~^Johnny^~ wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:31:59 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>> What's being argued here is the sematics of saying 'thermal
>>energy' vs 'heat energy', and while the former is perhaps more
>>correct, the later does perfectly well.
>
>
>
> It's rare that I find myself agreeing with Paul.
> But he has a point. While technically incorrect to refer to enthalpy as
> "heat", due to teh dynamic nature of heat, it is ridiculous to split hairs
> over semantics, as many textbooks use the two terms interchangeably.
> Even the 1911 unabridged Webster's dictionary included both definitions for
> the term "heat", altough more modern dictionaries seem to have dropped the
> former.
>
> One can argue that since heat is *generated*, it has to be moving -- going
> somewhere -- therefore, it is a dynamic phenomenon. A change of enthalpy
> constitutes heating or cooling. It was pointed out to me, that heat (even
> latent heat) can only move across a non-zero temperature gradient [thank you,
> Daestrom].
>
> However, the concept of "heat" being synonymous with "enthalpy" is going to
> remain in the minds and textbooks of many, rightfully or wrongfully so, for
> many tears to come. It's preposterous to go on and on and on about it, when
> it is clear that we are are really talking about the same thing.
>
> You are all acting like a bunch of 10-year-olds!
>
> This kind of reminds me of a classic Looney Tunes dialog:
>
> Bugs: I tell you it did!
> Sam: Did not!
> Bugs: Did, too!
> Sam: Did not!
> Bugs: Did, too!
> Sam: Did not!
> Bugs: Did, too!
> Sam: Did not!
> Bugs: Did, too!
> Sam: Did not!
> Bugs: Did not!
> Sam: Did, too!
> Bugs: Ok Doc, if you say so!

Excuse me, is this the argument clinic?