Alternative definitions of energy?

[juanrga]

I agree with you on this point. In Hamiltonian mechanics juanrga's expression is certainly more convenient and natural, but the whole reason that we call that expression "energy" is because, in any system where you can compute both, you find that they are equivalent.

He is plain wrong when affirms that «energy is defined as the ability to do work and work is defined as the application of force over a distance.»

The concept of work {*} can be derived from the definition given by me for energy E

<E> = Tr{H ρ}

If system is closed

d<E> = Tr{∂H ρ} + Tr{H ∂ρ} = W + Q

Work {*} is then defined as W = Tr{∂H ρ} and heat as Q = Tr{H ∂ρ}

It makes little sense try to define a basic quantity E from a derived quantity W {*}, which does not even need to exist for a specific system/process (I have given some examples where energy exists but work does not).

{*} Moreover, this modern definition of work I am introducing here is more general than the classical definition given by others in this thread as (Force x distance)...

 

[juanrga]

I would leave out the part about string theory.

I see after 30 replies that no one has given the "conventional" response. The conventional response is that energy is the conserved charge associated with symmetry of the Lagrangian under time transations in accordance with Noether's theorem.

Other commenters have pointed out that the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations. In my view that role is subsidiary to the relationship between energy and the Noether current. But we're risking a slide into metaphysics if we start arguing about what axioms are really fundamental.

BBB

Your «conventional» response is a special case of the «standard» response given here, because when the system is stable and in a pure state {*}, L and its related symmetries can be obtained from H and its corresponding symmetries/conservations.

I emphasize again that I have tried to give the more general and rigorous possible definition of energy E, not a definition valid only under certain restrictions/approximations.

{*} Your own reference states that the theorem «does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian...» Whereas my definition is more general and valid also for that kind of systems.

 

[Andrew Mason]

To Andrew Mason: Matterwave wasn't correct, but what you said after was correct. Matterwave is incorrect in saying that that, "Heat can still do 'work', just not in any bulk fashion that would create some kind of work you could use (i.e., it can still make other molecules speed up via collisions)."

To matterwave: Wrong. Adiabatic expansion can convert thermal energy into non-thermal forms of energy. The result is adiabatic expansion work, and this occurs in a bulk fashion. The fact that a gas duster gets quickly cold by means other than radiating heat to the environment proves this.

I did not interpret Matterwave as you did. I just thought he was saying that heat transfer requires doing work at the molecular level (causing other molecules to speed up via random collisions requires work) although this is not (necessarily) useful work.

$T\Delta S_{total}$ (i.e. the so called "unavailable" energy) not constant, it can even decrease in an isolated system. Although $\Delta S_{total}$ can only increase in an isolated system, $T$ can spontaneously decrease while maintaining this isolation. This is because $T$ is based upon kinetic energy per degree of freedom.

I am not sure what you mean. T is based on kinetic energy in the translational mode. Temperature is not based on the energy associated with the kinetic energy of the other modes of motion.

Energy does exist in the same sense that substances exist. Energy is transported by force carriers known as gauge bosons. These are the "substances" which explain the interaction of other particles.

I have not heard anyone refer to a collection of photons as a substance. It seems to me that to call something a substance you would have to at least be able to associate a frame of reference with it. I don't think you can do that with photons or any other gauge boson.

AM

 

[Dale]

He is plain wrong when affirms that «energy is defined as the ability to do work and work is defined as the application of force over a distance.»

No, he is not. That is the usual definition taught in many introductory physics textbooks.

You may not like that definition for a variety of perfectly valid reasons, but it exists and it is simply delusional for you to claim that it doesn't. Andrew Mason is not wrong in affirming the introductory physics textbook definition of energy is the definition of energy.

The concept of work {*} can be derived from the definition given by me for energy E

<E> = Tr{H ρ}

If system is closed

d<E> = Tr{∂H ρ} + Tr{H ∂ρ} = W + Q

Work {*} is then defined as W = Tr{∂H ρ} and heat as Q = Tr{H ∂ρ}

It makes little sense try to define a basic quantity E from a derived quantity W {*}, which does not even need to exist for a specific system/process (I have given some examples where energy exists but work does not).

And here you prove his original point. The two definitions are equivalent, as you yourself have demonstrated.

{*} Moreover, this modern definition of work I am introducing here is more general than the classical definition given by others in this thread as (Force x distance)...

That is a good reason to prefer your definition. It does not make Andrew Mason's definition wrong, simply less general.

However, I am not convinced that it is, in fact, more general. I know how to apply Andrew Mason's definition to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction, but I don't know how to apply your definition. That could easily be a lack of knowledge on my part, but if it is correct then it seems that each definition covers situations that the other does not, making neither more general than the other.

 

[kmarinas86]

It is correct, not obviously false. If you have a hot insulator it will spontaneously give up energy to a cold conductor, and if you have a cold insulator it will spontaneously receive energy from a hot conductor, and if they are equal temperature then there will be no net spontaneous energy transfer.

If you hold the background conditions constant, a warm conductor can heat a room quicker than a hot insulator of the same dimensions. So it is unreliable to think of temperature as a measure of an object's ability to heat the surroundings spontaneously. The definition only makes sense in the limiting case of comparing two bodies in contact in a given case, but it does not make sense as a definition if we interchange one body in the first case with a second body in separate case. Such definitions constitute bad pedagogy, AFAIK.

 

[bbbeard]

I have not heard anyone refer to a collection of photons as a substance. It seems to me that to call something a substance you would have to at least be able to associate a frame of reference with it. I don't think you can do that with photons or any other gauge boson.

If you have a box of photons, then the center-of-momentum frame will usually be well-defined, will it not? Isn't that what you mean by associating a frame of reference?

