EVE Search - I just realized that humans run on roughly 100 W. How odd.

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

I just realized that humans run on roughly 100 W. How odd.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Xenuria Gallente euphoria squadron	Posted - 2011.07.07 02:27:00 - [31] Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o 2000kcal is one of many things that he needs to function. 100g sugar has 377 kcal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar). Even if we ignore drinking and breathing ... how long will you survive eating daily ~530g sugar (=2000kcal) and nothing else ? I think it would depend on how we metabolise the sugar. To much and we would get diabetes_cat.jpg "Sweet Jesus, It's an Anti-AT field!"
Kalmanaka Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.07.07 04:38:00 - [32] My daughter is autistic. It was a massive pain in the ass convincing school officials that 100F was not a fever and that they didn't have to keep sending her home sick. --------------------------------------- Estimate != Reality What you want != What you get You whine != Someone cares Learn to deal with it. -Abrazzar
Malcheus	Posted - 2011.07.07 09:36:00 - [33] Actually the amount of watts needed by modern-day electrical devices is enormous due to their inefficiency, a light bulb, made to produce light, mainly produces heat for instance. thousands of years of evolution and selective pressure has made sure that living organisms use their energy very efficiently. Furthermore, those 100watts it costs to keep a human on his feet is probably correct for a coach potato, but not for an active person. With the Tour de France going on at the moment I heard a commentor say that a sprinter produces 2200 Watts in the final sprint, and indeed wikipedia seems to agree on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance So as with the "calories per day requirement" theory, the wattage per human is also completely and utterly dependant on what that human being is actually doing.
Mudkest Adventurers Matari Visionary Coalition	Posted - 2011.07.07 13:45:00 - [34] Originally by: Akita T Those 2000 kcal are the average use per day for the average human doing average stuff while dressed appropriately in a comfortable environment. If you're looking at people that do a lot of physical work/exercise, it's obvious they need far more than that. Some athletes have diets that border on 10000 kcal per day just to maintain weight, but then again, you're looking at a full-time exercise regimen for them. the average human being must be very lazy indeed. I dont know how much Cal's I'd need a day, or even how to calculate it but I am certain I need a lot more then 2000 and my job, I work at the engineering/maintanance department of a factory so yes I am more active then a desk worker, but it's not that extreme. Originally by: Takseen Also thanks for reminding me how terrible the Matrix "Machines need humans as batteries" plot was. chuckle ----- GIEV custom ship paint jobs! I want my hello-kitty-kessie!
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 02:18:00 - [35] Originally by: Xenuria How many Watts do Savants like me require? Are we more energy efficient or do we "Run hot" as my doctors often say? Savant? Given your interpretation of Chelm's background, I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't one of your areas of special expertise?
Lauren Ambraelle	Posted - 2011.07.08 03:28:00 - [36] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Mag's I may be wrong here, but shouldn't you take Oxygen into account as well? though good ol' O2 is what makes those calories burn and it's not a direct energy supply? The fact that we need it, makes think it should be included in the equation. Even though you're saying it's not a direct energy supply, it definitely facilitates it. Yep, the food calories are just the energy used to start the chemical chain reactions in our body. The actual energy produced from the reaction is much bigger. Sort of like how a tiny piece of fissible material can produce releases of energy of enormous proportions (think nuclear weapons). The energy produced is far greater than the energy put in. Interesting topic though.
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 06:43:00 - [37] Originally by: Lauren Ambraelle Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Mag's I may be wrong here, but shouldn't you take Oxygen into account as well? though good ol' O2 is what makes those calories burn and it's not a direct energy supply? The fact that we need it, makes think it should be included in the equation. Even though you're saying it's not a direct energy supply, it definitely facilitates it. Yep, the food calories are just the energy used to start the chemical chain reactions in our body. The actual energy produced from the reaction is much bigger. Sort of like how a tiny piece of fissible material can produce releases of energy of enormous proportions (think nuclear weapons). The energy produced is far greater than the energy put in. Interesting topic though. Sweet baby jeebus. Are you people serious? You're likening human metabolism to fission? WTF? Rest assured, there are ZERO nuclear reactions occurring in the human body. No fission. No fusion. The kcal measure of food is actually the heat content, i.e., that is the amount of energy produced when the substance is completely burned in oxygen. Simple. It already factors in the oxygen we breath in. The human body is a mass flow system. It eats, drinks and breathes at the inlet and defecates, urinates and perspires at the outlet. Those mass flows are either identical or balanced with fat storage or consumption. Humans consume energy based solely on the amount of food eaten and the amount of fat stores consumed if intake is insufficient to support metabolic and other activity levels. There's no ****ing chain reaction or anything. E=mc^2 is still the domain of nuclear processes, fission, fusion and matter/antimatter annihilation. Please don't imagine that the human body is anything as awesome as that.
