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]

Re: no thermal energy



At 07:14 AM 10/29/99 -0800, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

... is why I don't like the phrase "thermal energy." In my view there is
only "internal energy" and bulk translational kinetic energy. Internal
energy includes everything but the three translational degrees of freedom.

To which I replied:

Not accepting "thermal energy" is tantamount to not accepting
"entropy" and/or "temperature".

And then at 10:23 AM 10/29/99 -0700, Jim Green wrote:

Not so, John, John is quite right here -- at least if we are n ot going to
mix up our language and definitions. We all should have a pretty good
understanding of "internal energy' -- the thing in the First Law -- why
should we clutter up the discussion with another term -- "thermal energy"
is just confusing and probably has no helpful place in the discussion.

I stand by what I said.

For example: consider a taut spring. It contains internal energy of a sort
I wish to call nonthermal energy. I then release it in such a way that
this energy is converted to a form I wish to call thermal energy. (No bulk
translational kinetic energy is present in the "before" or "after" states.)

Declining to "clutter" our discussion with terms that permit a distinction
between a taut spring and hot spring is tantamount to rejecting the notion
of entropy.

______________________________________________________________
copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker jsd@monmouth.com