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

dusan p sekulic
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1415753
IF: 2.877
2001-01-01
Journal of Applied Physics
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.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?