Re: [Phys-l] "Flow" again (or still if you prefer)

[JMGreen <jmgreen@sisna.com>]

Have you noticed that even if the simplest question is asked, the 
thread seems to deteriorate into hand-waving, wordiness, or speechifying.

Only a couple of replies have addressed the original questions thus 
far, could more delve in?  If I ask the questions again, could I get 
additional helpful responses? --


At 09:08 PM 5/18/2006, I wrote:
> I must confess that the recent "flow" discussions caught me me by
> surprise.  I would like  to explore my understanding of how others
> use the term in connection with an unfinished paper which colleagues
> urge me to complete -- see web page if you have the time
>
> Consider the Joule Mechanical Equivalent of Heat experiment:
>
> An accurate drawing is available on my web page but the following
> should do:  Two strings with two hanging weights at one end on each
> string each passes over pulleys to a paddle wheel which is submerged
> in water.  As the weights are allowed to fall the paddle wheel is
> forced to rotate.  In the process the water is heated.
>
> Which of you would insist that energy be reified in your mind and
> flow from -- well where? -- to the water?  If so would you have a
> special name for this energy?
>
> Which of you would prefer to think of the process as follows:
>
> The Earth does work on the weights as they fall.
> The weights do work on the strings.
> The strings do work on the paddle wheel.
> The paddle wheel does work on the water molecules.
> The average KE of the water molecules increases.
> The temperature of the water increases.
>
> Nothing "flows" -- ie energy is not reified in the mind.  Work is done
>
>
> If you would not prefer the preceeding, would you sympathize with 
> this explanation?
>
> Some other set of feelings?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jim
>
> J M Green
> Email:  MailTo:JMGreen@sisna.com
> WWW: http://users.sisna.com/JMGreen