Re: no thermal energy

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 07:14 AM 10/29/99 -0800, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
> > ... is why I don't like the phrase "thermal energy."  In my view there is
> > only "internal energy" and bulk translational kinetic energy.  Internal
> > energy includes everything but the three translational degrees of freedom.

To which I replied:
> Not accepting "thermal energy" is tantamount to not accepting
> "entropy" and/or "temperature".

And then at 10:23 AM 10/29/99 -0700, Jim Green wrote:
> Not so, John, John is quite right here -- at least if we are n ot  going to
> mix up our language and definitions.  We all should have a pretty good
> understanding of "internal energy' -- the thing in the First Law -- why
> should we clutter up the discussion with another term -- "thermal energy"
> is just confusing and probably has no helpful place in the discussion.

I stand by what I said.

For example: consider a taut spring.  It contains internal energy of a sort
I wish to call nonthermal energy.  I then release it in such a way that
this energy is converted to a form I wish to call thermal energy.  (No bulk
translational kinetic energy is present in the "before" or "after" states.)

Declining to "clutter" our discussion with terms that permit a distinction
between a taut spring and hot spring is tantamount to rejecting the notion
of entropy.

______________________________________________________________
copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker             jsd@monmouth.com