Re HEAT1=HEAT2 ?

[LUDWIK KOWALSKI <kowalskil@alpha.montclair.edu>]

On 28 Aug 1997 Leigh Palmer (>) commented on (>>)

> > When I was learning physics heat was first introduced as a "cause for 
> > a change in temperature".
                                                       Ludwik

> Then can I not heat an ice cube at its freezing point, Ludwik? Heat *may
> be* a cause for changing temperature, but so may work. Conversely, one
> may heat a system and not change its temperature at all, hence the ice
> cube example. What you learned is utterly valueless.
                                                       Leigh

What does this have to do with a suggestion for renaming Q in the first 
law? Why is "two terms for the same concept" (heat and internal energy)
not better than one word for "two different concepts" (internal energy
and a way of changing it inside a system)? I did not say that a temperature
can not be changed by rubbing two objects, or by bombarding them with beams
of swift particles, by some chemical reactions taking place inside them, 
or in a microwave oven. But I do not want to deal with all these processes 
when heat is introduced to students for the first time. 

> > It was presented as something inside a body that can be gained and lost.
                                                       Ludwik

> ...and at the time you learned it that was known to be false. Many of
> us have managed to get along without caloric (which is exactly what you
> describe here) for a very long time.
                                                       Leigh

The name caloric would be an acceptable synonym for the internal energy 
if it were not already associated with a fictitious substance. Assigning
new meaning to existing words is a sure way to confuse people. Heat, on 
the other hand, has been used as reference to internal energy for a very
long time. This is not a scientific debate, Leigh. It is an exchange of
ideas about pedagogy. How should we teach thermal phenomena in elementary 
courses? How to avoid conceptual traps and misconceptions? How to make sure 
that spiral approaches do not result in situations in which previously 
accepted terminology must be rejected by students? Renaming Q in the first 
law (dE=Q+W) and accepting the word heat as a synonym for internal energy 
E is one of many possible suggestions. 

Your idea of calling Q heating (not heat) is a step toward renaming. Are we 
ready to discuss the best possible new name for Q? Your main objection seems 
to be the synonym. Why do you say its acceptance would lead us back to the 
caloric model? The "internal energy" can also lead in that direction. I do 
not like the "verb yes, noun no" recommendation. But I can live with it, if 
it is supported by most teachers and, more importantly, by textbook writers. 
Suggestions of that kind can not be "false" or "true", they can only be 
acceptable or not (in view of stated objectives).
                                                       Ludwik Kowalski

I just reviewed our long CONSERVATION OF ENERGY thread from July and
found many instances in which dual meaning of the word heat was clearly
responsible for the lack of understanding.