On the other hand, I don't know why it's important to define "substance" in physics, kmarinas86's comment notwithstanding.

BBB

 

[juanrga]

No, he is not. That is the usual definition taught in many introductory physics textbooks.

You may not like that definition for a variety of perfectly valid reasons, but it exists and it is simply delusional for you to claim that it doesn't. Andrew Mason is not wrong in affirming the introductory physics textbook definition of energy is the definition of energy.

Wait a moment, I am not saying what you think. You are considering my words outside the context of this thread. The details that you give now already were given before by me. In #12 I wrote:

Energy is not the ability to do work {*}...

{*} This, maybe, could be an acceptable definition in a general physics course, but not beyond.

The following discussion with him focused about my note {*}. I am just maintaining that it is not a general definition valid everywhere.

And here you prove his original point. The two definitions are equivalent, as you yourself have demonstrated.

I have proved something totally different:

(i) Energy E has a definition which does not require the introduction of the concept of work W.

(ii) the definition of work W can be derived from the definition of E. For closed systems W is one part of the total variation of Energy: dE = d_w E + d_Q E = W + Q. This implies that whereas Energy is a state function, W is not and depends of the process.

(iii) W in my derivation is a general definition of work, whereas he used a classical definition of mechanical work as (Force x Distance). His W is not the general definition of work but follows from mine as special case: Tr{dH ρ} → ∫ F dr.

(iv) I provided examples and references of systems with a well-defined energy, whose ability to do work is null. I repeat, I makes no sense to define the energy of those systems as its ability to do work when its ability is zero.

 

[Dale]

I am just maintaining that it is not a general definition valid everywhere.

That is fine*, and if that were what you had said then I doubt anyone would have objected. What is not fine is your assertion in post 10 that "Energy is not the ability to do work", to which Andrew Mason correctly objected in post 11.

The existence of a more general definition does not negate nor invalidate a less general definition. It simply extends it to other scenarios where the less general one does not apply, and there are often historical, computational, or pedagogical reasons for using the less general definition in situations where it does apply.

*As I said in post 39, I am not certain that it is actually more general. Can you apply your definition to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction?

 

[juanrga]

That is fine (although, as I said in post 39, I am not certain that it is actually more general). If that is what you had said then I doubt anyone would have objected. What is not fine is your assertion in post 10 that "Energy is not the ability to do work" to which Andrew Mason correctly objected in post 11.

The existence of a more general definition does not negate nor invalidate a less general definition. It simply extends it to other scenarios where the less general one does not apply, and there are often historical, computational, or pedagogical reasons for using the less general definition in situations where it does apply.

I agree with you that my post #10 lacked explanation and even rigor; however, in #12 I added corrections/explanations, and still Andrew Mason in posterior posts (#18, #21...) continued doing the same kind of statements.

I think that I have shown (it is evident for me) that the definition given in #10 is much more general that the definition given here as «ability to do work», specially when the concept of «work» introduced by Andrew Mason (see #18) was that of mechanical classical work only.

About your question about the spring. I already answered this in #42.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Heat transfer is not work. But you knew that.

Heat transfer involves molecular forces being applied over molecular distances. What is that if it is not work?

The second law places strict limits on how much internal energy can be converted to work transfer, and as you know, the conversion is always less than 100%.

Certainly, but that applies only to useful work, which is the W in the first law: ΔQ = ΔU + W

The other consideration is that zero-point energy of quantum systems (e.g. $\frac{1}{2}h\nu$ for a harmonic oscillator) cannot be converted to a work transfer.

Now that is an interesting point. The reason we call it energy is because we think of moving matter as being the result of a force being applied through a distance. Perhaps zero-point energy should not be called energy - because it cannot be used to actually do work. Or can it? Think of a diatomic molecule such as H₂. As a quantum harmonic oscillator it has discrete energy levels of $(n+1/2)h\nu$ so it cannot have less energy than $h\nu/2$. Suppose I keep adding energy until the bond breaks. What, at least theoretically, becomes of that zero-point energy? Does it not go into the kinetic energy of the separated H atoms?

I sharply disagree with that. I would say thermodynamics replaced caloric theory just as chemistry replaced alchemy and astronomy replaced astrology. The terminology in thermodynamics uses common words that have a precise and unambiguous meaning within thermodynamics. The fundamental ideas of thermodynamics are enhanced and extended by kinetic theory, but by no means require the existence of molecules. The efficiency of a Carnot cycle engine is what it is, regardless of atomic theory. And since none of the laws of thermodynamics have been overturned by modern physics, I find the terminology is anything but archaic.

I just said it had archaic origins not that it was not still useful. The concept of "heat flow" is used all the time. "Electromotive force" is an archaic term but we still use it.

First, heat transfer does not require molecular motion. Heat can be transferred from one box of photons to another, for example.

You can have a box of photons? Are you talking about a resonant cavity?

1) Consider how a vibrating wall transfers energy to a gas. Suppose the wall is the y-z plane (at t=0) and is oscillating in the x-direction. With a gas on the +x side, energy is transferred by molecular collisions between the wall molecules and the gas molecules. Does this mean that the transfer is "heat"? No, not at all. The fact that the motion of the wall is coherent means that the F dot dx applied by the wall to the gas is a work transfer.

But you cannot have such a wall. At the molecular level, the molecules in the wall are not all vibrating the same way.

2) Consider a wall in the same orientation as before, except that the wall is not oscillating, but is at some temperature T_w. If the gas is at some temperature T_g < T_w, then there will be a net transfer of energy to the gas. In this case the energy transfer is "heat transfer" because the "motion" of the wall is incoherent.

