Next Article in Journal
Effects of Match Location, Quality of Opposition and Match Outcome on Match Running Performance in a Portuguese Professional Football Team
Next Article in Special Issue
A New Step in the Optimization of the Chambadal Model of the Carnot Engine
Previous Article in Journal
Dendrogramic Representation of Data: CHSH Violation vs. Nonergodicity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performance Optimizations with Single-, Bi-, Tri-, and Quadru-Objective for Irreversible Diesel Cycle
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Chemical and Mechanical Aspect of Entropy-Exergy Relationship

Entropy 2021, 23(8), 972; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23080972
by Pierfrancesco Palazzo
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Entropy 2021, 23(8), 972; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23080972
Submission received: 23 June 2021 / Revised: 13 July 2021 / Accepted: 19 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Carnot Cycle and Heat Engine Fundamentals and Applications II)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

             
             
             
             

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see as attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper develops an analysis of the chemical aspect of exergy. The paper is interesting, but it can be improved as follows:

  • The mass interaction must be better explained
  • The Review section must be improved: I suggest to consider some more papers of Goran Wall, Sciubba, Grisolia, Demirel, Bejan, Valero, Beretta, etc.
  • In some equations, the index M isn't appropriate due to the use of M as a physical quantity in the equations themselves: i suggest to explain better the symbols used in this case
  • In Section 7, some numerical results could be useful
  • I suggest also to explain better the meaning of the arrow in the equations: this is the same symbols used by Beretta, but it could be useful to highlight better the meaning

Author Response

Please see as attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the author revised the manuscript satisfactorily.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to accept the paper in the present form.

Back to TopTop