Re: ENERGY WITH Q

[kowalskil <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Carl E. Mungan" wrote:

> ... Again you're hung up on the name [pseudowork]. In
> fact, I don't particularly like the name either. ...

So why are you using it? Who benefits from it? You are
correct that arguing about words is silly. That is why
we should honor traditional terminology, unless it
becomes misleading. Distinct names for distinct
concepts should be introduced without renaming.

Last night I wrote:
> In calorimetry heat is a form of energy. It is something
> that an object can either receive or lose, for example
> "by conduction." The naive fluid-like model of heat is
> later replaced by a better model (heat is a change in
> thermal molecular energy, or something equivalent). But
> in thermodynamics heat is not a form of energy.

Is this acceptable? If not then why not? I am referring
to the first physics course, not to the thermo course.
P.S.
My students are now learning Chapter 11 (Serway and Faughn)
The first sentence is "Heat (or thermal energy) is now
defined as energy that is transferred between a system
and its environment because of the temperature difference
between them." I see nothing wrong with this.
Ludwik Kowalski