Although temperature and heat are closely related, they are not the same. How are they not the same?

Answer 1

The concept of temperature is that it is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy in the collected group of particles that make up the material under consideration. If you consider a bucket of water sitting at rest, the molecules are sub-microscopically vibrating and bouncing against eachother in what is termed "brownian motion". Like billiard balls, they collide and impart kinetic energy back and forth. At any one time, there may be some that end up being accelerated to higher energy levels, and there may be some that are at lower energy levels, but the average kinetic energy is a stable. If you scoop out a cup-full of the water from this bucket, the average kinetic energy in the cup will be the same as the rest of the water from the bucket. The temperature of the cup of water will be the same as the bucket it came from. In this sense, the temperature is a property of the material.

The notion of heat is that it represents a total amount of energy, not an average. If we take the same example of a bucket of water, we can think about the heat by way of the following thought experiment. Suppose we have two blocks of ice, about the sizes of baseballs. Over one of these blocks, we slowly pour one cup of the water, and we observe that some of it melts away. Over the other, we slowly pour the entire bucket of water. Before the entire bucket has been emptied, the ice is gone. What is different? The total amount of energy that was imparted to the ice was different. Even though the average energy of the particles was the same in the cup and in the bucket (the temperature was the same) the total amount of energy was greater in the larger container!

I could take a thimble of water and hold it over a candle, and raise the temperature from luke warm to boiling. However I could watch the seasonal change in ocean temperature over the midatlantic ocean go up only a couple of degrees and this is CLEARLY a vastly larger amount of energy. With the energy contained in a thimbleful of hot water, I could barely melt an ice cube, but with the energy contained in an ocean of water raised only a couple of degrees, I can watch hurricanes spontaneously form. Hurricanes are massive heat-engines powered by the only-slightly-warmed surface of the ocean, but totalled over the entire surface of the equatorial atlantic ocean, this amount of energy is unbelievably large. The amount of energy transferred to the hurricane is larger than an atomic bomb!

... I hope that helps!

Answer 2

Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules. In other words, how much the molecules are moving.
Heat =mass x specific heat of the material x change in temp.
Therefore heat is an amount of energy dependent on the type of material, the amount of material and the temperature change.
Materials can have the same temperature but different heat if they are in different amounts.

Answer 3

Temperature is the amount of energy per molecule. Heat is the total amount of energy in a given quantity of material. So if you had 100 molecules at 20 degrees kelvin, they would have a lower temperature but nevertheless contain more heat than 20 molecules at 30 degrees kelvin. This is the reason why some things (like butter) heat up faster in the microwave than other things (like water); their molecules are bigger, so less energy is required to achieve the same temperature.

Answer 4

Temperature is a measure of heat.

Answer 5

Heat is the amount of molecular motion in something. Temperature is the numerical value of that heat on some scale such as Fahrenheit or Celsius.

;-D It is hot today.

Answer 6

one could measure the temperature of heat

Answer 7

hi Jeff! thank you for correcting me on my question! Please word my revised question related to the fee of boost vs. the easily % boost. this question is plenty accessible. I do savor the oportunity to study this and learn it. i've got purely been right here a month and am attempting to stand as much as velocity on issues right here. that could be a brilliant form of exciting. i'm questioning (after examining this) that i don't have a clue how greenhouse gasses take up radiation. get lower back TO YOU ON THAT! SMILES! I do comprehend the final debate on climate replace yet i think of you and a brilliant form of others at the instant are not examining the correllation #s suited. the fee of boost of atmospheric CO2 stages at the instant are not in direct equalibrium with using fossil fuels. i'd like to renowned in case you have heard Richard Lindzens arguments and theories?