Talk:Adrian Bejan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adrian Bejan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905203606/https://www.asme.org/about-asme/news/asme-news/newsmakers to https://www.asme.org/about-asme/news/asme-news/newsmakers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reported the bug. The url was not dead, just responding slowly. The archived url picked by the bot was not a recent one and predated the information being added to the page that was used as a reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some recent changes
I've rewritten some of the recent changes to the article. The publication history of a single idea is much too fine a level of detail for this article, as is how many different places the idea was published initially. Also this is not the place for a long list of honors or publications. These are all available at his faculty web page which is prominently linked at the bottom. I've trimmed the list down to major honors (he has been highly honored (but we don't say "highly" in an encyclopedia article}) and the list of papers to those which have been highly cited as listed at Google scholar. Also leave out unnecessary adjectives, especially those which make someone sound wonderful. See Manual of Style/Words to watch.

An encyclopedia article is not a resume or an article praising a person. For an academic it should be like the articles in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, available at university libraries. What is needed is what Bejan's contributions are and how they developed over time. So I've put back the reasons he gave for developing the constructal law. More of this, with references, would be very welcome. Also the citations for his honors mention that his work even before the constructal law was controversial within the mechanical engineering community, I believe for his methods of teaching and of doing useful calculations. It would be useful to have references that provide information on this.

Some of my changes have been to put the text back to what the references say. Don't add information just because you know it. Everything in the article must have been published somewhere else first, not copied but rewritten in one's own words. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Some non-primary sources that refer to Construcal law as a law of physics.  In addition Reis has showed that MEP (maximum entropy production), like its complete opposite (minimum entropy production) is a special ad-hoc optimality principle that is covered by the constructal law that it is not covered by the First law of thermodynamics neither the Second law of thermodynamics.   Mre env (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . These references support the fact that the constructal law is being used independently of Bejan. That is not in dispute and is adequately supported by the awards he has received so we don't need to use those references in the article. However Bejan is saying that the constructal law is not just a law of physics like Gauss's law or Snell's law, but THE basic foundational law of physics. The laws of thermodynamics are not foundational laws of physics. They were early formulations of physical principles that turned out to be derivable from the modern atomic theory of matter by way of statistical mechanics and the quantum properties of materials. As far as I can tell no one has attempted to put the constructal law on this basis or even into a mathematical form. The independent sources needed are those that show from physical principles, not arguments from analogy, that his law is what he says it is. With independent sources looking at the physical basis, either supporting his law or criticizing it, we can have a separate article about the law with more detail. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear thanks so much for clarifying your point. I now understand we adopt different meanings for the same words. I'll look up for the derivations of the first and second law of thermodynamics, which I thought were foundational even in the physics literature.  Let me say that it's not in my knowledge nor I have seen any work for atomic-scale systems with constructal law, although I haven't gone through the more than 5,000 qualified publications on constructal. I guess it was not defined for such scale at the onset. By the way, I would like to know how one defines a system in such scale, with clear defined borders and surroundings. I'll look it up too. The mechanical statistics I studied do not cover why internal configuration of river basins (for instance) changes towards greater access or to facilitate the flow (many in geosciences models with minimisation or maximisation of entropy and fractals to "replicate" configurations). To the best of my knowledge, one cannot deduce "configuration, organisation, geometry, etc" from the first and second laws alone in any scale since both laws just bounds the limits in which any system functions. I believe Reis (2014) paper covered that.
 * By the way, I have already settled with you and others to merge the article into the Adrian Bejan article. Furthermore I plan to make only minor edits on that. I used this forum to register some points in order to aid informed and scholarly edits on the subject. Thanks again for your time and your scholarly elegance. Mre env (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , as an oversimplification, physicists look at particles, engineers look at materials. I am writing up an explanation with references that I will put on your talk page. Even though Bejan is becoming highly honored for this work, the constructal law won't be accepted (or even taken seriously by scientists in other fields) without linking it to more basic areas of physics. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And we have a long-term problem of people trying to use Wikipedia to fix that. Which is, of course, forbidden. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks again for your time and thoughtfulness. It so happens that we could exercise our views within philosophy of science or the very concept of physics, which by the way is not constrained to scales. For instance, in the geometric scale the features of river basins are measurable (which is more than the river and rivulets one sees) the "particle scale" in wisely accounted for by viscosity. The theories based on constructal law are attempts to address a class of phenomena under given conditions. And they are tested against due observable data to check whether they work or not. Mre env (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll carefully look into the text you kindly posted in my user area. Thanks again. Mre env (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Linked may have been the wrong word to use on a web page! Deriving it from is what I meant. No one has tried to do it. None of the articles cited in the old version of Constructal law or in what I can search online have made any use of basic physics to support it. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there are reasons for that. First and foremost, throughout the history of science virtually nothing has been discovered by one person. One person is first, but almost always there is parallel discovery. So when one person promulgates an idea and nobody else comes up with the same idea in isolation, it's usually because it's wrong in some important respect (see cold fusion, for example). Second, in as mush as the law makes any testable claims, they appear to me to be rather obvious and not novel. Dressing them up as a law of nature is going to qualify for a "yeah, whatever" from a lot of people. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As interesting as it may be, it would not invalidate the constructal law principle in the macro-scale. Reis (2014) addressed that based on irreversible thermodynamics. Mre env (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Beware drawing inferences from your own researches. A small number of people do indeed study Bejan's "constructal law". However, it is no a law, and the number is indeed small. We cannot give it undue weight. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Constructal law
Why does constructal law redirect to this page? I don't understand why the reader has to go through all the biography and prizes and basketball history of a person in order to read about a scientific law or theory. If it's a valid scientific law or theory, which I assume it is, then it should be able to stand on its own feet without a list of prizes and awards. If it's not, then the discoverer of the law or theory doesn't deserve so much attention. This is the only law of science I've come across which is described in the sidebar to a biography on a living person  TopScholarNZHistory1993 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @TopScholarNZHistory1993, see Articles for deletion/Constructal law. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)