Re: [Phys-l] thermodynamics without entropy ?!??

["LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>]

> As a specific example, consider the interminable holy wars
> about "the" definition of heat.  I've come to the realization
> that although I've worked with heat all my life, and know what
> it means in particular situations, I don't have any unique,
> prescriptive definition.  None of the "definitions" on offer
> are satisfactory.
>
> The important part is the good part:  I don't need to define
> heat.  Not at all.  That's because any "heat" problem worth
> doing can be reformulated in terms of energy and entropy, and
> the reformulated version is in all ways better, AFAICT.

Agreed. In addition, I have never seen what I consider a satisfactory
definition of energy, but I wouldn't give up energy either.

Bob at PC