Discussion: “Entransy is Now Clear”
Journal of Heat Transfer, 136 (9):
095502--095502 (June 2014)DOI: 10.1115/1.4027821
Abstract
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.