In other words, the molecules in the wall are doing work on the molecules of gas. Not useful macroscopic work, but they are applying a (very small) force through a (very small) distance.

3) Consider the thermal radiation of a hot black body A to a cold black body B. I assume you will agree that this is a paradigmatic heat transfer.

4) Now suppose that we consider a laser beaming the same amount of power from body A to body B. Is this heat transfer? No, it is actually work transfer! Why? Because the photons are coherent.

If Body A and B consist of matter, blackbody radiation from A to B would still involve work being done by the molecules of A to produce the radiation, and work being done on the molecules of B in receiving that radiation, would it not?

AM

 

[juanrga]

Heat transfer involves molecular forces being applied over molecular distances. What is that if it is not work?

Heat transfer exists even when molecular forces are not defined. Moreover, you seem to believe that molecules are tiny iron balls moving in straight lines, but all this picture is rather inaccurate.

Certainly, but that applies only to useful work, which is the W in the first law: ΔQ = ΔU + W

I already explained you that W in the first law of thermodynamics is work, and what is the difference with the different concept of useful work (e.g. measured by A≠W). I gave a specific section of a standard textbook devoted to this topic. Moreover work W in thermodynamics is not a synonym for mechanical work W_mech.

You claimed that you had studied thermodynamics, but you show otherwise. In fact, I already explained you that heat is not a state function and thus your ΔQ makes no sense...

I think that I do not need to correct all of this again.

 

[Dale]

About your question about the spring. I already answered this in #42.

Even going back and re-reading your #42 I don't see it. What part of #42 do you believe shows how to apply the Hamiltonian definition of energy to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction? And can you be more explicit about the connection? It is not at all apparent to me. Does such a system even have a Hamiltonian and does taking the trace give the correct expression for the energy?

 

[cbetanco]

Does such a system even have a Hamiltonian and does taking the trace give the correct expression for the energy?

The standard model Lagrangian should (in principal) give the correct Hamiltonian. Although I admit it wouldn't be very helpful to actually solving the problem of a mass on a spring...

 

[Dale]

The standard model Lagrangian should (in principal) give the correct Hamiltonian.

Not with friction.

 

[cbetanco]

Not with friction.

Friction is an electromagnetic phenomena on the microscopic level, so yes, the SM would (in principal) give the correct Lagrangian. But, practically speaking, you are completely correct, I don't think anyone has actually taken the classical limit of the SM Lagrangian and applied it to friction (I don't think this is possible analytically, as well as numerically). But IN PRINCIPAL, the Lagrangian should give the correct physics. But no one will ever be able to solve a sliding block on an incline with the SM Lagrangian, so I guess it's a moot point.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Heat transfer exists even when molecular forces are not defined. Moreover, you seem to believe that molecules are tiny iron balls moving in straight lines, but all this picture is rather inaccurate.

So you do not agree with the model on which the kinetic theory of gases is based? It is not a perfect model and certainly does not describe what occurs at the sub atomic level in molecular collisions, but it seems to provide a pretty accurate model for macroscopic behaviour of gases.

I already explained you that W in the first law of thermodynamics is work, and what is the difference with the different concept of useful work (e.g. measured by A≠W).

I don't know if there is a language problem here but I don't understand what this means. Are you saying the W in the first law of thermodynamics means something other than useful/macroscopic work? If so, what is it? What is A?

I gave a specific section of a standard textbook devoted to this topic. Moreover work W in thermodynamics is not a synonym for mechanical work W_mech.

It need not be "mechanical" as opposed to, say, electromagnetic. But it must be macroscopic work or useful work.

You claimed that you had studied thermodynamics, but you show otherwise. In fact, I already explained you that heat is not a state function and thus your ΔQ makes no sense.

"My" ΔQ = ΔU + W as in the first law. When did I say ΔQ was a state function? ΔU is a state function but NEITHER ΔQ nor W relates to the state of a system. Those terms relate to processes in moving between states.

AM

 

[juanrga]

Even going back and re-reading your #42 I don't see it. What part of #42 do you believe shows how to apply the Hamiltonian definition of energy to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction? And can you be more explicit about the connection? It is not at all apparent to me.

Wait a moment. Your original question was:

I know how to apply Andrew Mason's definition to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction, but I don't know how to apply your definition.

In my response to that, I said you how his definition of classical mechanical work W_mech is a special case derived from the general definition of work W given by me:

Tr{dH ρ} → Tr {(∂H/∂r)dr ρ} → - Tr {Fdr ρ}

which for a pure state gives the classical mechanical (Fdr)_mech.

Therefore, if classical mechanical work is derived from the general definition of work W and you already know how to apply the classical mechanical work expression your original question would be solved.

Now you are asking me something related but different. You are asking me to obtain the specific value of a friction force from the above Trace. Sorry but I cannot give you an analytic solution here because its is not a pure state situation. However, its value is obtained solving the trace by computational methods for a given ρ. You can find specific algorithms to obtain friction, from a simple Coulomb model, in the literature {*}.

Does such a system even have a Hamiltonian and does taking the trace give the correct expression for the energy?

Precisely this is one of the advantages of my definition of energy over other definitions given here (as the definition using Lagrangians and Noether theorem).

My definition of energy is (so far as I know) valid everywhere, including dissipative systems for the which the Lagrangian does not exist (read #37 and the online reference therein).

{*} Already Feynman (Lectures on Physics, Vol 1.) remarks how friction is caused by the gradients of numerous electrostatic potentials between the atoms.

 

[juanrga]

Heat transfer exists even when molecular forces are not defined. Moreover, you seem to believe that molecules are tiny iron balls moving in straight lines, but all this picture is rather inaccurate.

