Re: [Phys-l] terminology

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

>
And which argument is the suspect one?  If PER were in the education
departments it would make absolutely no headway, and students would continue
to come out of all physics courses with poor understanding and novice
problem solving skills.  Physics teachers need to understand the physics AND
the students.  And they need to get rid of their misconceptions about how
and how much students learn.

Should one be picky about the word heat, or should one not be picky?  That
is the question.  Like a lot of definitions in physics it is often ambiguous
and may be defined differently by different authors and teachers.  See for
example weight!  And definitions change with time.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> I hate to sound too harsh when I say this, and I really don't intend this
> as a personal attack,  but the argument given here is one of the reasons
> that I have always contended that PER properly belongs in education
> departments and not physics departments.
>
>
> Bob at PC
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of John Clement
> Sent: Thu 12/4/2008 11:53 AM
> To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] terminology
>
>
>
> Actually many of the PER physicists have no objections to using the term
> heat as a synonym for thermal energy.  But engineers are another matter.
> They are very rigid with respect to terminology.  Textbook writers are
> also
> fairly picky, especially the traditional writers.
>
> The main problem comes in if you use the term heat in the thermodynamics
> equation as the thermal energy transferred.  Then it really can not be
> used
> as the total amount of thermal energy.  So if you are looking ahead to a
> thermo course, being picky may be desired.  But if you are looking at
> where
> students are when they come into your course, heat is a useful term for
> thermal energy.  So thermodynamacists would be fairly careful with the
> word
> heat.  John Leonhardt (an engineer) ranted on one of his radio broadcasts
> about the "misuse" of the word heat.
>
> The Modelers have come up with two useful changes in terminology.  Use the
> word heating, and working for the transfer of energy.  This makes a lot of
> sense and distances the terminology from common usage.  Since both work
> and
> heat are nouns they tend to make the student picture them as something you
> can have, so gerunds are better because they denote action rather than
> things.
>
> Many of the PER materials have been designed for intro courses where the
> students will probably never take thermo.  As a result heat is often used
> as
> a synonym for thermal energy.  In particular the Real Time Labs do this.
> Even lower level physical science textbooks sometimes try to avoid using
> this synonym, but they usually fail.  One popular HS physics book defines
> heat as the transfer, and then uses the word in sentences which telegraph
> the idea of heat as thermal energy.
>
> Professional physicists can fairly safely use the word both ways because
> they pick up the meaning from the context.  But students do not do this,
> and
> this poses severe problems in thermo.  So I have adopted the heating
> usage,
> and for energy either say "heat energy" or "thermal energy" when I am
> being
> careful.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
> > > The only physicists that I know who object to the term 'heat' are
> > > those involved in pedagogy rather than the PRACTICE of physics.
> > > The objectors may be involved in BOTH teaching and practice - but
> > > those who don't teach - don't object to the word at all.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l