Re: energy etc. +- precise language

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 09:44 AM 8/14/99 +0100, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> For example, doesn't the phrase
> "thermal insulator", used by Jim in the first H2O message,
> also promote thinking about some stuff being transferred
> (transported) across the material?

I don't see why it should promote any such thing.  In common usage, saying
"something" is transported does *not* imply that any tangible stuff was
transported.  My opinion is supported by my dictionary (Random House) which
gives 21 definitions for the word "thing".  Of these, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21 clearly refer to abstractions and/or
intangible things.

Saying that energy (or heat) is not a "thing" is not merely pedantry --
it's just plain wrong.

> Should the "thermal
> conductivity" be replaced by "conduction of work"?

No.

> Why is "conduction" of energy better that "transfer" of energy?

It's not.