Re: A "heat" question

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

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

Acquiring the title didn't change his position?

bc

Mr. Thompson did not have the same position as the Adamses, Paine, or the other
famous American scientists, inter alia.

"John S. Denker" wrote:

> 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.

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