Discussion: “Entransy is Now Clear”

[+] Author and Article Information
M. M. Awad

Mechanical Power Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Mansoura University,
Mansoura 35516, Egypt
e-mail: m_m_awad@mans.edu.eg

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.

J. Heat Transfer 136(9), 095502 (Jun 27, 2014) (2 pages) Paper No: HT-14-1050; doi: 10.1115/1.4027821 History: Received January 29, 2014; Revised March 18, 2014

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.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.







Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In