Comment on the Reply to Comment on 'Dynamically maintained steady-state pressure gradients'

TL;DR

This paper argues that Duncan's paradox is caused by epicatalysis, which violates the second law of thermodynamics, and emphasizes the need for experimental evidence to validate such claims.

Contribution

It clarifies that Duncan's paradox is due to epicatalysis and defends the second law of thermodynamics until experimental support is provided.

Findings

Duncan's paradox is attributed to epicatalysis.

The second law of thermodynamics remains valid.

Experimental evidence is needed to support epicatalysis.

Abstract

In Reply to Comment on Dynamically maintained steady-state pressure gradients, Sheehan offered his responses to the fifteen proposed resolutions to Duncan's paradox. This comment on Sheehan's reply aims to point out that it is epicatalysis that results in Duncan's paradox and the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Until solid experimental findings unequivocally support epicatalysis, the second law of thermodynamics remains valid and Duncan's paradox is not a paradox.