Re: What Flows?

[palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)]

James suggests:

> What if instead you consider "thermal energy" to be connected somehow to
> temperature?

You mean, I assume, that it is part of the internal energy
that depends *only* on temperature? Ideal gases do, but there
are no real substances that can be accurately modelled by such
a method. Doesn't that diminish the attraction of your idea
somewhat?

> That actually seems to me to be the more direct connection;
> 'heat' only gets into the question by way of the colloquial usage where
> heat=temperature.

Now that is awful!

> Now does it seem strange that the expanding gas looses "thermal energy"
> even with no heat tansfer?
>
> Note: Not that I prefer "thermal energy" over "internal energy"
> necessarily, but I have to admit that it seems more descriptive.

Now perhaps you will change your mind about that, too! It leads
only to misconceptions, and we've enough of those already that
we need not generate new ones for our students.

Leigh