Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 07:03 PM 11/2/99 -0500, Bob Sciamanda wrote:system
2) JD interprets dE=dQ+dW as a partitioning of energy CHANGES in a
textbookon the basis of the properties of the final system state: eg., was the
energy increment thermalized into "Heat" ("thermal energy") so that it
changed the system entropy, or was it Work (with no regard to the
mechanism of its entry/exit into/from the system)?
I agree with Bob's summary of my thoughts on this issue.
Do John Denker's views show a disconnection between (1) academic,
itthermodynamics and (2) real-world engineering practices?
That may be an important part of the story, but I would rather not word
quite that way. For one thing, the word "academic" has many meanings:of
some pejorative, some just the opposite. So I tend to avoid the word
except in its most literal meaning, as in "academic institution".
Perhaps a better way to describe it is a disconnection between (1)
elementary, introductory thermodynamics and (2) real-world no-nonsense
thermodynamics.
Specifcally, the emphasis on
dU = dQ + dW ** for each system separately **
(as opposed to the emphasis on transfers from A to B) is important if
dissipative processes are being considered, and usually not important
otherwise.
If that's what's going on, it's a pity, because the shortcut provides
little or no simplification of the elementary case, and does all sorts
mischief in the real-world case.