So you do not agree with the model on which the kinetic theory of gases is based? It is not a perfect model and certainly does not describe what occurs at the sub atomic level in molecular collisions, but it seems to provide a pretty accurate model for macroscopic behaviour of gases.

Evidently, nowhere in the above quote I wrote that I disagree with the kinetic theory of gases. Also, evidently, molecules are not tiny iron balls moving in straight lines. Kinetic theory (specially quantum kinetic theory) does not say the contrary, neither kinetic theory says that heat is always obtained from some inexistent mechanical classical work.

I already explained you that W in the first law of thermodynamics is work, and what is the difference with the different concept of useful work (e.g. measured by A≠W).

I don't know if there is a language problem here but I don't understand what this means. Are you saying the W in the first law of thermodynamics means something other than useful/macroscopic work? If so, what is it? What is A?
It need not be "mechanical" as opposed to, say, electromagnetic. But it must be macroscopic work or useful work.

Apart from ignoring what I wrote in that quote, you also deleted an important part of my previous message. The deleted part was:

I gave a specific section of a standard textbook devoted to this topic. Moreover work W in thermodynamics is not a synonym for mechanical work W_mech.

"A" is standard thermodynamic notation and I already explained in previous posts when this thermodynamic potential gives a measure of useful work and when does not.

You claimed that you had studied thermodynamics, but you show otherwise. In fact, I already explained you that heat is not a state function and thus your ΔQ makes no sense.

"My" ΔQ = ΔU + W as in the first law. When did I say ΔQ was a state function? ΔU is a state function but NEITHER ΔQ nor W relates to the state of a system. Those terms relate to processes in moving between states.

The first law, for closed systems, is:

ΔU = Q + W

Heat is not a state function in thermodynamic space and thus your ΔQ has no meaning.

I will not correct again stuff corrected before two or three times. And I will not reply to stuff I never said.

 

[Dale]

Sorry but I cannot give you an analytic solution here because its is not a pure state situation.

I am fine with just the Hamiltonian which could then simply be solved numerically using Hamilton's equations etc.

My definition of energy is (so far as I know) valid everywhere, including dissipative systems for the which the Lagrangian does not exist (read #37 and the online reference therein).

This is essentially what I am getting at. It has been a long time since my physics courses, but I remember the professor saying that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with friction (which you seem to agree with), and later saying that the Hamiltonian formalisim is just a way to turn the second-order differential equations into a system of first-order differential equations.

So, my impression has always been that the Hamiltonian formalism does not work for systems with friction either (which you seem to disagree with). We certainly never covered such systems using the Hamiltonian approach. I am open to corretion on this point.

{*} Already Feynman (Lectures on Physics, Vol 1.) remarks how friction is caused by the gradients of numerous electrostatic potentials between the atoms.

I looked in the the online reference of post 37, your statements in post 42, and in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Vol 1 I searched for every occurence of "friction". None of those show the Hamiltonian for a simple system with friction.

You claim that your definition is more general, but it only covers situations for which the Hamiltonian formalism applies. So, based on my instruction many years ago and on the information presented here, I am skeptical that it applies to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction.

 

[Andrew Mason]

The first law, for closed systems, is:

ΔU = Q + W

That is one way to write it, W being the work done ON the system and Q being the NET heat flow INTO the system. This is equivalent to ΔQ = ΔU + W where W is the work done BY the system and ΔQ is the difference between the heat flow INTO the system and the heat flow OUT OF the system ie. the NET heat flow INTO the system.

Heat is not a state function in thermodynamic space and thus your ΔQ has no meaning.

It is standard terminology. It is confusing to use just Q when dealing with heat flows into and out of a system - in a cycle involving several different processes (such as a heat engine): ΔQ = Qh - Qc, for example. You would write Q = Qh-Qc. But most thermodynamic texts refer to this as ΔQ. You seem to be interpreting that as a state function for some reason.

AM

 

[juanrga]

I am fine with just the Hamiltonian which could then simply be solved numerically using Hamilton's equations etc.

As I am saying in the part that you quote, the system is not in a pure state; i.e.; the Hamilton equations do not describe its dynamics.

This is essentially what I am getting at. It has been a long time since my physics courses, but I remember the professor saying that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with friction (which you seem to agree with), and later saying that the Hamiltonian formalisim is just a way to turn the second-order differential equations into a system of first-order differential equations.

So, my impression has always been that the Hamiltonian formalism does not work for systems with friction either (which you seem to disagree with). We certainly never covered such systems using the Hamiltonian approach. I am open to corretion on this point.

The dynamics of any system is given by the equation

∂ρ/∂t = L_Hρ + Dρ (1)

where L_H is the Liouvillian of the system L_H=L_H(H) and D the Dissipator, which is also a function of the Hamiltonian {*}. When there is not dissipation the equation reduces to the time symmetric equation

∂ρ/∂t = L_Hρ

and for pure states this reduces to the set of equations

dq/dt = ∂H/∂p

dp/dt = -∂H/∂t

for H=H(q,p)=E

This set of equations is what you mean by the «Hamiltonian formalism».

Of course, we can derive the Lagrangian formalism from the Hamiltonian formalism, using the Legendre transformation L(q,v) = pv - H(q,p)

Both the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms of classical mechanics are only valid for time-reversible systems in pure states. But the Hamiltonian H, the equation (1) and the expression <E> = Tr{Hρ} are much more general.

I looked in the the online reference of post 37, your statements in post 42, and in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Vol 1 I searched for every occurence of "friction". None of those show the Hamiltonian for a simple system with friction.

As said friction is caused by the gradients of numerous electrostatic potentials between the atoms. The usual non-relativistic Hamiltonian is

H = Ʃ_i p_i/2m_i + Ʃ_iƩ_j e_ie_j/4πε₀R_ij

The last part is the Coulomb potential energy that Feynman alludes to.

