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



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Green" <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: ENERGY WITH Q


[snip]

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

Heat and work are energy fluxes at the Control Volume boundary. We
are writing a rate equation. It seems obvious to me that heat and
work are quite distinct. The distinction is not only useful; it is
necessary -- if we intend to bring our program of writing rate equations
for entropy and energy to a successful conclusion. I cannot think of
any circumstance where an engineer became confused or even slightly
troubled in writing out these important rate equations --- always for a
*particular* problem that he "must solve" [Einstein]. Granted,
physicists are smarter than engineers. One should always employ the
physicist when one of each is available --- unless the solution of
*your* particular problem has to be correct and cleverosity is not
important :-)

Regards as always / T