Re: [Phys-l] Heat is a noun

[carmelo@pacific.net.sg]

Quoting John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>:
> Rules of the game:
>   a) The goal is to find a /practical/ example, such as an
>    experiment that can be readily performed.  In particular
>    this excludes Gedankenexperiments on cosmological scales
>    or ultra-subatomic scales where we can't actually do the
>    experiment.  This most explicitly excludes objections to
>    the phrasing of the definition;  if a definition is operationally
>    usable, it is good enough for me, regardless of phrasing.
>   b) There must be a reasonable way to analyze the experiment
>    in terms of energy.
>   c) The analysis must fail to describe some /observable/
>    outcome of the experiment, and the failure must be due to
>    the lack of a "good" definition of energy.  In particular
>    this excludes fussing about gauge independence, since
>    the gauge is unobservable.
>
> I've asked this question before, and received a grand total
> of zero valid examples.
>
> That's why I continue to believe that for all practical
> purposes, energy is well defined.


How about heat or thermal energy generated when sands are continuously  
falling at constant rate on a moving conveyor belt? Electromagnetic  
energy generated by friction to what extent measurable? Zero-point  
energy measurable?

Energy is *well* defined as "capacity to perform work" or "ability to  
perform work"? Energy is well defined as ___________________?
It is, of course, better for the students to learn from something  
concrete, then to abstract...


Alphonsus