This Hamiltonian can be then used (very often via further simplifications {**}) to obtain surface structures (static friction), harmonic vibrations, chemical bonds associated with kinetic friction... using different computational models.

You claim that your definition is more general, but it only covers situations for which the Hamiltonian formalism applies. So, based on my instruction many years ago and on the information presented here, I am skeptical that it applies to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction.

You are completely wrong. You seem to confound the equation (1) with the approximated Hamilton equations and you seem to confound the expression <E> = Tr{Hρ} with the approximated expression E = H(q,p)

{*} It is very very complex and I prefer do not to write D in explicit form.

{**} E.g. BO approximation for nuclei, approx computational model for obtaining the electronic PES, harmonic approximations in that surface, approx derivation of bond energies, distances and frequencies, canonical or some other equilibrium approx. for energy levels distribution, neglect of noise effects, neglect of fourth and higher order terms L'_H in the dissipation D, time-coarse-graining by neglect of memory effects (t_mem<<t) in the resulting kernel of D...

 

[juanrga]

That is one way to write it, W being the work done ON the system and Q being the NET heat flow INTO the system. This is equivalent to ΔQ = ΔU + W where W is the work done BY the system and ΔQ is the difference between the heat flow INTO the system and the heat flow OUT OF the system ie. the NET heat flow INTO the system.
It is standard terminology. It is confusing to use just Q when dealing with heat flows into and out of a system - in a cycle involving several different processes (such as a heat engine): ΔQ = Qh - Qc, for example. You would write Q = Qh-Qc. But most thermodynamic texts refer to this as ΔQ. You seem to be interpreting that as a state function for some reason.

AM

As said I will ignore errors corrected before as well as stuff that I have not said.

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is $\Phi$. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is $J_q$. Of course $J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q$.

 

[Andrew Mason]

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

You seem to be confusing heat flux with heat flow. They are very different. Perhaps this is a language problem as English does not appear to be your first language.

What is your definition of heat? Q refers to thermal energy transfer and, for historical reasons, is usually referred to as "heat flow" not "heat". $\dot Q$ refers to heat flow per unit time, (ie thermal energy transferred per unit time). "Heat" by itself is a term that is generally avoided in thermodynamics because it can have a variety of meanings.

AM

 

[juanrga]

You seem to be confusing heat flux with heat flow. They are very different. Perhaps this is a language problem as English does not appear to be your first language.

What is your definition of heat? Q refers to thermal energy transfer and, for historical reasons, is usually referred to as "heat flow" not "heat". $\dot Q$ refers to heat flow per unit time, (ie thermal energy transferred per unit time). "Heat" by itself is a term that is generally avoided in thermodynamics because it can have a variety of meanings.
AM

Ignoring stuff corrected before, I will add that IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC, define the heat flux as $\dot{Q}$, which is not the same than heat, evidently.

 

[kmarinas86]

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

You seem to be confusing heat flux with heat flow. They are very different. Perhaps this is a language problem as English does not appear to be your first language.

What is your definition of heat? Q refers to thermal energy transfer and, for historical reasons, is usually referred to as "heat flow" not "heat". $\dot Q$ refers to heat flow per unit time, (ie thermal energy transferred per unit time). "Heat" by itself is a term that is generally avoided in thermodynamics because it can have a variety of meanings.

AM

Juanrga is not wrong here. In thermodynamics, "heat" is not defined as a state quantity. Heat is a process quantity. Blame that on the horrendous nomenclature adopted by thermal physics. For a state quantity that is similar to what a normal person calls "heat" or "BTUs", we have the a term "thermal energy" instead. In physics, the process quantity $Q$ is the heat, which is a transfer of thermal energy, not a transfer of heat, but in engineering, this quantity is called heat transfer. Heat therefore is a flow of energy, not the energy itself. I have some problems with this nomenclature, as I believe that heat should be synonymous thermal energy, but that is not how it is done in our sciences. In the mathematical physics sense, you cannot "store" heat (i.e. Heat (a mathematician's view)=Heat flow (a layman's view)=Heat transfer (a thermal engineer's view)). Saying that $Q$ is the "heat transfer" or "heat flow" rather than "heat" is still misleading because: 1) the word heat (a noun or verb, but never an adjective) is modifying the following noun in both of these terms as if "heat" was what is flowing or transferring, in the layman sense of the term, and 2) neither of these two terms stand for the thing being transported but rather they refer to the measure of how much was transported, and it is not even an "accumulation of heat". But again, that is how it is done. $\dot Q$ is the rate of heat transfer at an instant of time. Similarly, heat flux is the is rate of heat transfer at an instant of time per area.

 

[kmarinas86]

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is $\Phi$. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is $J_q$. Of course $J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q$.

Ignoring stuff corrected before, I will add that IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC, define the heat flux as $\dot{Q}$, which is not the same than heat, evidently.

That's completely backwards.

$\dot{Q}$ is symbol for heat transfer rate. $\overrightarrow{\phi_q}$ is the symbol for heat flux.

 

[Dale]

{*} It is very very complex and I prefer do not to write D in explicit form.

That is fine. I understand that answering such questions is often much more effort than it is worth, and I don't want to push you to do more work than you feel the topic merits.

However, I hope you understand that I will have to remain slightly skeptical (though less certain than before) that your definition of energy is, in fact, more general. I have never seen Hamiltonians applied to friction, and from what you say here it seems to be needlessly complicated even for simple systems. If nothing else, this shows that in some cases there is a definite computational value in the "introductory" definition.

In any case, regardless of whether or not it is more general, your preferred definition is certainly a good definition and it reduces to the "introductory" definition in situations where they both apply.

