| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Thomas L Wayburn wrote:Bravo, WBN, that is true wit. (And thanks for taking an ill-advised
have
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:26:22 -0400 (EDT) "W. Barlow Newbolt"
<wnewbolt@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> writes:
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Jim Green wrote:
At 05:57 AM 7/29/97 -0400, Gene wrote:internal
I would like to get a few things straightened out concerning
question ofenergy--like what is it.
I am thinking that this question is too narrow -- It is a good
course for spending time on phys-l ranting about words, but, to
anda
meaningful discussion, first you should say what the system is
purpose.what
formalism you are going to use the concept in and for what
"random"
what "Q"
If you are going to use the First Law, you will also want to ask
and "W" are. And then if you want to include any more than
willmotion,
you will need a good reason to do so. It can be done (and Leigh
somewant
to), but the *usefulness* for doing so escapes me.
IE there is not much point in specifying "internal energy" in
ofintergalactic formal sense for all time and space unless the rest
casethe
problem is illuminated.Jim,
Jim Green
JMGreen@sisna.com
The rest of the situation is illuminated! Consider the
iswhich has already been mentioned in this thread. A heavy cylinder
filled with a mixture of gasoline and air sealed and insulated. In
the
side is a spark plug to which we can apply a spark whose energy
contribution may be considered negligible. The temperature goes up
nowhen
the plug sparks; the pressure increases; but no heat is transfered,
to
work is done, and there is no change in internal energy. In order
theunderstand how this can be we have to include all of the energy in
the
internal energy.
W. Barlow Newbolt 540-463-8881 (telephone)
218 Howe Hall 540-463-8884 (fax)
Washington and Lee University newbolt.w@fs.science.wlu.edu
Lexington, Virginia 24450 wnewbolt@liberty.uc.wlu.edu
I think physics teachers should subtract at least one third from the
score for a problem that is solved without specifyinf formally what
control volume or system is.least one
Why do you put this here? I would like to be presented with at
"What can you say about a society which insists that
God is dead, but which also insists that Elvis Presley
is alive?"
Irv Cupsinet
specimen of our society that insists both. Otherwise it's notfunny.
The humor must come from a contradiction, but we already know thatnever
different people think different things. Incidentally, I have
encountered a person who claimed that a formerly living god isdeceased.
That was way before my time unless I am very much mistaken - and I'm63.
Did you see my polemic that slipped off the ends of my fingers last
night?
What did you think? I know. I am crazy.
Best regards / The Amateur
You are right, of course. This was never intended to be high
philosophy!
It was intended to be a wry comment about the current scene that some
would
find amusing. It is spoiled if you take it seriously. Perhaps some
find it
offensive. It am not sure whether you do or not. Anyway, I am ready
to find
something else--see below.
W. Barlow Newbolt 540-463-8881 (telephone)
218 Howe Hall 540-463-8884 (fax)
Washington and Lee University newbolt.w@fs.science.wlu.edu
Lexington, Virginia 24450 wnewbolt@liberty.uc.wlu.edu
"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century,
the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing
quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct."
Michio Kaku, 1995