy Versus Entransy,” J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn., 38, pp. 259–271), Herwig (2014, “Do We Really Need ‘Entransy’? A Critical Assessment of a New Quantity in Heat Transfer Analysis,” ASME J. Heat Trans., 136(4), 045501), and Bejan 2014, ““Entransy,” and Its Lack of Content in Physics,” ASME J. Heat Trans., 136(5), 055501), and especially the response just published by Guo et al. (2014, “A Response to Do We Really Need ‘Entransy’?” ASME J. Heat Trans., 136(4), 046001). The conclusion is that entransy is improper and not needed, and that Guo et al.'s own response actually confirms this conclusion.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
