Re: What Flows?

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

Both Paul and David cleverly sidestep the point I briefly tried to make, i.e:

> In the case of "heat flows", [from my viewpoint] it is not the students 
> [views] which pose the principle concern, *it is the instructors*!!!  Sure 
> if one has the time for Socratic progression throughout the term, start
with >"fire, water, earth, and air" {where ever the students are]  But if
the >*instructor* does not understand the correct nature of "heat" 
[and The First Law] 

(and it seems not)<<<-----, 

> the students will never learn.  They will just
> flounder around in mythology babbling about "heat flowing" --- and in the
> following year they will be teaching others the same mythology.

I suppose if forced to a position in this teaching thing, I would say that 
if the instructor can demonstrate that s/he really knows the details of 

T#1: dU = Q + W  

then I have no comment regarding how they do the teaching.  But after the 
thread on "heat", I have grave concerns.  But, alas, no more comment.


> Jim.Green@Snow.edu
> Heat is not energy.
> Heat does not flow.
> Heat is work!!!!