Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was: whypseudowork(NOT)

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

Let me expand that last sentence:
In mechanics work is a different animal, admitting of specific
definition(s) for specific purely mechanical W-E theorem(s), which are no
more than elucidations of Newton's laws of motion, and say nothing about
the exchange or conservation of energy.

Bob

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: macroscopic vs microscopic degrees of freedom (was:
whypseudowork(NOT)


> You make the right point, Leigh.  Let me expand (perhaps corrupt:) a
bit.
> In the first law of thermodynamics, dE = dQ + dW,  dW is simply a
template
> to be filled in "ad hoc" to account for an exchange of non-heat energy
> between the system and its environment.  The form of the template is
> typically further (but still vaguely) specified as dW=Y*dX.
>
> This is adapted ad hoc to include mechanical, electrical, etc ( psychic?
> :) interactions with the environment which were not included in dQ.  How
> these energy forms are partitioned (even dQ vs dW) is open to a variety
of
> approaches, so long as the equation balances.  I.E., as far as dE is
> concerned, there is no hard and fast, universal definition of these
terms;
> each situation is open to an ad hoc model for dQ and the various dW's -
> whatever it takes to balance the equation.
>
> Mechanical work is a different animal, admitting of specific
definition(s)
> for specific purely mechanical W-E theorem(s).
>
> Bob