Talk:Higher heating value

The article language is more charged than needed

The article language. Specifically the part taken from this report http://www.efcf.com/reports/E10.pdf are very charged. Although the points might be valid, it says so in a very subjective way.

Could you explain what sentences exactly are charged? --ovvldc 08:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is not based on energy conservation, one of the fundamental laws of physics, but on convenience and the consent of a standardizing committee." That's pretty bad. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

removed neutrality warning

Firstly the "neutrality disputed" strapline is very heavy for a minor disagreement over wording, so I've removed it. I've also reworded that bad sentence above and reworded it to state what the LHV thing is, and what it is not. Practical real-world numbers have value too... mpg isn't an inherent physical quantity, it also is based on a standardised real-world test, but it's still useful. 82.69.54.182 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of date?

A random search for "heating value" gave this [1], which gives a much simpler explanation which equates the HHV with the enthalpy of combustion (typically measured *directly* with bomb calorimetry) and obtaining the LHV by subtracting the latent heat of vapourisation of the water (no empirical factors here). 84.92.241.186 13:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)