Re: heat is a form of energy

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

At 8:49 AM -0700 9/8/99, William Beaty wrote:

> ...and Newton's laws are cognitively flawed because they don't incorporate
> relativistic concepts.  They have limited application.  We should stop
> using them?

Explain to me how they are cognitively flawed. I'm unaware of any
problem there.

> "Heat" works fine as long as we remain extremely aware of its limitations
> and of the misconceptions it can breed (no, I myself am not yet totally
> aware of these.  I'm still learning thermo and trying to assemble an
> intuitive picture of entropy concepts.)

By implication you are telling me that "heat" works better than
"energy" in some application of the pedagogy. Please give me an
example; I can't think of one.

> Touch a warm copper block to a cold one.  "Heat" flows.  The "Heat flow"
> concept is a useful mental tool. Do you have an alternative set of
> concepts which can be understood by students/teachers in the lower grades?
> Or should we remove Thermo from curriculum material below the undergrad
> level?

If you want to use the analogy why can't you say "energy flows"? In
what way is it better to say "heat flows"? If there is a difference
(as the use of a different term would imply) what is it? Would you
similarly speak of the flow of work into a copper block being
pressed into a belt sander, or the flow of work into a descending
yo-yo?

Heat and work are processes. The name for the quantity of energy that
is associated with each process has the same name as the process, an
unfortunate feature, in my view.

Leigh