Medidranda Livoga	Posted - 2011.07.08 09:05:00 - [38] Biological systems are quite efficient thanks to entzymes which lower the needed reaction energies quite a bit.
Kirja R.U.S.H Red Alliance	Posted - 2011.07.08 09:18:00 - [39] Edited by: Kirja on 08/07/2011 09:18:57 Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o 2000kcal is one of many things that he needs to function. 100g sugar has 377 kcal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar). Even if we ignore drinking and breathing ... how long will you survive eating daily ~530g sugar (=2000kcal) and nothing else ? Dont forget that humans are also self-learning, self-replicating, self-repairing, evolving, adapting (both mentaly (software) and physicaly (hardware)) to changes etc beings. Imagine a machine doing all of that and running on 100W + some minerals per day. A lot of great engineers and scientists said that the more they learn about their trade the more they become impressed by technical solutions that "evolved naturaly". No wonder a large part of brightest minds in human history was deeply religious.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.07.08 10:21:00 - [40] Edited by: Akita T on 08/07/2011 10:24:13 Originally by: Kirja Dont forget that humans are also self-learning, self-replicating, self-repairing, evolving, adapting (both mentaly (software) and physicaly (hardware)) to changes etc beings. Imagine a machine doing all of that and running on 100W + some minerals per day. A lot of great engineers and scientists said that the more they learn about their trade the more they become impressed by technical solutions that "evolved naturaly". No wonder a large part of brightest minds in human history was deeply religious. Before people learned to work with genetic algorithms, maybe. For instance ... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples:electrical Quote: A field-programmable gate array, or FPGA for short, is a special type of circuit board with an array of logic cells, each of which can act as any type of logic gate, connected by flexible interlinks which can connect cells. Both of these functions are controlled by software, so merely by loading a special program into the board, it can be altered on the fly to perform the functions of any one of a vast variety of hardware devices. Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop". This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery. Who exactly can believe in a "higher power" after THAT one ?
Mudkest Adventurers Matari Visionary Coalition	Posted - 2011.07.08 12:06:00 - [41] Edited by: Mudkest on 08/07/2011 12:11:01 Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Sweet baby jeebus. Are you people serious? You're likening human metabolism to fission? WTF? Rest assured, there are ZERO nuclear reactions occurring in the human body. No fission. No fusion. the point was not that there are nuclear reactions going on in the human body, jus that the 100w is needed to start reactions. Another comparison would be a fuell fire. If oyu have a pool of fuell you have a lot of potential energy sittin in there, yet it will not be releaed untill it gets ignited by external energy to start the fire. Once it burns it no longer needs external energy to keep going. No fusion/fission going on in a fuel fire either but it still needs an external impuls to start off(along with a bunch of other variables, but it WILL NOT ignite on its own)
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 14:13:00 - [42] Originally by: Mudkest Edited by: Mudkest on 08/07/2011 12:11:01 Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Sweet baby jeebus. Are you people serious? You're likening human metabolism to fission? WTF? Rest assured, there are ZERO nuclear reactions occurring in the human body. No fission. No fusion. the point was not that there are nuclear reactions going on in the human body, jus that the 100w is needed to start reactions. Another comparison would be a fuell fire. If oyu have a pool of fuell you have a lot of potential energy sittin in there, yet it will not be releaed untill it gets ignited by external energy to start the fire. Once it burns it no longer needs external energy to keep going. No fusion/fission going on in a fuel fire either but it still needs an external impuls to start off(along with a bunch of other variables, but it WILL NOT ignite on its own) Still a completely invalid analogy. The human body never "produces" more energy than it takes in unless it burns fat stores. The only "pool of fuel" the body has is fat, and the LACK of an external energy input is what causes it to burn. Some basic biological education would prevent this.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.07.08 14:55:00 - [43] Originally by: Mudkest the point was not that there are nuclear reactions going on in the human body, jus that the 100w is needed to start reactions. Nope, that 100W average across the entire day is the combined power output of all those chemical reactions that come from "burning" the food. Probably even less, considering you don't take out all the energy from the food.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 15:09:00 - [44] Originally by: Mudkest the average human being must be very lazy indeed. I dont know how much Cal's I'd need a day, or even how to calculate it but I am certain I need a lot more then 2000 and my job, I work at the engineering/maintanance department of a factory so yes I am more active then a desk worker, but it's not that extreme. No you don't. Human beings have wildly different metabolic rates based on what they eat and how they spend their lives. This is why this thread makes me twitch a little....
