Re: ENERGY WITH Q

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Tom Wayburn wrote:
> Heat and work are energy fluxes at the Control Volume boundary.

That's a nice sentiment, and it would be true if we
could be sure that heat and work were separately conserved,
but alas that's not the case.

It is all too easy to construct cases where work is
converted to heat right at the boundary. Example:
Rumford's experiment, with the boundary chosen to
pass through the point of contact.

>    It seems obvious to me that heat and
> work are quite distinct.

There are cases there the distinction is obvious,
but there are all too many cases where the distinction
is not obvious, especially when dissipative processes
are being considered.

Saying that they are "obviously" distinct tends to give
students the notion that they are separately conserved,
which is unhelpful.

> Granted, physicists are smarter than engineers.

Really?  What's the evidence for that?

> One should always employ the
> physicist when one of each is available

Really?  What's the evidence for that?