Show simple item record

contributor authorAwad, M. M.
date accessioned2017-05-09T01:09:40Z
date available2017-05-09T01:09:40Z
date issued2014
identifier issn0022-1481
identifier otherht_136_09_095502.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/155373
description abstractThe 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,â€‌ J. NonEquilib. Thermodyn., 38, pp. 259–271), Herwig (2014, “Do We Really Need â€کEntransy’? A Critical Assessment of a New Quantity in Heat Transfer Analysis,â€‌ ASME J. Heat Trans., 136(4), 045501), and Bejan 2014, ““Entransy,â€‌ and Its Lack of Content in Physics,â€‌ 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 â€کEntransy’?â€‌ 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.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleDiscussion: “Entransy is Now Clearâ€‌
typeJournal Paper
journal volume136
journal issue9
journal titleJournal of Heat Transfer
identifier doi10.1115/1.4027821
journal fristpage95502
journal lastpage95502
identifier eissn1528-8943
treeJournal of Heat Transfer:;2014:;volume( 136 ):;issue: 009
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record