 

[bbbeard]

As said I will ignore errors corrected before as well as stuff that I have not said.

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is $\Phi$. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is $J_q$. Of course $J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q$.

Do you actually know anyone who pays attention to the IUPAP guidelines? I mean, they're nice folks and all, but in most fields of physics, it's more important to follow the conventions in the literature of the field than the recommendations of some folks who have spent a little too much time in the company of chemists, if you know what I mean.

For example, IUPAP recommends using the term "enplenthy" for the amount-of-substance-usually-just-called-number-of-moles. Do you know anyone who uses this terminology? Along these lines, IUPAP discourages the use of "molar volume" and instead prefers "enplenthic volume". There are a lot of idiosyncratic recommendations in the IUPAP guidelines. Do you know anyone who uses "L" for Avogadro's number?

I tend to follow the advice of Howard Georgi, which is not to get too hung up on notation. You have to know what the symbols mean, but getting fussy about whether the speed of light in vacuum is c or c₀ (the IUPAP recommendation) is a waste of time. I've seen a lot of different ways to write the first law; I usually prefer the version with the slashed d's for heat and work inexact differentials, but that can sometimes be a typographic challenge. So sometimes I write

du = δq - δw

and let the δ stand in for slash-d. I'm okay with

ΔU = Q₁₂ - W₁₂

for a finite process between initial state 1 and final state 2, but the bare version ΔU = Q - W looks a little funny. But like I said, it's not worth it to get hung up on notation.

BBB

 

[bbbeard]

The dynamics of any system is given by the equation

∂ρ/∂t = L_Hρ + Dρ (1)

where L_H is the Liouvillian of the system L_H=L_H(H) and D the Dissipator, which is also a function of the Hamiltonian {*}.

Could you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me how the dissipator can be a "function" of the Hamiltonian (which is actually a functional) and still represent arbitrary forms of dissipation.

It seems to me that you are adding a term to the equations of motion to represent dissipation. Why in principle is this any different from inserting the Rayleigh dissipation function into the Euler-Lagrange equations of Lagrangian mechanics? I think it's a little silly to argue whether the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian is somehow more fundamental. I prefer the Lagrangian formulation of dynamics because it's more convenient for the work I do, but your mileage may vary. And Noether's theorem provides a powerful, intuitively appealing paradigm that resides naturally in the Lagrangian formulation -- but now I'm arguing aesthetics.

I do have to say that I've never been satisfied with the glibness of "energy is the ability to do work" because the grammar seems faulty to me -- "I have the ability to do work -- am I energy?"

BBB

 

[juanrga]

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is $\Phi$. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is $J_q$. Of course $J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q$.

$\dot{Q}$ is symbol for heat transfer rate. $\overrightarrow{\phi_q}$ is the symbol for heat flux.

The IUPAP,ISO,IUPAC definition for heat flux is $\Phi \equiv \dot{Q}$. Another recommended name for heat flux is thermal power.

Maybe the problem here is that both of you are not aware of the last international standards and official recommendations about those topics.

 

[juanrga]

Juanrga is not wrong here. In thermodynamics, "heat" is not defined as a state quantity. Heat is a process quantity. Blame that on the horrendous nomenclature adopted by thermal physics. For a state quantity that is similar to what a normal person calls "heat" or "BTUs", we have the a term "thermal energy" instead. In physics, the process quantity $Q$ is the heat, which is a transfer of thermal energy, not a transfer of heat, but in engineering, this quantity is called heat transfer. Heat therefore is a flow of energy, not the energy itself. I have some problems with this nomenclature, as I believe that heat should be synonymous thermal energy, but that is not how it is done in our sciences. In the mathematical physics sense, you cannot "store" heat (i.e. Heat (a mathematician's view)=Heat flow (a layman's view)=Heat transfer (a thermal engineer's view)). Saying that $Q$ is the "heat transfer" or "heat flow" rather than "heat" is still misleading because: 1) the word heat (a noun or verb, but never an adjective) is modifying the following noun in both of these terms as if "heat" was what is flowing or transferring, in the layman sense of the term, and 2) neither of these two terms stand for the thing being transported but rather they refer to the measure of how much was transported, and it is not even an "accumulation of heat". But again, that is how it is done. $\dot Q$ is the rate of heat transfer at an instant of time. Similarly, heat flux is the is rate of heat transfer at an instant of time per area.

He confounds heat with heat flux and you confound heat flux with heat flux density.

 

[juanrga]

That is fine. I understand that answering such questions is often much more effort than it is worth, and I don't want to push you to do more work than you feel the topic merits.

Well, I have read a paper by Radu Balescu apologizing because the dissipator is an extremely complex object and cannot be written in concise analytic form, and then denoting it with a mere symbol. Precisely he is well-known for developing a graphical method (think of something much more complicated than Feynman diagrams) for obtaining the different terms involved in the dissipation term.

However, I hope you understand that I will have to remain slightly skeptical (though less certain than before) that your definition of energy is, in fact, more general. I have never seen Hamiltonians applied to friction, and from what you say here it seems to be needlessly complicated even for simple systems. If nothing else, this shows that in some cases there is a definite computational value in the "introductory" definition.

In any case, regardless of whether or not it is more general, your preferred definition is certainly a good definition and it reduces to the "introductory" definition in situations where they both apply.

I had no problem with the «"introductory" definition», and indeed I remarked that would be a good definition for basic courses of physics {*}. I had problem only when someone pretended that the introductory definition (obtained from a first course in classical mechanics) was a general definition valid elsewhere.

{*} That introductory textbooks would not be taken as gospel is is not characteristic of physics. In elementary textbooks in chemistry we are said that water is just H2O, but in more advanced courses chemists learn that water is much more than H2O.

