Talk:Extended irreversible thermodynamics

I took a stab at wikifying this article as it showed up on the dead-end pages page. It could really do with some attention from someone who knows the subject to cross-link it to other relevant pages. rococo roboto (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

it's great to have an article like this

It's great to have this new article. It seems to me that editor Lebon-anthierens knows what he is talking about. Editor Rococo roboto seems like an administrator of some kind, who doesn't seem to recognize this. The complaint that the article reads like a personal essay seems to me misplaced. I think the style is very good. If it doesn't agree with Wikipedia administrative policy, then I suggest it might be a reason to re-consider and reform that policy accordingly. I am sorry that there is no article on B.C. Eu's generalized thermodynamics, which I think is not too far from extended thermodynamics, though I wouldn't myself dogmatize about that. Perhaps it might be wise at this early stage to include or relate the present with generalized thermodynamics. Perhaps a new article title such as Non-local-equilibrium thermodynamics would be a good idea, with room for both extended irreversible thermodynamics and for generalized thermodynamics, and perhaps other like approaches, and a comparison between them, if that would be appropriate? The title 'Extended irreversible thermodynamics' runs the risk of being tied too tightly to one particular point of view, contrary to Wikipedia policy of recognizing multiple viewpoints when that would be appropriate.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thinking this over a bit more, I have revised my ideas. I now think that the place for comparison of the several different versions, that go outside the restriction to local thermodynamic equilibrium, is probably in the main article on non-equilibrium thermodynamics, not in the hypothetical article that I proposed in the just previous paragraph. At present the main article on non-equilibrium thermodynamics says of such de-restricted theories that they are more or less beyond its scope; that is not a necessary limitation on scope, but is mainly due to lack of competent editing in the past. It would be good to put material in the main non-equilibrium thermodynamics article about the de-restricted theories, and about how they compare with the theories that are restricted by the local thermodynamic equilibrium assumption. The detailed treatment of the de-restricted theories should probably be kept for specific articles on the respective theories, with only their main outlines, and comparisons of them, being indicated in the main article.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I just added some relevant-looking cross-references; the "essay-like" comments weren't mine. Still, I just removed it as it seems the article has improved a bunch since I read it. I just happened across the article while I was looking for something else and I don't know the first thing about the subject. Looks like my edit attracted some curious editors, which was the point of my edit. :)--rococo roboto (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to have you aboard.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

transport of internal energy

There is some amount of emotional heat in the main article on physical heat. There it is important that internal energy is a state variable, while quantity of energy transferred as heat is a process variable. This distinction is second nature to experts, but for introductory writing, including the Wikipedia, it is best made clearly, consistently, and explicitly.

According to Münster, A., 1970, Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6, pp. 50–51, strictly speaking, there is no unique definition of flux of heat as a quantity distinct from flux of internal energy. There are writers who use particular non-uniquely determined quantities which they call 'heat flux'. Nevertheless, in contrast to this, as I understand for example Lebon, G., Jou, D., Casas-Vázquez, J. (2008), Understanding Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics: Foundations, Applications, Frontiers, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, e-ISBN 978-3-540-74252-4, and de Groot, S.R, Mazur, P. (1962), Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, and other writing that refers to those authors, they use the term heat flux when it would be more systematic, according to the present Wikipedia consensus, to use the term flux of internal energy. This I would regard as a uniquely defined quantity, in contrast to other more or less arbitrary definitions of 'heat flux'. I would like to see this consensus on terminology extend into the present article on extended irreversible thermodynamics, unless there is some special and cogent reason against it. If I am confused or mistaken about this, I would be grateful for a clarification.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

undid faulty edit

I undid this edit because it was faulty.

It had a link to a disambiguation page, not a precise link. When disambiguated, the link did not support the claim of the edit.

The edit introduced the term 'separability'. This is a term of some theoretical interpretational studies of quantum mechanics and is relatively esoteric for the present purpose. The term is defined in the indirectly linked article in terms of quantum mechanical entanglement, not in terms of the speed of light as claimed by the undone edit. That would most likely confuse rather than clarify things for a reader of the present article. The sentence that was overwritten by the undone edit was in ordinary language and told the reader what was needed. The edit's sentence was evidence of its author's deep erudition and sophistication, but did not make it easier for the reader, and added no useful meaning.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)