Frank Kogan

PP26-27:
(Mark's note: para that goes over page expands on a model, or perhaps a 'collision' or 'negotiation' of different models)

I'd go with "expands on a model," since according to Kuhn - and I don't know if Kuhn's interpretation has been generally accepted or rejected or not noticed - Planck so far has simply made a revision in his use of Boltzmann's derivation without yet including or realizing that for the derivation to work energy needs to be restricted to particular, discontinuous levels. It's only the latter that makes the model into a new being, something that could be collided with.

P27: i: "all the standard laws of classical physics"
ii: "The resonators could not be permitted to lie anywhere on the continuous energy line but only at the divisions between cells... When a resonator changed energy it did not do so continuously but by discontinuous jumps of size e or a multiple of e"
iii: "P's argument was both radically different and very much the same"
iv: "Physically, the entities to which the derivation refers are very different"

I like "entities" for its vagueness, since it doesn't commit to what these entities would be. (I assume, without knowing much at all about it, that once physics accepted that the energy of the "resonators"/"ocillators" could only jump up or down to specified levels, a question became, "What sort of entities could this be true of?")

v: "The element e has gone from a mental division of the total energy to a separable physical energy atom"

"Atom" is a strange word choice, though I suppose Kuhn didn't want to use "quantum" as that was a term whose introduction he was going to make a big thing of on the next page.

PP27-28:
i: "Figure 6 tries to capture that change in a way that suggests its resemblance to the inside-out battery of my last example"

Yes!

P28:
i: "the transformation, difficult to see"
ii: "Already the resonator has been transformed from a familiar sort of entity governed by standard classical laws to a strange creature the very existence of which is incompatible with traditional ways of doing physics" (rest of par switches to a meta-discussion of the sociology and history of similar changes in "the field")
iii: "changes in the way in which terms like 'motion' attached to nature"
iv: "highlights those features... that the revolution had made prominent"
v: "discontinuity had come to stay"
vi: "element" --- "energy 'quantum'"
vii: "Also in 1909 P abandoned the acoustic analogy" (following sentences expand on change of analogy -- "resonators" to "oscillators" and why)
viii: "For those who believed that energy changes discontinuously, 'resonator' was not an appropriate term."

As Mark says several threads ago, the advantage of the new terms in relation to what they replaced is hardly obvious ("element" seems as indivisible as "quantum," actually), but I'd say that the point here is that Planck felt he had to change terminology, since he'd reconceived what he was dealing with.

PP28-29:
i: "Revolutionary changes are somehow holistic. They cannot, that is, be made piecemeal, one step at a time, and they thus contrast with normal or cumulative changes..."

I wish the word in general usage for "not atomistic" wasn't "holistic" but just "hunkastuffistic" since the latter doesn't imply that you necessarily get giant wholes or coherent integrated mechanisms but just that when something changes other things change with it. But engaging in a campaign to alter usage here would not be a good use of my time, I'm afraid.