 

[juanrga]

Could you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me how the dissipator can be a "function" of the Hamiltonian (which is actually a functional) and still represent arbitrary forms of dissipation.

It seems to me that you are adding a term to the equations of motion to represent dissipation. Why in principle is this any different from inserting the Rayleigh dissipation function into the Euler-Lagrange equations of Lagrangian mechanics? I think it's a little silly to argue whether the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian is somehow more fundamental. I prefer the Lagrangian formulation of dynamics because it's more convenient for the work I do, but your mileage may vary. And Noether's theorem provides a powerful, intuitively appealing paradigm that resides naturally in the Lagrangian formulation -- but now I'm arguing aesthetics.

I do have to say that I've never been satisfied with the glibness of "energy is the ability to do work" because the grammar seems faulty to me -- "I have the ability to do work -- am I energy?"

BBB

Yes, D is a function of the Hamiltonian, just as the non-dissipative part L_H is function as well; the difference is that D is a very very complicated function (as said before). Therefore I prefer not to write it in explicit form here.

As also explained in #56, the Lagrangian formulation (including the Euler Lagrange equations) can be derived after applying approximations on the general equation of motion; the approximations include the neglect of dissipation. You can try to add, by hand, some dissipative term to the final Euler Lagrange equations but the resulting theory will be totally inconsistent {**}.

{**} Recall the same online reference that you introduced in a previous post. Read the part where says you that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with dissipation.

 

[kmarinas86]

Juanrga is not wrong here. In thermodynamics, "heat" is not defined as a state quantity. Heat is a process quantity. Blame that on the horrendous nomenclature adopted by thermal physics. For a state quantity that is similar to what a normal person calls "heat" or "BTUs", we have the a term "thermal energy" instead. In physics, the process quantity $Q$ is the heat, which is a transfer of thermal energy, not a transfer of heat, but in engineering, this quantity is called heat transfer. Heat therefore is a flow of energy, not the energy itself. I have some problems with this nomenclature, as I believe that heat should be synonymous thermal energy, but that is not how it is done in our sciences. In the mathematical physics sense, you cannot "store" heat (i.e. Heat (a mathematician's view)=Heat flow (a layman's view)=Heat transfer (a thermal engineer's view)). Saying that $Q$ is the "heat transfer" or "heat flow" rather than "heat" is still misleading because: 1) the word heat (a noun or verb, but never an adjective) is modifying the following noun in both of these terms as if "heat" was what is flowing or transferring, in the layman sense of the term, and 2) neither of these two terms stand for the thing being transported but rather they refer to the measure of how much was transported, and it is not even an "accumulation of heat". But again, that is how it is done. $\dot Q$ is the rate of heat transfer at an instant of time. Similarly, heat flux is the is rate of heat transfer at an instant of time per area.

He confounds heat with heat flux and you confound heat flux with heat flux density.

The horrendous nomenclature rears its ugly head again.

In thermodynamics, heat flux=heat flux density. Yet in electrodynamics, magnetic flux/area=magnetic flux density, which makes more sense.

http://www.google.com/search?q=heat+flux

#
Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
Heat flux sensor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an ...

Critical heat flux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_heat_flux
Critical heat flux describes the thermal limit of a ...
More results from wikipedia.org »
#
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
#
[PDF]
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Mechanical.../pdf/3_1.pdf Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
#
Furnace Improvements
www.heatflux.com/ Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jan 18, 2011 – FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
#
Heat Flux
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
#
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
http://www.hukseflux.com › thermal science Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...
#
heat flux sensors vatell
http://www.vatell.com/articles.htm Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
A number of articles describing heat flux measurement and its practical applications.
#
7(j) Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 7, 2009 – Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes ... Sensible heat flux is the process where heat energy is transferred from the Earth's surface ...
#
Heat Flux Density Conversion - FREE Unit Converter
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/heat-flux-density.html Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
perform conversions between Heat Flux Density units.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=heat+flux

1.
Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux - Cached
More results from en.wikipedia.org »
2
Heat flux sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
* Usage|
* Properties|
* Error sources|
* See also
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an electrical signal proportional to the total heat rate applied to the surface of the sensor. The measured heat ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
3
Heat flux: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy. transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heat_flux - Cached
More results from absoluteastronomy.com »
4
How to Calculate Heat Flux | eHow.com
Heat flux, or heat transfer per rate unit area, is a useful quantity in applications such as determining the transfer of energy from a fuel plate to working fluid ...
http://www.ehow.com/how_6494497_calculate-heat-flux.html - Cached
More results from ehow.com »
5
heat flux: Definition from Answers.com
The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.
http://www.answers.com/topic/heat-flux - Cached
More results from answers.com »
6
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
The rate at which heat is transferred is represented by the symbol Q. Common units for heat transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat ...
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
7
Heat Flux - Repair and Maintenance Manuals - Integrated ...
Heat Transfer HEAT TRANSFER TERMINOLOGY Heat Flux The rate at which heat is transferred is represented by the symbol . Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr.
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm - Cached
8
What Is Solar Heat Flux? | eHow.com
Heat flux is the distribution of energy across the surface of an object. Solar heat flux may refer to the the distribution of the sun's energy across the face of the ...
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6777836_solar-heat-flux_.html - Cached
9
Heat Flux, Solar Radiation and Thermal Conductivity: Welcome ...
Pyranometers, heat flux sensors, net radiometers, Hukseflux specializes in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux and thermal conductivity.
http://www.hukseflux.com - Cached
10
Heat Flux - Scribd
Thomas E. Diller. "Heat Flux." Copyright 2000 CRC Press LLC. <http://www.engnetbase.com>. [/PLAIN] Heat Flux 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 Heat Transfer Fundamentals ...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6938941/Heat-Flux - Cached
More results from scribd.com »

http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite.psp/search/web?q=heat+flux

Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
• Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface . The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
• Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
Heat flux sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an electrical signal proportional to the total heat rate applied to the surface of the sensor. The measured heat ...
Heat flux: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heat_flux
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy. transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.
How to Calculate Heat Flux | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6494497_calculate-heat-flux.html
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux, or heat transfer per rate unit area, is a useful quantity in applications such as determining the transfer of energy from a fuel plate to working fluid ...
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/…chanical_Measurements_Metrology/pdf/3_1.pdf
• Google
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
heat flux: Definition from Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/heat-flux
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.
Furnace Improvements
http://www.heatflux.com/
• Google
Jan 18, 2011 ... FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
Heat Flux
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm
• Google, Yahoo! Search
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/heatFlux.html
• Google
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...
What Is Solar Heat Flux? | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6777836_solar-heat-flux_.html
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux is the distribution of energy across the surface of an object. Solar heat flux may refer to the the distribution of the sun's energy across the face of the ...
heat flux sensors vatell
http://www.vatell.com/articles.htm
• Google
A number of articles describing heat flux measurement and its practical applications.
Heat Flux Description - OAFlux Homepage
http://oaflux.whoi.edu/descriptionheatflux.html
• Bing
Net heat flux, Q net, is computed as: Q net = SW- LW - LH - SH. where SW denotes net downward shortwave radiation, LW net downward longwave radiation, LH latent heat ...
Heat Flux Density Conversion - FREE Unit Converter
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/heat-flux-density.html
• Google
perform conversions between Heat Flux Density units.
Heat Flux - Heat Transfer - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/heat_flux.htm
• Bing
The rate at which heat is transferred is represented by the symbol Q. Common units for heat ˙Q transfer rate is Btu/hr.
Heat Flux - Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6938941/Heat-Flux
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Thomas E. Diller. "Heat Flux." Copyright 2000 CRC Press LLC. <http://www.engnetbase.com>. [/PLAIN] Heat Flux 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 Heat Transfer Fundamentals ...
HeatFlux
http://oaflux.whoi.edu/heatflux.html
• Google
Ocean surface heat flux products. OAFlux latent heat flux 2010 mean, OAFlux sensible heat flux 2010 mean. 1958-2010 mean, 1958-2010 mean ...
Heat Flux, Solar Radiation and Thermal Conductivity: Welcome ...
http://www.hukseflux.com/
• Yahoo! Search
Pyranometers, heat flux sensors, net radiometers, Hukseflux specializes in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux and thermal conductivity.
7(j) Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html
• Google
May 7, 2009 ... Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes ... Sensible heat flux is the process where heat energy is transferred from the Earth's surface ...

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl.t2.7/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=heat+flux&ql=

Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
•
Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface . The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
•
Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
Heat flux sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an electrical signal proportional to the total heat rate applied to the surface of the sensor. The measured heat ...
Heat flux: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heat_flux
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy. transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/…easurements_Metrology/pdf/3_1.pdf
•
Found exclusively on: Google
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
How to Calculate Heat Flux | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6494497_calculate-heat-flux.html
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux, or heat transfer per rate unit area, is a useful quantity in applications such as determining the transfer of energy from a fuel plate to working fluid ...
Heat Flux
http://www.tpub.com/…ontent/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm
•
Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
heat flux: Definition from Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/heat-flux
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.
Furnace Improvements
http://www.heatflux.com/
•
Found exclusively on: Google
Jan 18, 2011 ... FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/heatFlux.html
•
Found exclusively on: Google
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...

http://www.ask.com/web?q=heat+flux

EFD FluxPlus™ Flux Paste - Specialized Paste Flux Available.
Request a Free White Paper.
http://www.nordsonefd.com/Solder
TRANE Air Conditioners - Sugar Lands Oldest Trane Comfort Specialist.
A/C Repair & Sales
http://www.jacksonairandheatinc.com
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Mechanical_Measurem
Furnace Improvements
Jan 18, 2011 ... FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
http://www.heatflux.com/
Heat Flux
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...
http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/heatFlux.html
heat flux sensors vatell
A number of articles describing heat flux measurement and its practical applications.
http://www.vatell.com/articles.htm
compute heat/flux - LAMMPS WWW Site
Define a computation that calculates the heat flux vector based on contributions from atoms in the specified group. This can be used by itself to measure the heat ...
http://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/compute_heat_flux.html
Heat Flux Density Conversion - FREE Unit Converter
perform conversions between Heat Flux Density units.
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/heat-flux-density
7(j) Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes
May 7, 2009 ... Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes ... Sensible heat flux is the process where heat energy is transferred from the Earth's surface ...
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html
Ads EFD FluxPlus™ Flux Paste - Specialized Paste Flux Available.
Request a Free White Paper.
http://www.nordsonefd.com/Solder
TRANE Air Conditioners - Sugar Lands Oldest Trane Comfort Specialist.
A/C Repair & Sales
http://www.jacksonairandheatinc.com

 

[kmarinas86]

The IUPAP,ISO,IUPAC definition for heat flux is $\Phi \equiv \dot{Q}$. Another recommended name for heat flux is thermal power.

Maybe the problem here is that both of you are not aware of the last international standards and official recommendations about those topics.

The real problem is that the IUPAP, ISO, and IUPAC do not have a dictatorship that forces these definitions to be the only ones taught (and available to learn) via publications. If they had that, we wouldn't have multiple definitions for the word heat flux like what we already have for heat, which helps no one to have, and the wrong people wouldn't be blamed for not being aware of this by others like yourself. Problem is, they don't have that kind of control. Though, it would actually be helpful if they did.