Ha. I often pass Strada Road.

I may appear to be unaccepting of the fact that language evolves. There are a lot of changes I welcome. I accept even the changes I don't like. But I'm allowed to say which ones I like.

An example of a fairly recent idiom I love. When someone gives an opinion and then finishes with, "I'm just sayin'." I laugh, because it adds no meaning, but it's a form of emphasis.

Or dark green

Isn't chainset a mostly British term in long standing use? So groupset being of British origin, and fairly long standing, isn't surprising.

True, but there are definitions in addition to physics.

Heat Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Many definitions as above. Physics, noun, verb

Yes, but given that heat transfer refers to a thermodynamic process, the physics definition is the relevant definition. The definition normally used by physicists establishes heat as a form of energy, i.e. a noun. Thus, heat transfer is a valid term in physics, and is used extensively.

I'm still at a loss. hindered? Probably ********, because of road. There are still people that use that word in an inappropriate way, so I'm not sure anyone would feel like taking it out of the censored word list

I never said it wasn't a valid term in physics. In fact I provided a credible dictionary definition of the physics term. I was merely saying that it is not the only definition.

Back to the discussion at hand. I refer to my furnace, ductwork, registers and thermostats as my "heatset".

Perhaps, but the definition I noted was expounded in day one of Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer by the professor (who I also took for thermodynamics). I've got game in those subjects but they were not my primary area of specialization in industry, so given that prof had a PhD and was a specialist in that area, I accepted his word for it. He didn't harp on it, but just pointed out with amusement, that, despite (in his words) the wrong term used in the actual title of the class, because that is most person's perception of it, that it's actually a redundancy in terms, or as I like to say, repetitively redundant.

Still, that was a better class title than one called "Lumped Parameter Linear Systems" (me: "I have no idea what this class is about"), where, fortunately, in the first five minutes, the professor explained what the class is about, in very clear terms, and I did great in the class.

If you're discussing a term that's used in physics, in the context of physics, the physics definition is all that really matters.

I'd say that professor was in the minority among physicists regarding the phrase, and the fact that his Physics Department had no qualms using it in the title of the class is a pretty clear indication of that. Personally, I've never heard another physicist take issue with the term.

He was not in the physics department. He was in the engineering school and later became chair of that department.

IIRC, I think the point he was trying to make, is that if you have a temperature differential, you will automatically have heat, i.e., the transfer of thermal energy.

Which can get a little confusing when someone mentions a HEAT round, which does involve liquid copper, but stands for High-Explosive Anti-Tank, essentially a version of a shaped-charge.

Heat transfers are fun!

Regardless, the department that he was in clearly had no qualms about using the term in the title of the course.

Again, you and your professor are using a definition of heat that is not the widely accepted definition. Heat is generally defined as a form of energy, and that energy can be transferred from one location to another when a difference in temperature exists. That transfer of heat is called ... heat transfer.

The prof didn't agree with the title of the course, but understood it was a concession to students selecting classes, before they knew what the class was about, and to others outside of that industry specialization, such as job interviewers. The other course I mentioned was at the opposite extreme, was titled based on the very specific mathematical technique used in the class, without a clue to what problems are solved with it; A better title would be "Modeling of Dynamic Systems".

Correct usage of an accepted term was a concession to job interviewers? That's just silly.

It's why they changed the title of the other class; People in HR and even some engineering managers looked at transcripts and didn't have a clue what the class was about. So a class called "Fluid Dynamics and Heat", might not convey the full measure of the class content, to folks in HR. In the past couple decades, schools have gotten hyper-sensitive to job-placement rates, so they started talking to employers more.

Peak bicycle livery was the Saeco livery in this colorway

I rode a 'Dale at the time so saw the sponsorship, but it wasn't until a few seconds ago that I learned what Saeco actually produces. That kind of stuff was totally off my radar at the time, plus no interwebby access to look up instantly. These days I could appreciate it, though I still go low-tech old-school, rather than press a button.

You're really reaching on this one. Heat transfer is proper terminology -- it appears in the title of virtually every textbook on the subject and in the title of college courses because it's proper terminology. Your idea that the term is used for the benefit of job recruiters is laughable.

I'm just relating what the prof said, as he pointed to the title of the textbook, which was "Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer".

Looking now, that other class is no longer Lumped Parameter Linear Systems, but now Signals and Systems.

So, the title of the course and the title of the textbook were both "Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer"? That's a funny coincidence if, as you claim, the title of the course was chosen for the benefit of job interviewers. What motivated the author of the textbook to use the same incorrect (according to you) terminology in his title? For that matter, what motivated dozens of other authors to use the same incorrect term in their titles? Common sense tells you it's because it's the proper term.

Everybody has to be sick of this by now, so I'm done.

Professors can be weird. My heat transfer professor was, but not weird enough to try to say the name of the course was incorrect. My favorite thing he did was cut and past 4 problems from exams and put them together for the final. And back then, it was literal cut and past because you had to use a mimeograph machine to print the tests. So you could see the lines from where the cuts were. He also got fired after that term, which is a trick for a tenured professor.

I always tried not to be too weird. But I am afraid to go look at my page on "rate my professor."

I wasn't aware that the discussion was specifically about physics. Plus, you said "by definition" which, although true, is not the only definition. You might have said "to physicists it is defined as..." But that's enough for me. I hope to adhere to my 2 comment argument rule.

Incredible colorway!

The discussion has been about the term 'heat transfer' from the beginning, which means the context has been physics from the beginning.