Larry Smith wrote:
>Just so you'll know that Jim Green is not a lone voice crying in the
>wilderness on this issue, here's a quote from the latest AJP page 597
>(taken from Atmospheric Thermodynamics by Craig F. Bohren and Bruce A.
>Albrecht, 1998):
Anyway, folks, it isn't just Jim telling us this. Maybe we ought to listen
>and find some way to improve the language for generations to come. I've
>tried to re-write some of my labs with this injunction in mind, and it is
>_hard_. It is one thing to object to current language usage, and quite
>another to propose acceptable alternatives. I need help with the latter.
As a Bohren fan, I pointed out his position on this topic to the group while this thread was running - see my Jan. 31 2001 post in the archive where I quoted his "Some Irreverant Thoughts About Heat".
To see acceptable alternatives to current language, take a look at how Bohren and Albrecht handle this issue in many different contexts in their "Atmospheric Thermodynamics" book (ISBN: 0-19-509904-4).
The problems in this book are rare examples of realistic problems that stand in stark constrast to the unrealistic hypothetical problems that I had to solve as a student.
Larry Woolf
Dr. Lawrence D. Woolf; Phone: (858)-455-4475; www.sci-ed-ga.org
General Atomics; 3550 General Atomics Court; San Diego CA 92121-1194