Talk:Heat

WP:Make technical articles understandable

Wikipedia’s advice at WP:Make technical articles understandable is applicable to this article on heat. The article fails some of the basic elements of this advice. Immediately after the lead there is a very short section on Notation and units and then a large section titled Classical thermodynamics, containing advanced information on entropy and enthalpy, and a lot of math.

There appears to be no good reason why readers of Wikipedia who come to this article to learn a little about heat should be confronted with the concepts of entropy and enthalpy, and a lot of math, before they reach more basic concepts such as the history of the subject, and the concept of heat transfer, both of which are accomplished without resort to math.

Wikipedia’s advice says Put the least obscure parts of the article up front. That is certainly not happening with the sections on entropy and enthalpy which are not "the least obscure parts" of the subject of heat!

Relevant background is as follows. Prior to mid-2018 the information on Enthalpy and Entropy was located much lower in the article, around items 4 and 5 in the list of contents. On June 24, 2018 this information was lifted much higher in the article so that it now appears immediately after the very short section on Notation and units. No meaningful edit summary was supplied. See the diff1. Next, the sub-sections on enthalpy and entropy were reversed in position so that entropy appears first, and enthalpy appears second. No meaningful edit summary was supplied. See the diff2.

The relocation of the two sections in question is most likely to have been made on the basis of their titles rather than on the basis of their technical contents, which is advanced and full of math. Unfortunately the User who relocated these two sections is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I will remove the two sections in question from their present location and return them to the position they occupied prior to June 2018, further down the list of contents. Dolphin (t) 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

NYUAD researchers shed new light on how heat is transmitted

Hi!

I came across this article that discovered new information on how heat is transmitted!

unfortunately i am unable to edit this article, but would be great if someone would add the information: https://gulfnews.com/uae/environment/nyuad-researchers-shed-new-light-on-how-heat-is-transmitted-1.103297823

Thank you to all editors and have a wonderful day Indipedian1991 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Indipedian1991, for your heads up.

The article that you link to is about convection. That article says that convection is a kind of transfer of heat. But for thermodynamics, convection is a kind of transport of internal energy, not a kind of transfer of energy as heat. Convection is a kind of transfer of matter, which carries internal energy along with it. For thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work and transfer of matter. Those mechanisms are conduction, radiation, and friction. They operate at the atomic or molecular level, while convection is a bulk process. Consequently, the article that you linked to is not suitable content for the Wikipedia article on heat, which is about heat considered from a thermodynamic point of view.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

reasons for undoing string of edits of 3 Aug 2024

I have undone the whole string of edits of 3 Aug 2024 by Jephtah Ogyefo Acquah because they are often in error, and it is too hard to correct them one by one.

Dear Jephtah Ogyefo Acquah, your edits were in good faith, but technically faulty. Some of them are faulty in merely format, but some are faulty in substantial ways. A direct quote should be spelt as in the original source, not corrected for modern spelling. More substantially, you muddle conduction of electricity with conduction of heat. You cite many Wiki-unreliable sources. If you persist with your efforts on this article, please do it following correct procedure.

This article has been largely wrecked by the intervention of a keen Wikilawyer who accidentally read one textbook, and by another keen editor who isn't interested in classical thermodynamics, and by various other drive-by shooters. Please don't make it any worse.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you undone, but as I explained before, the current emphasis on different meanings only makes the article less interesting, superficial and it creates confusion. Wikipedians might disagree on superficial issues, definitions, etc. and this make them feel that they are important issues that should be explained in the article as well, but these issues are best kept in the talk page. The article should just say as simply and as directly as possible what it has to say that is interesting. Definitions are only useful to say things. They are not interesting in themselves. Sure, having the right definition for a given purpose is important, but the best way to show the value of a definition is to use it, not discuss it, compare it, etc. In particular, the following sentence is most likely the personal creation of a well intentioned but misguided wikipedian: In colloquial use, heat sometimes refers to thermal energy itself. Thermal energy is the kinetic energy of vibrating and colliding atoms in a substance. It makes no sense to say that the highly technical notion of thermal energy is the colloquial use. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that 'thermal energy' is a highly technical notion. I would say that it is a hybrid notion.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

bulk movement versus microscopic agitation

The present day thermodynamic notion of 'heat' is as a kind of transfer, a bulk movement, with a source and a destination. The notion of 'internal energy' is as a property of a stationary state of a single body, with internal microscopic agitation, but neither source nor destination, and without bulk movement. Movement and agitation are motions of different kinds. The history of the escape from the caloric theory to the mechanical theory of 'heat' is over about 1795 to 1855, half a century. It is a pity that the main title of Stephen Brush's book is The Kind of Motion We Call Heat. We should remember also the subtitle A History of the Kinetic Theory of Gases in the 19th Century. The book is not primarily about the thermodynamic notion of heat. The present Wikipedia article on heat is primarily about the thermodynamic notion of heat, though there has recently been a vigorous movement to blur it.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

restore traditional thermodynamic definition

For over a decade of consensus, the Wikipedia article on heat used the thermodynamic definition. That definition was perhaps popularised by G.H. Bryan's 1907 book. It has the logical advantage that it sets up the first law's definition of internal energy without relying on the notion of temperature, which is best treated in the context of the second law. It has also the advantage that it observes the facts that obsoleted the caloric theory of heat, that friction generates heat. Heat transfer engineers are happy to think of heat transfer only in terms of thermal conduction and radiation, but that doesn't allow friction to generate heat. It is desirable to make the definition refer to the traditional thermodynamic concept of 'system and surroundings', because what happens in the surroundings is not always easy to specify in narrow thermodynamic terms. Chjoaygame (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)