Re: An poll about "the four letter word"

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

Would any on this list find it objectionable to use the word "heating"
> for Q?  The intention is that this word
> (1) has a plain-language meaning very similar to the physical concept,
> (2) has a position in language very much parallel to the word "work",
> (3) and is similar enough to the traditional word that a change would
> not be a Sisyphian task.

I certainly agree that the use of the word "heat" as a noun is
problematic.  But you are right that Q has a parallel in W -- so in my
classes I use them in the same form -- neither as the name of a substance
but as the name of an action -- which is imposed upon the system.

If you have the verbal discipline to stick to this distinction in class,
then OK -- if you do not (and most instructors do not) then do not use
"heat" as a noun.

Both Q & W should be presented as the result of an integral of  N2 which
leads to the so called Work/Energy Theorem.   Q & W are the same thing in
the First Law -- they follow from the same/similar physical actions -- they
only differ in the Second Law.  And then profitably only in the very narrow
standard case of the adiabatic cylinder and piston.  Most other cases mush
the situation beyond profitable recognition.

Just little me over here in my corner of the galaxy.


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