Re: What Flows?

[Jim Green <Jim.Green@Snow.edu>]

At 02:28 PM 9/9/96 -0500, Rick Tarara wrote:
> Let me answer, I'm sure Leigh will as well. 

I hope he does. but I sense everyone has had enough -- we get to this point
in this discussion each year and everyone gives up and nothing gets settled.
Of course some are on the sidelines stomping their feet and thinking "Hey,
heat as a substance was good enough for Carnot, so it is good enough for me."

>                                                       The Total kinetic
> energy is what I would call the amount of Heat in each container.  Heat is
> energy but not all energy is heat--stuck with a dual nomenclature due to
> the caloric sidetrack in history.

I am back to yelling at my computer screen!  HEAT IS NOT ENERGY.  It is not
*in* anything.  It does not flow.  Heat is DONE to the system.  This would
be an arbitrary usage only if there weren't a T#1: dU = DQ + DW.  dU is IN
the system; DQ is done TO the system.  For the life of me I don't understand
why we keep talking about this point.  Somebody help me out here.  Leigh?
Mark?  Somebody?  Can't we all please get on the same page.

> Now when A and B are placed in contact I watch over time and find that the
> motion in A decreases while the motion in B increases.  Eventually, the
> total KE in A equals the total KE in B.  Energy has been transferred from A
> to B and it took time to do so.  This has all the earmarks of a 'flow' from
> A to B.

Rick, you have not answered the question!  As I see it the conversation
stops until we all realize HOW the transfer is done.  What is the mechanism?
Just how it happens that A heats B. As soon as we all understand the
mechanism, this conversation about "heat flow" will stop -- we all will see
how silly it is.

So we are left with the question how does steel plate A heat abutting steel
plate B? 
Now who is it who will say "Well that's simple. Heat flows from A to B."

 
Jim.Green@Snow.edu