Re: ENERGY WITH Q

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

> Carl Mungan wrote: "Either heat is energy IN A SYSTEM or
> it is energy IN TRANSIT from one system to another.

I am  amazed that this issue is still prevalent:  Why do otherwise
competent physicists continue to confuse themselves in this manner?  In the
First Law, dE=Q+W, isn't it clear that E is energy and Q&W are things which
are done to change the level of energy of a system -- Why is that so
difficult to understand?  Why do we continue to punish ourselves with the
following:

> I recognize the problem. But, in my opinion, the discrepancy
> is apparent, not real. It results from the use of the same symbol,
> Q (and the word heat), for two DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
> To respect traditional terminology the Q of calorimetry should
> be called heat and the W of mechanics (F*ds) should be called
> work. Unfortunately, these two words are often redefined in
> thermodynamics. Organized and disorganized "energies in
> transfer," appearing in the First Law, are new concepts and
> new words are needed for them. New symbols are also needed.

Call Q and W what you will, but isn't it clear that neither is
"energy"?  After integrating F=ma, don't we call F*ds work and the
resultant integral of ma we call energy.  Would somebody please explain to
me why the confusion arises -- I am sincerely and truly mystified.

And isn't it by now clear that the gross mechanism for W & Q is the same
action -- that the actions only differ in detail?

I  think that I understand the argument -- I just don't understand why it
persists.

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