Abstract:In this reply, the author reiterates that his argument that there is a logical inconsistency in introducing the concept of endoreversibility into a finite-time thermodynamics model of power plants characterized with a presence of heat exchanger thermal couplings is valid. As long as the couplings involve finite temperature differences between working fluids across the suggested endoreversible boundary, the inherent irreversibilities of thermal couplings cannot selectively be eliminated due to the entropy flow across that boundary and entropy generation within a heat exchanger. Hence the concept of endoreversibility in such a case does violate a proper definition either of the system (e.g., power plant) or the component (a heat exchanger). A heat exchanger as a system component, if included in the endoreversible compartment, would operate reversibly, which is impossible for a finite size heat exchanger; if excluded from it the endoreversible part of the system becomes open, which constitutes a violation of the initial set of assumptions; and if it is split between the endoreversible part and the surroundings, each part carries its respective irreversibility. Hence the endoreversible compartment would become irreversible. (C) 2001 American Institute of Physics.

Comment on the Reply to Comment on 'Dynamically maintained steady-state pressure gradients'

Reply to "Comment on `Extending the laws of thermodynamics for arbitrary autonomous quantum systems'"

Qin Et Al. Reply

Reply to "Comment on `Validity of path thermodynamic description of reactive systems: Microscopic simulations'

Regarding Flows Under the Free Energy Principle: A Comment on "How Particular is the Physics of the Free Energy Principle?" by Aguilera, Millidge, Tschantz, and Buckley

Reply to Comment on "Quantum Force in a Superconductor"

Reply to comment on "Improvements for drift-diffusion plasma fluid models with explicit time integration"

Reply to Comment on 'The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner Effect'

Reply to the Comments On: Tian Zhao Et Al. the Principle of Least Action for Reversible Thermodynamic Processes and Cycles. Entropy 2018, 20, 542

Reply to Comment by J. Szilagyi and R. Crago on “derivation of a Sigmoid Generalized Complementary Function for Evaporation with Physical Constraints”

Reply to ”Comment on ‘Recent progress in thermodynamics of radiation—Exergy of radiation, effective temperature of photon and entropy constant of photon’”

Gao et al. Reply

Response To "Comment On 'A Fallacious Argument In The Finite Time Thermodynamics Concept Of Endoreversibility'" [J. Appl. Phys. 90, 6557 (2001)]

Reply to "Comment on 'Theoretical analysis of the force on the end face of a nano-filament exerted by an outgoing light pulse'"

Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

Some Observations on Thermodynamic Basis of Pressure Continuum Condition and Consequences of Its Violation in Discretised CFD

Some Minimal Notes on Notation and Minima: A Comment on "How Particular is the Physics of the Free Energy Principle?" by Aguilera, Millidge, Tschantz, and Buckley

Reply to comment in <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1802.01382" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01382">arXiv:1802.01382</a>

Response to “comment on ‘A Fallacious Argument in the Finite Time Thermodynamics Concept of Endoreversibility’ ” [J. Appl. Phys. 90, 6557 (1998)]

Response to "comment on 'stokes' First Problem for an Oldroyd-B Fluid in A Porous Half Space' " [phys. Fluids 21, 069101 (2009)]

Reply to Comment on "Failure of the work-Hamiltonian connection for free-energy calculations" by Luca Peliti