Re: h**t

[Brian McInnes <bmcinnes@PNC.COM.AU>]

 John Denker wrote (inter alia)

> I spent six years doing thermodynamics for a living in an Ivy League
> physics laboratory.  The folks there used "heat" as a noun, as a verb, and
> as several other parts of speech.  We spoke of heat, heating, specific
> heat, latent heat, heat engines, heat exchangers, heat leaks, heat sinks,
> heat switches, the heat equation, and more besides.  I don't recall anybody
> spending even a single millisecond being confused about what the word meant
> in any of these contexts.

Yes, John, I'm not surprised that in that research lab, the
practitioners, the high priests of the profession, spoke their
esoteric language with its historical roots in the caloric theory
mixed with the everyday words of the hoi polloi, and did not become
confused.  Their understandings did not depend on the origins and
meanings of the words.  They were adept at avoiding contradictions and
confusions that are embedded in the language.

Jon continued
> I'm sure that it is *possible* to misunderstand this concept.

Yes, John, it is possible to misunderstand the words and, more
importantly, fail to understand the concepts that lie behind their
tortured application.  It happens in every introductory thermal
physics class at school, college and university.

There is a clash between the language of the caloric theory and the
physics aof the laws of thermodynamics.  Zemansky labored long to get
across this message.  I've no longer the reference to hand but when he
received his medal (was it the Millikan or the Oersted?) his talk was
on the misuse of the word heat.
Jim Green and many others have continued the fight in the interest of
student understanding and sheer logical usage of words within physics.


Finally, John wrote
> I would be surprised and disappointed if the folks on this list couldn't
> rapidly come to a consensus on this.

Yes, I agree, but I think your hoped-for consensus and mine are quite
different.

Brian McInnes
>