Re: 'heat'

[paul o johnson <pojhome@FLASH.NET>]

Samuel Held wrote:

> Paul,
>         Well done in your explanation.  You are absolutely right in your
> definition of heat and work.  These are just fancy names of quantities
> that deal with a many-particle system like a gas.  But how do you feel
> about 'heat' being a verb.  To heat something means to transfer into it
> thermal energy from an external source.  Is that OK?  I would like a
> second opinion.
>
> Sam Held

Sam

Even though it includes far more words than any other language, English
still has the unfortunate tendency to use the same word for entirely
different meanings. This is painfully true when it uses the same word as a
noun and a verb. Since one of the goals of physics is to eschew ambiguity
even at the cost of confusion, why haven't we long ago adopted a different
word than "heat" for the act of transferring thermal energy?

Perhaps it's not too late. How about we borrow from the microwave oven users
and employ "nuke" in that context?

poj