Re: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

[LUDWIK KOWALSKI <kowalskil@alpha.montclair.edu>]

Hi Leigh:
Forgive this delayed response to you thermal energy comment; I am a slow 
thinker. I could not resist reminding you that you also started using 
the thermal energy wording. But that is not my concern now.

On Monday you wrote:

> ... The name thermal energy is unnecessary, and it is misleading. The
> implication is that the energy has somehow been acquired from a source
> which was used to heat the system. The terms work, heat, and internal
> energy, on the other hand, are well defined and are not misleading.

I would not argue that "thermal" is the best adjective. But a distinction
between thermal and internal must be made. The initial kinetic energy of
the cube (in our situation) was part of internal energy of the M+m system
but it was not "thermal" or "random" or ... The original formulation of
the problem, before you started contributing, was in terms of internal
energy. But this was criticized and I grabbed the "thermal energy" option.
I tend to disagree with you that thermal energy concept is unnecessary.

Or consider a clock. The energy in its spring, in its turning wheels, etc.
is internal to the clock as a system. But it is distinctly different from
what we think when the thermal energy is mentioned. Do you agree? Can you 
suggest a better adjective? After your comment I tried "random" but you 
did not like it either. 
                                                  Ludwik Kowalski