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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Wayburn [mailto:twayburn@WT.NET]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 11:09 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Work and Energy and Thermo
----- Original Message -----
From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Work and Energy and Thermo
At 11:48 PM 10/17/01 -0500, Tom Wayburn seemed to endorse thestatement:
subset of"Actually Q is _any_ work (or the fraction of the total work)
which changes the entropy and W is work which does not",
Huh? I thought W stood for work. How can we define W as a
the work?
in terms of
At 11:51 PM 10/17/01 -0500, Tom Wayburn wrote:
Work is used to define entropy,
That may be an _example_ of entropy, but it is not satisfactory as a
definition of entropy. In particular,
1) Entropy remains well-behaved when the temperature is undefined,
unspecified, or zero. An alleged "definition" of entropy
work
would have problems handling this case.dissipative
2) Any such "definition" would have problems describing any
process, such as cannon-boring. For details seeDear John,
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/thermo-laws.htm
I believe the way it is done in my essay is clear, correct, and
sufficiently consistent to satisfy you. After I fix the appropriate
equation editor I will send the essay to you. My recent note omitted
all but the unsupported claim.
Regards / T