What can be a better day for thanking those who commented
on my draft, both in private and in public? And to thank those
who posted messages under this thread. I did introduce some
corrections, but did not have time to incorporate them into
the web page. Please comment on what is show below.
Carl Mungan wrote: "Either heat is energy IN A SYSTEM or
it is energy IN TRANSIT from one system to another. This
discrepancy is irreconcilable in the definition. You can only go
with one view or the other, and your choice will affect the way
you teach thermodynamics. Attempting to teach both views in
some kind of 'unified' manner is futile and misleading."
I recognize the problem. But, in my opinion, the discrepancy
is apparent, not real. It results from the use of the same symbol,
Q (and the word heat), for two DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
To respect traditional terminology the Q of calorimetry should
be called heat and the W of mechanics (F*ds) should be called
work. Unfortunately, these two words are often redefined in
thermodynamics. Organized and disorganized "energies in
transfer," appearing in the First Law, are new concepts and
new words are needed for them. New symbols are also needed.
What about dU=X+Y, where X stands for the thermodynamic
work and Y stands for the thermodynamic heat? This is
probably better than work versus pseudo-work, or heat versus
pseudo-heat. Would the words "hope" and "drop", for example,
be acceptable for X and Y? The context dependability of physical
concepts is not consistent with effective teaching; it is the main
cause of our frequent disagreements.
I am sure there are better English words but I could not find them.
The "hope" was chosen because we hope to get something, the
"drop" was chosen because thermal energy is not as valuable as
other kinds. Both are four letters words; this is not important.
Please suggest a better pair of short words for my draft.
Ludwik Kowalski