Re: A "heat" question

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

Frohne, Vickie wrote:

> Hewitt, in the "Conceptual Physics" books, distinguishes between
> "heat" and "internal energy" very nicely. "Heat" is energy in motion,
> i.e. energy that is in the act of being transferred.

I assume this was meant to say not just any energy,
but energy that is being transferred in thermal form.
Surely the heat-is-a-verb partisans don't think that
simple macroscopic F dot dx energy transfer is "heat".

Unfortunately, no matter how carefully heat-is-transfer
idea is expressed, it remains a Bad Idea.

It is occasionally true but _not generally true_ that
energy in motion can be divided into a purely thermal
piece and a purely nonthermal piece.  It has been known
for over 200 years that thermal energy is not conserved
separately from other forms of energy.

People who fall victim to the thermal-transfer-of-energy
idea pay the price when it comes time to analyze a
dissipative transfer, such as the venerable cannon-boring
experiment.

Note that I don't care what you call thermal-tranfer-
of-energy.  You can call it h&@t or whatever.  It's
a Bad Idea, no matter what name you give it.  For
details, see
  http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/thermo-laws.htm

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of Benjamin
Thompson or Count Rumford.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.