Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seven_tech t1_j18mlkb wrote

Reply to comment by whyisthesky in Why do we use phase change refrigerants? by samskiter

It's not in Australian university physics. It would be enthalpy of desublimation crossed conversations-enthalpy of melting. I did high school physics and 2 years of physics at uni. I never once heard it called latent heat of or fusion.

Also, type fusion into Google. Which page number do you have to go to before you find it being referred to as the process of liquid to solid? It may have been used as a standard reference to that process. It isn't anymore, because fusion (the atomic process) was discovered.

−15

craigiest t1_j18otq8 wrote

Just because you haven’t experienced something or it isn’t a thing right around you doesn’t mean it isn’t common anywhere else. Jeez.

19

whyisthesky t1_j18nksj wrote

I’ll see your 2 years at uni studying physics and raise you 4 years doing a masters in physics in the UK where the term is common.

It is a somewhat antiquated term, but it’s not alone in that in physics.

12

seven_tech t1_j18ozp2 wrote

Again, not saying it isn't used anywhere. It isn't used here anymore. Because it's no longer specific.

We use enthalpy instead of latent heat, and we use desublimation instead of fusion. Because latent heat is also a material property and fusion is an atomic process.

−4

kagamiseki t1_j18ya45 wrote

"fusion" is not "latent heat of fusion"

That's like saying hot dog isn't a valid term that means an American style sausage in a bun, because look what comes up on Google when you search "dog".

Of course if you search a different term, or only part of a term, you will get a different result.

8

seven_tech t1_j1aozpx wrote

Mmm, I get what you're saying, but I don't agree.

  1. Fusion is a word to describes a process, in both cases. It's not a noun made up of multiple words like hot dog. And 2) Science terms in the 21st century are coined to be unambiguous. That's the point of defining something in science.

If we want to get technical, it's nuclear fusion. But that still leaves the idea you could be discussing 'nuclear' melting, which is again, ambiguous. Science doesn't like ambiguity.

0