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.07.08 15:20:00 - [45] Edited by: Akita T on 08/07/2011 15:21:57 Originally by: Selinate Human beings have wildly different metabolic rates based on what they eat and how they spend their lives. This is why this thread makes me twitch a little.... ahem Originally by: Akita T Those 2000 kcal are the average use per day for the average human doing average stuff while dressed appropriately in a comfortable environment. If you're looking at people that do a lot of physical work/exercise, it's obvious they need far more than that. Some athletes have diets that border on 10000 kcal per day just to maintain weight, but then again, you're looking at a full-time exercise regimen for them. Same goes for people that are put in a colder environment without adequate clothing, or a much colder environment regardless of insulating clothing. You can easily burn up 500-1000 more calories during the winter than during the summer just by not staying all day long in heated indoor environments. Of course there's a lot of variation, but you have a rough order of magnitude for "the average person" while mostly doing "office work" close to 2000 kcal/day.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 15:27:00 - [46] Edited by: Selinate on 08/07/2011 15:27:42 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 08/07/2011 15:21:57 Originally by: Selinate Human beings have wildly different metabolic rates based on what they eat and how they spend their lives. This is why this thread makes me twitch a little.... ahem Originally by: Akita T Those 2000 kcal are the average use per day for the average human doing average stuff while dressed appropriately in a comfortable environment. If you're looking at people that do a lot of physical work/exercise, it's obvious they need far more than that. Some athletes have diets that border on 10000 kcal per day just to maintain weight, but then again, you're looking at a full-time exercise regimen for them. Same goes for people that are put in a colder environment without adequate clothing, or a much colder environment regardless of insulating clothing. You can easily burn up 500-1000 more calories during the winter than during the summer just by not staying all day long in heated indoor environments. Of course there's a lot of variation, but you have a rough order of magnitude for "the average person" while mostly doing "office work" close to 2000 kcal/day. There's even a wide variation between different times of the day for a single person, though. Saying something runs on an average of some given power for the vast majority of things is... Well, to say the least, its a useless number. If you want to go over average amount of energy used on a given day (which has apparently been gone over in this thread), that's a different deal, and actually a meaningful number...
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 15:31:00 - [47] Edited by: Selinate on 08/07/2011 15:33:26 Edited by: Selinate on 08/07/2011 15:30:45 Originally by: Mudkest the point was not that there are nuclear reactions going on in the human body, jus that the 100w is needed to start reactions. Another comparison would be a fuell fire. If oyu have a pool of fuell you have a lot of potential energy sittin in there, yet it will not be releaed untill it gets ignited by external energy to start the fire. Once it burns it no longer needs external energy to keep going. No fusion/fission going on in a fuel fire either but it still needs an external impuls to start off(along with a bunch of other variables, but it WILL NOT ignite on its own) No, fission does not need an "external impulse" to start off. There's a reason why a nuclear reactor can start up without an external neutron source.... EDIT: And there is such thing as spontaneous fission. Let's keep nuclear reactions out of a thread about human energy consumption, k?
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 15:45:00 - [48] Originally by: Selinate Originally by: Mudkest the average human being must be very lazy indeed. I dont know how much Cal's I'd need a day, or even how to calculate it but I am certain I need a lot more then 2000 and my job, I work at the engineering/maintanance department of a factory so yes I am more active then a desk worker, but it's not that extreme. No you don't. Human beings have wildly different metabolic rates based on what they eat and how they spend their lives. This is why this thread makes me twitch a little.... Yeah, especially when people don't understand the difference between calorie and kilocalorie
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:16:00 - [49] Edited by: Selinate on 08/07/2011 16:21:55 Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Originally by: Selinate Originally by: Mudkest the average human being must be very lazy indeed. I dont know how much Cal's I'd need a day, or even how to calculate it but I am certain I need a lot more then 2000 and my job, I work at the engineering/maintanance department of a factory so yes I am more active then a desk worker, but it's not that extreme. No you don't. Human beings have wildly different metabolic rates based on what they eat and how they spend their lives. This is why this thread makes me twitch a little.... Yeah, especially when people don't understand the difference between calorie and kilocalorie I do understand it. A kilocalorie is 1000 calories. Are you sure you understand the difference? I ask this mostly because my original confusion had nothing to do with the difference between a calorie and a kilocalorie.
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:22:00 - [50] Edited by: Sook Statta Hahndah on 08/07/2011 16:23:34 Originally by: Selinate Edited by: Selinate on 05/06/2011 04:12:42 human body is not 100% efficient. Also, we actually require around 2000 calories (not kilocalories) a day to maintain healthy diet.... You forget so soon? Food calories are kilocalories, i.e., the amount of energy required to raise one LITER of water 1¦C. A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise 1 milliliter of water 1¦C. The "kilo" is dropped from food labels for simplicity. EDIT: point being for someone inclined to cringe over other's lack of understanding, you are essentially calling the kettle black.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:23:00 - [51] Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Originally by: Selinate Edited by: Selinate on 05/06/2011 04:12:42 human body is not 100% efficient. Also, we actually require around 2000 calories (not kilocalories) a day to maintain healthy diet.... You forget so soon? Food calories are kilocalories, i.e., the amount of energy required to raise one LITER of water 1¦C. A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise 1 milliliter of water 1¦C. The "kilo" is dropped from food labels for simplicity. No, a kilocalorie is 1000 calories.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:23:00 - [52] Edited by: Akita T on 08/07/2011 16:27:30 Originally by: Selinate There's even a wide variation between different times of the day for a single person, though. Saying something runs on an average of some given power for the vast majority of things is... Well, to say the least, its a useless number. If you want to go over average amount of energy used on a given day (which has apparently been gone over in this thread), that's a different deal, and actually a meaningful number... There's no practical difference between saying "consumes on average 100W" or "total average daily power usage is 2.4 kWh" or "average daily consumption is 8.64 GJ" or "average daily usage is 2000 kcal", it's the same thing. Originally by: Selinate Quote: Food calories are kilocalories, i.e., the amount of energy required to raise one LITER of water 1¦C. A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise 1 milliliter of water 1¦C. The "kilo" is dropped from food labels for simplicity. No, a kilocalorie is 1000 calories. Also known as "FOOD calorie" or "Cal", equal to 1000 calories or 1 kilocalorie. They're all the same thing. "Food calories, or the "calorie" units used often in nutritional contexts, measure amounts of energy 1000 times greater than the units in scientific contexts known also as calories, or gram calories (cal). Food calories are thereby referred to less ambiguously in some formal contexts as kilocalories (kcal). One food calorie is equal to 4.184 kilojoules. Within the European Union, both the kilocalorie (kcal) and kilojoule (kJ) appear on nutrition labels. In many countries, only one of the units is displayed."
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:28:00 - [53] Originally by: Akita T There's no practical difference between saying "consumes on average 100W" or "total average daily power usage is 2.4 kWh" or "average daily consumption is 8.64 GJ" or "average daily usage is 2000 kcal", it's the same thing. You're right, there's not. However, average daily power is useless in the context of the power output you need at a given time. If you want to find out how much you charge people for a month for power roughly, sure, its a decent number, but it doesn't say anything about the power load on the grid at a certain time of the day. The same applies with human beings.
