Talk:Adiabatic wall

undid good faith revision

Thank you for your attention to this. Sad to say the revision did not work out right. I have made fresh revision that I think now puts things right.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wall diabatic only to substance not heat

What is the name of a wall which allows only substance to pass, not heat. Can it exist? Possibly in an adiathermal membrane mass transfer setting?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to chat. A wall that passes only matter and not energy, neither heat nor work, cannot exist. When matter passes, it carries with it some internal energy. Such transferred internal energy cannot be resolved into heat and work components. It is just internal energy.

This is the basic reason why there are three energy terms such as T dS + P dV + μ dN. The μ is saying that energy is transferred in association with the matter.

References about this are given in the Wikpedia article on the First law of thermodynamics.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to walls permeable/diabatic to substance and work not to walls that pass only matter and not work which of course cannot exist. From what I understand it seems that the μ term is called chemical work. (As a remark it would also be recommendable not to use the term matter as an equivalent to substance as their are not equivalent.)--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I see you are concerned to have things right.

Indeed sometimes the μ term is called chemical work. But it is not work strictly speaking. It might be called "generalized work". More safely it is energy transfer associated with matter transfer. It represents an interchange of internal energy. For the present purposes it is safer to avoid the term 'generalized work' because it may be inclined to mislead the uninformed reader. The point about work, strictly speaking, is that in the surroundings it is effectively reversible. Physically, chemical reactions and diffusion are irreversible, and to call their effects 'work' may confuse the uninformed reader. It is better to speak of interchange of internal energy and leave it at that.

As for your view that it is better to speak of substance than of matter, I would be interested in your reasons.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Matter is not just substance, but also radiation and fields.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As I read this short comment, you are saying that matter includes all of chemical substances, radiation, and fields?Chjoaygame (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as it is specified in the introduction from matter. The loose use of matter instead of substance (used predominantly before the XX-th century) should be discouraged.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. I would be more comfortable talking with you if you had a user name that you would routinely use. It is safe to do so.

Your comment uses Wikipedia as a source.

Reading the Wikipedia source that you cite as "specifying" matter, I do not find it distinctly specific. One sentence in the first paragraph reads "Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today." Further I read "Typically, science considers these composite particles matter because they have both rest mass and volume. By contrast, massless particles, such as photons, are not considered matter, because they have neither rest mass nor volume." Still further into the article I find "A definition of "matter" based on its physical and chemical structure is: matter is made up of atoms.<G. F. Barker (1870). "Divisions of matter". A text-book of elementary chemistry: theoretical and inorganic. John F Morton & Co. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-4460-2206-1.>" As I read this, it does not support your view.

Whatever might come from the Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source as defined in Wikipedia, I would be more comfortable if you produced, instead of that, Wikipedia-defined reliable sources for your view. Wikipedia editing does not originate from personal philosophical reflection, however sound, deep, and intellectually valid it might be. Nor does it come from the Wikipedia itself. Instead, Wikipedia editing reports the results of surveys of the contents of external reliable sources.

It seems to me that you may be verging on trying to correct the apparent illogicality or errors of ordinary language. Wikipedia does not try to correct the apparent illogicality or errors of ordinary language. The word matter has an ordinary language meaning. To establish your view, a report of a good survey of reliable sources might be helpful.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It does not come from Wikipedia, it is just mentioned by it that until 19th century the usage of matter referred to substance. This is no ordinary language meaning, it is a scientific concept who needs no ambiguity. Scientific language can and must go against ordinary language, as Mario Bunge points out. It is better to eliminate the abuse of language to maintain clarity. There is a sourced specification in that article that matter is used loosely for substance. Loose terminology should be avoided.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that "There is a sourced specification in that article that matter is used loosely for substance." This may be so, but it is an opinion of one writer, not a result of a fair survey of reliable sources. I think you want the word substance to be used where most writers in this area would use the word matter. Is that what concerns you?

The word substance has several meanings in different contexts. In English philosophical terms, substance particularly belongs to the study of Aristotle. It is the first of his categories. It is not customary in the present context to speak of substance where matter is intended. No matter how wicked and irrational that might be as a piece of language, it is still customary usage and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to try amend it.

In the present context, a wall that passes matter in general also passes energy. That energy cannot be uniquely or rationally resolved into heat or work. It is just energy associated with matter.

It is not true in general that "Scientific language can and must go against ordinary language", even if Mario Bunge points out its doing so for some purposes or in some contexts.

It would be unnatural to use the word substance instead of matter in the present context. You haven't offered an adequate case to use the word substance here.

I note that you still don't use a user name; you just use an IP address. I still feel uncomfortable with that.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

1) A sourced specification exists but it is not absolutely required to be in a source. It is specified that matter referred (was customary usage) to substance before the XX century. You also quoted a 1870 source claiming to be current customary usage.

2) Primarily philosophical terms should not be mixed with physical ones. Unnecessary confusion by ambiguity is not required. See the points 4)-5) on the scientific language.

3)There is no concept of energy associated with matter, energy belongs to matter, there is no physical energy outside matter. Matter includes chemical substances, fields and radiation.

4)-5) The scientific language should be precise and have little to no confusion, to this purpose the language should not be loose, but controlled. If the contexts (to avoid confusion) require, Bunge's assertion holds. I have provided an adequate case (need for clarity) for distinguishing matter from its subset chemical substances.

6)The IP is static and as good as a registered account. I have a registered account U18827... What is the uncomfortable aspect for you if I use a static IP?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I can recognize a name without a problem with my memory, but a number is way beyond my recognition-memory capacity, and is besides impersonal. Mostly one would not choose a user-name that identified one, but a name would help me to feel I was dealing with a definite person, though unidentified. Most users do it.

As far as can work out, you want to change the English language usage of Wikipedia because you think the present usage is illogical, and you have a logical correction for it. As far as I have understood your comments, what you want would make the article unintelligible, not improve it. It is unlikely that I will be persuaded to accept the kind of change I think you want. The ordinary language is the primary language of Wikipedia.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Remark on language

I see in the above discussion some aspects concerning the type of languages, natural/ordinary vs scientific language. It must be said that the scientific language (using scientific terms with clear definitions) differs from natural language precisely by the use of stipulative definitions and its controlled nature meant for eliminating ambiguity of the natural language which is not wanted in a scientific discourse domain.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)