Comment by reliablereason
3 hours ago
If i understand that correctly the "energy required to grow" would be bigger than the "enthalpy of formation"?
I hear you.
It was really just food for thought.
3 hours ago
If i understand that correctly the "energy required to grow" would be bigger than the "enthalpy of formation"?
I hear you.
It was really just food for thought.
> If i understand that correctly the "energy required to grow" would be bigger than the "enthalpy of formation"?
They are almost completely unrelated concepts. The enthalpy of formation from the paper is the free useable energy that would be generated if you assembled all the molecules in the biomatter from the constituent atoms. E.g. the energy that would be released if you took pure hydrogen and pure oxygen and combined it into 1 gram of water. But the fungi takes in water from the environment to grow, it does not make it's own water from pure hydrogen, and it certainly does not generate any free energy from growing larger. With some margin for error in my understanding, since I'm not a chemist (but neither are you, and neither is the chatbot).
> It was really just food for thought.
It was more poison than food, since you just parroted randomly generated misinformation from the chatbot and passed it of as authentic insight.