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: heat again "Never as a Noun"



In teaching calorimetry last time I started using the term caloric
(instead of the four letter noun). Yes, a fictitious fluid which
does not exist, except as a mathematical model. Unfortunately,
the name used in the textbook was heat. I see nothing wrong
with resurrecting the word caloric, provided we emphasize it
is only a model.
Ludwik Kowalski


Jim Green wrote:

But I don't think this way of avoiding "heat" would be feasible
in a typical course for physics or chemistry students. There are
just too many processes where Q is not equal to Delta-H, so we
need separate names for the two quantities.

Good sense dictates that I not say much here, but then I am old an senile
so.......

I am a strong advocate that physics not be learned or taught in a
dictionary -- In fact I believe that words do not mean anything -- that,
on the contrary, _people_ mean things -- people including physics teachers.

The difficulty with the word "heat" is that it is not used with a distinct
meaning: If we were all to agree to use the word "heat " for Q in the
First Law, that would be just fine, but then we couldn't use it for
something that is moving about.

We could say that Q is "heat one" and internal energy is "heat two" and
"heat three" rises, but if one thinks that physics students get confused
now re thermo, what would things be like then!!!

The truth is that Q (like W) is an action which is done to the
system. Using a word which conveys the vision of something flowing is just
confusing, Why persecute our students?

Rather than trying to invent new language, just stop using the word "heat"
as a noun and teach good physics. If one can not bring him/herself to do
this, s/he likely does not understand thermo very well -- even if s/he has
written a thermo text.

Yes, it likely will be difficult -- just as Larry says that it is for him
-- and I confess having to correct myself from time to time -- but then
good physics teachers have gone through this process for one topic or
another since long before Aristotle -- others don't bother.

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen