Having read the 100 or so postings on this topic (75 at one sitting--after
a trip), I'm ready to put in my $.02.
It seems to me there are many levels to this discussion. There is the
Bowman--microscopic/relativistic approach that includes details of
everything short of the gluons. There is the Palmer Classical
Thermodynamics approach which requires faithful adherence to the
established forms. However, for many of us (and I suspect Ludwick may be
in this camp), we are instructing non-majors in introductory courses who
will never take a 'Classical Thermodynamics' course. We must deal with
books in which heat, heat energy, heat flow and a variety of other
'sloppily used' terms appear and (if we can actually get students to read
the books) must be dealt with. In these courses, the bulk of the 'thermo'
is really Calorimetry and the most important concept being stressed is
conservation of energy and the transfer of such from one 'labeled' form to
another. In this context, let me suggest that the term Thermal Energy may
have some advantages to that of Heat (used as a noun). It is also
convenient to be able to describe what happens when one rubs one's hands
together in terms somewhat less complex and precise than the Bowman
approach, and in doing so one will probably have to use some terms
forbidden by the Palmer approach.