Abstract
It is shown that the claims of the authors of the Comment on “On the theoretical determination of the Prigogine-Defay ratio in glass transition” [Tropin et al., J. Chem. Phys. 136, 124502 (2012)]10.1063/1.3694531 are not correct. Three different methods are briefly reviewed leading to the same consequence that the experimentally determined values of the Prigogine-Defay ratio may have values larger than one even for glass-forming systems which can be described by only one structural order parameter.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
