| contributor author | Guo, Zeng | |
| contributor author | Chen, Qun | |
| contributor author | Liang, Xin | |
| date accessioned | 2017-05-09T01:09:23Z | |
| date available | 2017-05-09T01:09:23Z | |
| date issued | 2014 | |
| identifier issn | 0022-1481 | |
| identifier other | ht_136_04_046001.pdf | |
| identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/155249 | |
| description abstract | The following is our response to Herwig's paper [1] entitled, “Do we really need “entransyâ€? A critical assessment of a new quantity in heat transferâ€. In Herwig's paper, he questioned the consistency of G (entransy) in Sec. 4.1 and the necessity of G in Sec. 4.2. Before responding to these two questions, we would like to state once again that the entransy approach is consistent with first and second law of thermodynamics, and is needed for optimizing heat transfer process not involving in a thermodynamic cycle. | |
| publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
| title | Closure to “Discussion of â€کDo We Really Need “Entransyâ€?’†| |
| type | Journal Paper | |
| journal volume | 136 | |
| journal issue | 4 | |
| journal title | Journal of Heat Transfer | |
| identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4026189 | |
| journal fristpage | 46001 | |
| journal lastpage | 46001 | |
| identifier eissn | 1528-8943 | |
| tree | Journal of Heat Transfer:;2014:;volume( 136 ):;issue: 004 | |
| contenttype | Fulltext | |
