Re: Gases, vapors and the like

[Glenn Knapp <kahuna@VCN.COM>]

 Rigid adherence to uniform, unitary uses of words, or symbology for

>>that matter, may simplify the local situation but is inconsistent with the

>>way language, and symbology, is used even within/among professional

>>disciplines as closely related as physics and chemistry or chemistry and

>>chemical engineering.  It's a little like _speaking_ as Romans when in

>>Rome, or _hearing_ for that matter.

>

>In order to be useful as a technical communication medium English

>words must be used with precise meanings, conventionally

>understood by both parties in dialog. If that sounds pedantic (in

>the dictionary sense of seeming formal and uninspired), so what?

-------------------

I've been following this thread with interest.  It strikes me that everyone on this list had better know all about what is and isn't a vapor and about gases and the rest of it.  The fact that everyday languange employs vapor, steam, gas, etc. in ways that a physicist or chemist would not approve is one of the very good reasons why courses in chemistry and physics are offered in high school and at the college level.  That is where the confusion can be pointed out by the skilled instructor and the exact precise meanings of the terms can be learned.

In fact, you have to spend a lot of time in an introductory course pointing out the approved "physics" meanings for many terms:  force, velocity, speed, energy, work, power, etc.  There's a lot of vocabulary in any well-taught science course.

Glenn

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Physics Kahuna
Kahuna Physics Institute - on the flapping edge of physics research.