>>Beg to differ. The classification I gave is SRAIGHT from Prigogine and
>>Defay's "Chemical Thermodynamics"
> I've seen both categorizations used in textbooks.
>
>
> Onar.
Yes? I find that interesting. Are we into semantic difficulties once more?
I'd be interested in references to these "textbooks", if available.
The categories "isolated, closed, and open" defined in terms of the properties
of the walls surrounding the system go back a long way. No text I've
used (Prigogine, Callen, Klotz, Fitts, Fermi, and many many others) use these
as foundational concepts and definitions. What you seem to want to say
can be made totally consistent with them and I wonder why you want to
throw this piece of foundation material away. If I understand you correctly,
you say that both closed and open systems are "open" to a flowthrough
of something. In the case of closed systems, it is only energy. In open
systems it is matter and energy. These are not contradictory. Can you be
flexible? I think we must chose carefully where we wish to expend our energies.
Redifining well intrenched definitions and concepts should be undertaken
if the cost of reversing the historical inertia gains something. In this
case I do not understand your position!
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky