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.
Discussion: “Entransy is Now Clear”
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received January 29, 2014; final manuscript received March 18, 2014; published online June 27, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Oronzio Manca.
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Cite Icon Cite
- Search Site
Awad, M. M. (June 27, 2014). "Discussion: “Entransy is Now Clear”." ASME. J. Heat Transfer. September 2014; 136(9): 095502. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4027821
Download citation file:
- Ris (Zotero)
- Reference Manager