Re: There's work, and then there's work

[Bob LaMontagne <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>]

David Rutherford wrote:

> Let me try another approach. Do you agree that the temperature rise,
> outside the resistor, is due _only_ to the transverse component of the
> velocity of the particles (disregarding the mass, etc.) in the resistor?
> If your answer is yes, you must also agree that there is energy, due to
> the longitudinal component of the velocity, that is _not_ being
> accounted for in the calorimeter experiment. If your answer is no, then
> please explain how a hypothetical particle with _only_ a longitudinal
> velocity would cause a heat rise in the environment outside the
> resistor. If it doesn't cause a heat rise, then its energy is not being
> accounted for in the calorimeter experiment.

This will be my last response to this thread - we've taxed everyone's patience to the
limit. The temperature rise is due to the fact that when the electron current flows
through the resistor it follows a path that has a change in potential. Normally, this
would accelerate the electrons. We know they are not accelerated because the current into
the resistor is the same as that coming out (steady state basically). So, instead of the
iV showing up as electron Kinetic energy it instead shows up as an increase in the
temperature of the water in the calorimeter. No hypothetical particles needed -
longitudinal or transverse!

Bob at PC

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is short, simple, and wrong."
   - H. L. Mencken