Talk:Heat of combustion: Difference between revisions

Chemistry Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Chemical and Bio Engineering Unassessed (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Energy Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Can we obtain heat of combution of any product without experiment? is it same like following? A +o2 → Co2+ No2 then based on number of moles and standard heat of formation of Co2 and No2, can we take the obtained result as heat of combustion of substance A? if yes, then does heat of formation is exactly same (with opposite sign) that of heat of combustion? as if we reverse this equation, then heat of the reversed equation will be heat of formation. is this logic correct?

It would be nice if someone would make a sister page about heat of formation.

The reference to energy obtained from antimatter may be misleading as that is presumably the amount of energy contained in that weight of antimatter which would be released when combined with equal weight of matter. I won't vouch for the math in it, but the description is not sufficient, or in any case, might just be listed as the energy available in any mass, whether matter or antimatter, if that is the intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhpl508 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is not specific enough to find the information that it references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.154.142 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the organic compounds be named according to the systematic nomenclature of IUPAC? I believe olefines should be alkenes, diolefines should be dienes, etc. i believe tthe use of trivial nomenclature is to be avoided in favor of systematic names. If the fuel has some water , is it true that the state of fuel's water is not important for LHV and HHV ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.134.60 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Heating value here

It is proposed that Heating value be merged here. The two article each had a simple merge tag, but I have changed these to mergeto and mergefrom as I believe merging Heating value here is the best solution. Please discuss it. --Bduke 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Heating value" is not a standard term and it really is just a heat of combustion. I suggest tidying it up and merging the content here. --Bduke 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have found sulfur's heat of combustion to be ~4000btu/# in other resources, vs. the 2000btu/# given here. Where can this number be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.223.151 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Heating Value (HHV) is commonly used by the local air quality management authority in Southern California, perhaps by other air quality regulatory agencies as well. If this is combined with Heat of Combustion, "Higher Heating Value" should be such that it is searchable from a search engine such as Google, since many people, such as I, will search for HHV and not heat of combustion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.176.254 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, merge - they seem to be exactly the same thing. — Omegatron 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This MERGE appears to have been completed in Jan 2008. N2e (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Higher heating value and Lower heating value here

It has been further proposed, in merge tags within each of the two Xxxxx heating value articles, that both are merged here. Both merge tags were added 2008-03-30 by User:Omegatron. One can thus assume that

• Omegatron Supports the merge, as the proposer.

• Support -- Rationale: both higher and lower heating values are physical characteristics for particular fuels and are thus part of the heat of combustion. N2e (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.223.151 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heat of combustion values in the 1st table are inconsistent for coal. The conversion between Mcal/kg and BTU/lb is correct, but the conversion to MJ/kg seems wrong. Although I have only checked the conversion of the units, I propose that these values are changed into 18.6 - 32.6 MJ/kg. - It is possible that the conversion went wrong the other way (and that MJ/kg are correct, and Mcal/kg and BTU/lb are wrong). I cannot find the reference.

Furthermore, all the values are inconsistent with another wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal (see the 1st table). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.112.1.3 (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table at Heating values of some fuels is still inconsistent and poorly referenced. The HHV for coal is listed at 8000-14000 BTU/lb which converts to 18.6-32.6 MJ/kg, not 15-27 MJ/kg as stated in the table. Searching the reference yielded no easy source of information. --LRG (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This section has no thermodynamical sense, which is outlighted by the text into parenthesis. Actually, it would be better to change it or to delete it. The deletion seems to me definitely required because it would have no sense to replace "to run a 100 W lightbulb for a year" by "to provide to 100 W of heat for a year". If someone finds usefull to keep relevant data from this section, he can revert or modify this deletion. 81.56.65.180 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A BIG citation needed here - What is the significance of 15.4C anyway? One source I found is here: "http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html" but I don't know how reputable that site is. Also, there's no reason to keep half of the table empty, since it only differs by a conversion factor. I added the value for carbon monoxide, since I used that value on my homework. Traversc (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]