I have appreciated John Denker's last two postings on this topic. The one
with subject line +- fish was especially well written, and his viewpoint is
the same as mine.
John has wondered why we concentrate so much on temperature-driven transfer.
I think it is just historical. In the early days of thermodynamics we just
didn't understand things very well. Additionally, thermometers and
calorimeters were our primary tools for exploring this field.
When you're on the borderline between chemistry and physics like I am, you
take some of your coursework from chemistry departments and some of your
coursework from physics departments. My thermodynamics training has pretty
much come from chemistry departments (or on my own). I never took a
thermodynamics course in a physics department.
I believe thermodynamics as taught in most chemistry departments is still in
the dark ages. Thermodynamics taught in physics departments (judging from
textbooks) seems much more modern, but not totally out of the dark ages. It
simply amazes me that a hundred years after Boltzman we still have chemistry
thermodynamics books going to great lengths in an attempt to show entropy
(as defined by dQ/T) somehow mysteriously becomes a state function.
Goodness, get over it. Start teaching statistical mechanics early and start
teaching entropy as kln(omega) from the very beginning.
Anyway, I think the emphasis on temperature-driven transfer is just because
that's the way it was historically experimented with and that's the way it
has historically been taught. It's slowly changing, but too slowly in my
opinion.
Thanks, John, for your recent posts on this topic.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817