I have seen many rewrites of this on the net.  For one of many
that actually names specific people see:

  http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html

It references a Dr. Shambaugh of the University of Oklahoma
School of Chemical Engineering.  I looked him up and he does
exist.  The student is named as Tim Graham and the young
lady as Theresa Manyan.

However in this version, Ms. Manyan maintains her distance
from Mr. Graham, who thereby proves that hell has NOT
frozen over.

hi david - since it is friday - i've decided to let my mind have a
little fun with this - hope others will appreciate the wit......

=======
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or
endothermic (absorbs heat)?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time.
So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the
rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that
once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are
leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the
different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these
religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will
go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since
people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all
souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect
the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at
the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that
in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the
volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which
souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will
increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of
souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell
freezes over.
So which is it?

===============
the mass of hell is constanting changing, but since there are no souls
leaving hell, it can only get larger, sort of like putting more air in a
tire.  souls have mass and therefore, an increase in mass will cause the
pressure in hell to increase if the temperature and area remains the
same, or the pressure would remain the same only if the mass of hell was
expanded,  but for the rate of souls is increased, then there would be
an increase in the rate of entering hell and hell would expand even more
so.

but what about "hell"..........

To start with, "the hell" must be distinguished from "Hell!", or "Oh,
hell!", which are full utterances (traditionally, "interjections", the
last and least of the classical Eight Parts of Speech), the sort of
thing you say when you've made a mistake, had a mistake made for you, or
otherwise experienced the displeasure of Fortune.  They are
linguistically unusual in having no syntax -- "Oh, hell!" is a full
utterance (though hardly a 'sentence' - no subject, no verb, etc.) and
needs no further complement.
There are also some fixed phrases. "What the hell" is used to express
disregard for conventional procedure and precautions, in varying degrees
(the phrase has some of the same implications as "devil-may-care"). It
is usually a phrasal interjection, without further syntactic
ramifications:
  What the hell, let's just compile it now and see if it runs. The odds
were 100 to 1, so I said what the hell, I'll bet it all.
This is sometimes spelled in eye dialect as "wotthehell" or the like.
Don Marquis's character Mehitabel in "archy and mehitabel" immortalized
this usage in the field of English (lowercase) letters:
 wotthehell wotthehell theres life in the old girl yet
"What the hell" is sometimes seen with an exclamation point, but should
not be written in this usage with a question mark (or pronounced as a
question); "What the hell?", often with multiple question marks, is
short for a true question, like "What the hell is going on?" or "What
the hell did you say?".
Another fixed phrase is "The hell you say" ("*The hey you say"),
expressing (often surprised) disbelief at the last thing the speaker has
been told. It can function merely to express shock, or as an active
challenge, equivalent to calling your conversation partner a liar.
Conventions vary, and one should not use this phrase in a speech context
without having heard it used there before, and understanding its
implications.
(Note, parenthetically, that the use of the definite article with
"hell" is in itself idiomatic; like "heaven", "home", "school", and in
the UK, at least, "hospital" and "university", these are locatives pure
and simple.
   If you say a bad word you'll go to (*the) Hell.  )
The other uses of "the hell", on the other hand, have plenty of syntax.
It appears to be short for "in the hell", which is also heard, along
with "in hell", though less frequently.  Both "in the hell" and "the
hell" are restricted to WH-questions, where they follow the
interrogative WH-marker.
 NB: either, but *not* both, of (in) and (the) may be deleted in these
   Who (in) (the) hell is that?
   What (in) (the) hell are they doing?
   How (in) (the) hell did she get invited?
   Where (in) (the) hell did he come from?
   Why (in) (the) hell did you do that?
   When (in) (the) hell is this rain going to stop?
This also  applies to embedded questions, which have different syntax:
   I don't know who (in) (the) hell that is.
   I don't know what (in) (the) hell they're doing.
   I don't know how (in) (the) hell she got invited.
   I don't know where (in) (the) hell he came from.
   I don't know why (in) (the) hell you do that.
   I don't know when (in) (the) hell this rain is going to stop.
"the hell" may not appear with just any WH-word; "which", for instance,
is out, though "what" is OK:
  *Which (in) (the) hell did he choose?
   What (in) (the) hell did he choose?
and "whether", since it represents a yes/no question instead of a
WH-question -- essentially being identical to "if" -- is also out:
  *I don't know whether (in) (the) hell he's coming.
In compound interrogatives, like "how big" or "what book", as in
   How big is it?         I don't know how big it is.
 What book is it in?  I don't know what book it's in.
"the hell" goes between the interrogative and its complement:
How the hell big is it?      I don't know how the hell big it is. What
the hell book is it in? I don't know what the hell book it's in.
("in the hell" is much less likely than "the hell" in this construction)
Pragmatically, "the hell" functions as an intensifier, usually
indicating at least surprise, and often unpleasant surprise, and there
is almost always another word in the sentence that receives contrastive
stress to indicate that it is the focus of the surprise.  Co-occurence
of other interjections and topic particles like "well" is also common.
The idea seems to be to mark the sentence strongly, iconic with the
strength of the emotion to be expressed. (I indicate contrastive stress
in capitals)
  Well, how the hell big IS it, then?
  Why the hell did you DO that?
  How the hell did SHE get invited, anyway?
"Hell" is considered by many (but not by as many as it used to be) to be
a taboo word, like "death" or "cancer". Therefore it spawns euphemisms,
which are words meaning the same thing as a taboo term, but considered
safer for bystanders by experts in word magic.  Frequently-encountered
euphemisms for "the hell" include:
  "the hey"    for the "wotthehell" construction only
  "in the world"   for the question construction only  (obligatory
"in")

and where is "hell"?????   that was answered in a poem

Ah, Arizona!

The devil wanted a place on earth
Sort of a summer home
A place to spend his vacation
Whenever he wanted to roam.

So he picked out Arizona
A place both wretched and rough
Where the climate was to his liking
And the cowboys hardened and tough.

He dried up the streams in the canyons
And ordered no rain to fall
He dried up the lakes in the valleys
Then baked and scorched it all.

Then over his barren country
He transplanted shrubs from hell.  
The cactus, thistle and prickly pear
The climate suited them well.

Now the home was much to his liking
But animal life, he had none.
So he created crawling creatures
That all mankind would shun.

First he made the rattlesnake
With it's forked poisonous tongue.
Taught it to strike and rattle
And how to swallow it's young.

Then he made scorpions and lizards
And the ugly old horned toad.
He placed spiders of every description
Under rocks by the side of the road.

Then he ordered the sun to shine hotter,
Hotter and hotter still.
Until even the cactus wilted
And the old horned lizard took ill.

Then he gazed on his earthly kingdom
As any creator would
He chuckled a little up his sleeve
And admitted that it was good.

Twas summer now and Satan lay
By a prickly pear to rest.
The sweat rolled off his swarthy brow
So he took off his coat and vest.

"By Golly, " he finally panted,
"I did my job too well,
I'm going back to where I came from,
Arizona is hotter than Hell. "

have a GREAT weekend everyone.......

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc

This is exactly the kind of analysis I looked for from my physics students.
Excellent.