Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gouy–Stodola theorem of thermodynamics is probably the most important one from an engineering point of view. It is indispensable in the analysis and design of a process from a thermodynamics perspective. It quantifies the level of irreversibility in the process. Yet, it has not received the due attention in the engineering literature. For example, the textbooks in chemical engineering thermodynamics rarely mention this theorem. This theorem can be expressed in two different ways, either in the form of exergy destruction or in the form of lost work. The conditions under which this theorem is applicable are not clearly spelled out in the existing textbooks and published literature. There is confusion in the literature regarding the general validity of the theorem. In this article, a complete analysis of this theorem is presented for open systems and its limitations are pointed out. This article should be of help to students in understanding and applying the Gouy–Stodola theorem to different practical situations dealing with flow processes. Due to its practical significance, it is important that this theorem is taught to all engineering undergraduate students regardless of their engineering discipline. As the theorem involves advanced level concepts in thermodynamics such as entropy generation and exergy destruction in the system and the surroundings, the appropriate place for the introduction of this theorem is the second advanced-level course in thermodynamics. This should not pose any problem as most engineering disciplines teach two one-semester courses on thermodynamics to the undergraduate students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".