| 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] |
Is there a reason for both (flow & fluid) having the same two initial
letters?
bc, who wonders if JG accepts the verb transfer in this context.
p.s. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=f&p=8
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=f&p=8>
not exactly the same origin.
Larry Smith wrote:
>At 9:08 PM -0600 5/18/06, JMGreen wrote:
>
>
>>I must confess that the recent "flow" discussions caught me me by
>>surprise. I would like to explore my understanding of how others
>>use the term ...
>>
>>Consider the Joule Mechanical Equivalent of Heat experiment:
>>
>>Which of you would prefer to think of the process as follows:
>>
>>The Earth does work on the weights as they fall.
>>The weights do work on the strings.
>>The strings do work on the paddle wheel.
>>The paddle wheel does work on the water molecules.
>>The average KE of the water molecules increases.
>>The temperature of the water increases.
>>
>>
>
>I prefer this last explanation.
>
>My concern about momentum|heat|energy flow is that intro students might
>think that it does mean there is a fluid corporeal substance moving.
>
>If JD carefully explains that the blue bicycle is different from the red
>bicycle, and if he gets good results...I find it hard to argue with good
>results from the students.
>
>But I also think it is difficult to guess what is in students' minds until
>someone does the research. Educational research can produce very
>surprising results.
>
>I don't mind if JD or the community of physicists define "flow" to apply to
>things like momentum, but until the research is done it isn't clear that it
>benefits intro students, especially when in their prior experience "flow"
>means a fluid.
>
>Larry