Re: entropy - motivation for definition

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> A minor protest here!
> Teaching thermodynamics to engineers (vs. physicists)
> solely by using statistical mechanics may be an interesting
> exercise, but I'm not sure it helps them understand the
> thermodynamics of ductwork. If you're teaching a service
> course to engineers or chemists you have to respect the
> needs of your audience.

1) Who said anything about "solely"?

2) The "ductwork" remark seems over-the-top.  The folks who
do ductwork don't need to know anything about entropy in
particular or thermodynamics in general.  Knowing that
energy is conserved and heat is a form of energy is more
than they "need" to know, and hardly counts as thermodynamics.
So maybe they shouldn't be taking the course at all.

3) What sort of "engineers" are we talking about?  Forsooth,
civil engineers can build bridges without knowing anything about
thermo.  So maybe they shouldn't be taking the course either.

4) One can easily prove (by exhibiting examples) that it is
sometimes possible to have a long career in academic chemistry
without having any real understanding of what entropy is.  So
evidently some chem majors don't "need" to study thermo at all.

5) I can *show* people entropy in the form of a tray full of
coins, having one bit of entropy per particle (i.e. 5.76
joules per kelvin per mole).  If you're going to do thermo
at all, this is the easy way to get started.

6) Rather than a "minor protest", could we please have some
constructive suggestions as to what should be taught to whom,
and how it should be taught?