Talk:Heat

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Temperature#Thermodynamic approach to temperature|thermodynamic definition]] The anchor (#Thermodynamic approach to temperature) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I just note my change here because there is a really nasty debate above me.

Old first paragraph:

In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the form of energy crossing the boundary of a thermodynamic system by virtue of a temperature difference across the boundary. A thermodynamic system does not contain heat. Nevertheless, the term is also often used to refer to the thermal energy contained in a system as a component of its internal energy and that is reflected in the temperature of the system. For both uses of the term, heat is a form of energy.

New first paragraph:

In thermodynamics, heat is the thermal energy transferred between systems due to a temperature difference. In colloquial use, heat sometimes refers to thermal energy itself.

I am not an expert in thermodynamics, so any comment on my rewrite is appreciated. Pinging User:Bilorv, User:Dominic Mayers, User:Kbrose, and User:Cessaune per above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a good idea to create an article only for the notion of heat transfer in thermodynamic. Of course, in that context, the term "heat" refers to transfer of energy. This shocks people because the term "heat" is often used differently, even in scientific contexts. The solution is to be less dogmatic. There is no need to make a big deal about the different allowed usages of the terms nor to emphasis a particular usage of the term. It is sufficient to naturally use the term to refer to energy transfer. People will understand perfectly with all the rigour needed and there will be no confrontation with other natural usages of the term. This requires a complete change of attitude where we worry less about defining a term, but convey the concepts instead. For example, we can say, when we give give a formula that ${\displaystyle Q}$ is the heat transferred, but the focus is on the concept, on the law, not on a general definition of the term "heat" in thermodynamic. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good thing as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, hopefully someone will find the time to remove all the unnecessary emphasis on definitions and just naturally explain the concept of heat transfer in thermodynamics. It's not easy, because one needs to take a different attitude that focalizes less on definition and more on what are the laws, the concepts, that the readers need to learn. A definition by itself is not interesting, especially if it shocks the readers. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to these concepts, definitions *are* the crux of correct descriptions in the respective disciplines. For example, even the term heat transfer is not a common term of physicists or in thermodynamics as a pure science, it is mostly a term of thermal engineering. In the scientific context it is just heat, because it already implies transfer. While some notable teaching physicists have used the term heat energy, it also is not commonly accepted language, because experts know that heat is always energy and nothing else. Perhaps some have used it in context of contrasting with other types of energy. Even the novice and casual use of heat is rarely accompanied with energy. So the idea that the laws of thermodynamics can be explained with casual language in a precise manner, is an illusion, and the notion that people will understand perfectly is nothing by subjective POV blubber, and not borne of the experience of teaching thermodynamics. When we cite Q as heat, it needs to be very clear what that means. kbrose (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just above is an example of someone who claims to be an expert in writing encyclopedic articles only because he teaches the subject and says that what others say is only subjective POV blubber, and not born of the experience of teaching. He forgets that the audience here are not his students. I maintain my common sense point. There is nothing non rigorous in explaining the meaning of a quantity ${\displaystyle Q}$, called heat, in the context of the laws that are introduced. Also, I am not saying that it's a bad idea to always use the term heat in a way that is consistent with the use of the term in these laws. But, we can do all these things, without making a big deal about terminology in the lead. We can mention at some point in the article that we use the term heat only with a given meaning, if we think it can help. It's not clear to me that it will help that much, but that is not what I discuss here. I say that it's weird to make a big deal about this in the lead. It makes the subject seem superficial. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend changing "heat is the thermal energy transferred between systems..." to "heat is the transfer of thermal energy between systems...".

This would emphasize that heat is a process (the transfer of energy) rather than implying that heat is a type of energy that resides within a system. Curiousdashpot (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delete or change ext broken link

http://www.ing.unibs.it/~beretta/www.EliasGyftopoulos.org/EPGyftopoulos-papers/p84-BerettaGyftopoulos-ASME-AES20-33-1990.pdf

to

https://gianpaolo-beretta.unibs.it/Beretta-papers-online/m49-BerettaGyftopoulos-JERT-137-021006-2015.pdf

Thanks Cavallinux (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Lemonaka‎ 11:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cavallinux (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]