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]

Re: ENERGY WITH Q



If Q was interpreted to be a form of work instead of energy, would the
expression Q+W still lead to the misconception that W is a form of energy
(since the left-hand side is energy)? I'm thinking of a similar conception
regarding F=ma, i.e., that ma is a form of force.

Absolutely, Robert. If in these discussions we would stop reifying energy
and Q and saying things like "flow", converted, and transferred, then the
understanding of the matter would grow. Somewhere in the synapses of our
bodies very unhelpful language of the past is locked -- perhaps for ever.

deltaE(U if you prefer) = Q + W is strongly related to the W/E principle
and is easily derived from N#2

Q is _not_ energy!

Both Q and W are _work_!

Now I tend to agree partially with John Denker that it is _very_ difficult
to separate Q from W in any real situation but they are both work. The
doctrine of thermodynamics was spawned from the steam engine and the
ubiquitous adiabatic cylinder and piston. Maybe if we were to start over
we could overcome this disadvantage. Of course if we were to start over we
would not end up with both an electric field and a magnetic field and a
lot of other quasi stuff.

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen