Re: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

[twayburn@juno.com (Thomas L Wayburn)]

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:16:12 -0700 Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
> > Tom,  the amateur,  writes:
> > First, I would distinguish the verb "to heat" from the noun "heat",
> > which is best done, probably, by dropping the verb from physics.
>
> The amateur has it exactly backwards. It is the use of heat as a
> noun that is likely to be incorrect in physics. Physicists will
> continue to heat systems.
>
> Leigh

Most noble and accomplished sir,

  The amateur  doth  not wish to be found guilty of yielding to an
argument *ad verecundiam* (sp?), id est, toward modesty.   I think the
traditional uses of heat and work as names for our symbols Q and W, to
*really* put the cart before the horse, id est,  pro equestrium, should
be preserved.  (I am now joking and have no idea of what I am saying in
Latin.)

But, I think we shall have to agree to disagree.  It is such a trifle,
though, that I am tempted to agree so as to pass on to weightier matters.

Perhaps you remember that I am the person who is concerned with the
amount of reversible work that would have to be performed within the
control volume consisting of the earth and a 100 mile high atmosphere, in
a thought experiment such that the earth was in steady-state and such
that no irreversibilities took place, i.e., a completely reversible,
steady-state system with no mass entering or leaving and, in fact, the
radiation from the sun entering, driving a Carnot engine, the output from
which simply disappears, and the actual infra-red  radiation leaves.  No
work is done on the earth (by gravitating objects, say) and the work of
the Carnot engine is simply counted and dumped into a disappearing pit
(is consumed by a Wayburn demon?).   The problem amounts to computing the
Gibbs availability, h - T(surr)s,  for the solar constant and for the
junk heat leaving.  Also, deciding what number to use for T(surr) for
that control volume.  OR reformulating the problem to make the decision
about T(surr) transparently obvious or make it go away.   I have several
write ups of varying lengths on this.

Are you at Simon Fraser?   I used to know some numerical analysts from
there, but have forgotten names.  I know funny story about a Brit who was
drunk and insisted on driving on the left side of the street in Pocatello
(sp?)  Idaho.   Are you interested in the reversible work on a
steady-state earth?   Dave Bowman gave me some advice; but, of course, I
want one of you pros to solve the problem and I to give appropriate
acknowledgement upon  publication.

Regards / Tom

P.S.  I apologize about length.  I would make this private except that I
wish to defend my linguistic position.