Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

WORKING not HEATING?



On Sept 6 Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. quotes from Einstein and Infeld (The
Evolution of Physics, 1938):

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are
not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."

They are elements from which interpretations of the real world are composed
by physicists. Many teachers on this list are physicists. Therefore (without
pretending to be great) we may continue the concept-refinement game.
...........................................................................
The energy related threads made me aware that thermodynamic heating
(a process by which the internal energy of a system is changed due to a
difference of temperatures between the inside and outside) should not be
confused with "pseudo-heating", for example, when a penetrating radiation
(alpha particles, electrons, photons, etc.) is entering a system or when
a chemical reaction is taking place inside (a barrier separating reactants
is removed, frictionlessly).

Any temperature changing processe, OTHER THAN HEATING, should be called
working. Common mechanical working (applying a force to a moving particle
or a rigid object) is just one of many possible kinds of working. Is this
a correct definition of "workig in general"?

Sending an electric current through a resistor should be called workig
and not heating. Cooking in a microwave oven is predominately working;
a meal would be ready sooner if heating could be eliminated. Saying that
a fillament is "heated electrically" is bad physics. It was OK before but
it is not OK now. I am not trying to be sorcastic. This is logical and
our vocabulary must be modified. Would you agree? How can this be done?

Note that one can also argue, as Jim does,
http://www.sisna.com/users/jmgreen/first.html
that the process of increasing a temperature by placing a cup on a hot
plate is also working. Why? Because this is done through collisions
of atoms and molecules. Are we ready to say that heating does not
exist (as an acceptable word in teaching physics)?
Ludwik Kowalski
P.S.
After reading The Evolution of Physics again I think that Einstein
would not agree with us. He would probably say something like "devil
also tries to be logical." Or "freedom of being creative is limited
not only by the external world, but also by the language we enherited
from our predecessors." These are my guesses. Here is what they really
wrote in The Evolution of Physics (p 54), a book for an educated layman.
"These kinds of energy, mechanical and heat, are only two of its many
forms. Everything that can be converted into either of them is also a
form of energy. ... An electric current posesses energy, for it heats
a wire or turns the wheel of a motor." Slip of a tongue again, similar
to the one below (by Feynman)?

"It turns out that with thermometers you can find out that, in fact,
the spring or the lever is warmer, and that there is really an increase
of kinetic energy by a definite amount. We call this form of energy
HEAT ENERGY, but we know it is not really a new form, it is just
kinetic energy - internal motion." (The Feynman Lectures on Physics,
vol I, page 4-4, only two pages after the Dennis' blocks story.)
The heat energy term was emphasized in the text.

I AM SORRY FOR BRINGING BACK THIS TERMINOLOGY TOPIC. WE ARE NOT
DISCUSSING PHYSICS HERE. WE ARE DISCUSSING WORDS TO BE OR NOT
TO BE USED IN OUR CLASSES. IS THAT SUBJECT IMPORTANT?