Re: What Flows?

["Richard W. Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

One last post on this.

While I'm sure that the precise language you and Jim advocate DOES make it
easier for the student dealing with classical thermodynamics and other
advanced courses, the question I have (and I assume many others) is whether
such language makes it easier for the introductory student--especially
those who will never go on to a thermo course--to deal with the concept of
'heat' as it applies to their world.  Here I can't really see the harm that
associating heat with 'thermal energy' does, and it certainly makes it
easier to deal with topics such as 'heat engines', 'heat exchangers', and a
variety of other semi-technical uses of the word 'heat'.  I think following
Jim's rules--heat is a verb, is not energy, and doesn't flow would be
conceptually more difficult for the beginning student. 

I would still contend that the student who learns the commonly accepted
nomenclature and IS bright enough and motivated enough to go on to higher
level classes can then understand both that the nomenclature needs to be
tightened up for such work AND understand the usefullness of the 'less than
correct' usage at the introductory level.  

> From the many quotes others have offered from a variety of texts and
physicists, it is clear that calling heat 'thermal energy' is VERY wide
spread.   Is it so clear then that this is 'dead wrong'.

To Jim:  If you don't like heat flow, how do you feel about electric and
magnetic flux?  Seems like you should have the same objections!  ;-)

Rick
----------
> From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
>
> These are the crux of the problem. I know that my own conceptual
> difficulties disappeared when I made my language more precise. I
> know that students who harbor the same misconceptions also seem
> to be unable to understand the precise language. I believe the
> phenomena are related, probably intimately, in which case they
> constitute a cognitive syndrome. I believe the ailment(s) is
> treatable. That is why I advocate what Jim supports. I can cure
> an occasional bright student by taking her on one-on-one. I
> reiterate and reformulate the same message until she catches on
> to the fact that what I'm saying is important. The barrier to
> understanding the concept then seems to melt (if I don't lose my
> patience) and both of us are truly thrilled by the revelation. I
> have not yet figured out how to achieve such miraculous
> conversion on a group of students in a classroom situation, and
> I also note that some students achieve the understanding without
> my personal intervention, presumably by reading books (and
> perhaps listening to me) and being willing to believe that what
> they have to say is important. The sloppy usage acknowledged in
> the texts so far quoted notwithstanding, precision is better
> than resignation to sloppy thinking.
>
> That is the nature of my evidence; I've done it. It is far from
> automatic, and it sometimes requires intense interactivity. (I
> have also noticed that others who understand classical
> thermodynamics seem to use precise language as well.)
>
> Leigh