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:29:00 - [54] Originally by: Mudkest Edited by: Mudkest on 08/07/2011 12:11:01 Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Sweet baby jeebus. Are you people serious? You're likening human metabolism to fission? WTF? Rest assured, there are ZERO nuclear reactions occurring in the human body. No fission. No fusion. the point was not that there are nuclear reactions going on in the human body, jus that the 100w is needed to start reactions. Another comparison would be a fuell fire. If oyu have a pool of fuell you have a lot of potential energy sittin in there, yet it will not be releaed untill it gets ignited by external energy to start the fire. Once it burns it no longer needs external energy to keep going. No fusion/fission going on in a fuel fire either but it still needs an external impuls to start off(along with a bunch of other variables, but it WILL NOT ignite on its own) You know, I probably should have given you the benefit of the doubt. It is a scientific fact that food consumption can result in explosive forces at the back end.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:30:00 - [55] Originally by: Akita T Also known as "FOOD calorie" or "Cal", equal to 1000 calories or 1 kilocalorie. They're all the same thing. "Food calories, or the "calorie" units used often in nutritional contexts, measure amounts of energy 1000 times greater than the units in scientific contexts known also as calories, or gram calories (cal). Food calories are thereby referred to less ambiguously in some formal contexts as kilocalories (kcal). One food calorie is equal to 4.184 kilojoules. Within the European Union, both the kilocalorie (kcal) and kilojoule (kJ) appear on nutrition labels. In many countries, only one of the units is displayed." Yes, I know, a kilocalorie is 1000 calories.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:34:00 - [56] Edited by: Selinate on 08/07/2011 16:34:38 Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah EDIT: point being for someone inclined to cringe over other's lack of understanding, you are essentially calling the kettle black. A mistake in unit conversion is hardly evidence of a lack of understanding of this topic. Especially for a unit that's essentially never used when referring to power outputs of electrical devices.
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:35:00 - [57] Originally by: Selinate Originally by: Akita T There's no practical difference between saying "consumes on average 100W" or "total average daily power usage is 2.4 kWh" or "average daily consumption is 8.64 GJ" or "average daily usage is 2000 kcal", it's the same thing. You're right, there's not. However, average daily power is useless in the context of the power output you need at a given time. If you want to find out how much you charge people for a month for power roughly, sure, its a decent number, but it doesn't say anything about the power load on the grid at a certain time of the day. The same applies with human beings. Jeebus Thuking kryst, you are a pedant that doesn't even understand context. Akita's calculations clearly show the POWER required by the average human body over a 24 hour period. Your first post is just downright ignorant, yet you still continue like a dog with a sock. You got me. Congrats on your troll.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:37:00 - [58] Edited by: Selinate on 08/07/2011 16:38:16 Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Originally by: Selinate Originally by: Akita T There's no practical difference between saying "consumes on average 100W" or "total average daily power usage is 2.4 kWh" or "average daily consumption is 8.64 GJ" or "average daily usage is 2000 kcal", it's the same thing. You're right, there's not. However, average daily power is useless in the context of the power output you need at a given time. If you want to find out how much you charge people for a month for power roughly, sure, its a decent number, but it doesn't say anything about the power load on the grid at a certain time of the day. The same applies with human beings. Jeebus Thuking kryst, you are a pedant that doesn't even understand context. Akita's calculations clearly show the POWER required by the average human body over a 24 hour period. Your first post is just downright ignorant, yet you still continue like a dog with a sock. You got me. Congrats on your troll. No, it doesn't.... And again, I admit I was ignorant on the difference between a food calorie, or Calorie, and a calorie, and hence converting it to watts in my method was wrong. However... Who the hell wouldn't find it confusing that one is called a Calorie and is 1000 of a calorie?
Sook Statta Hahndah	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:40:00 - [59] Edited by: Sook Statta Hahndah on 08/07/2011 16:40:59 Originally by: Selinate Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Jeebus Thuking kryst, you are a pedant that doesn't even understand context. Akita's calculations clearly show the POWER required by the average human body over a 24 hour period. Your first post is just downright ignorant, yet you still continue like a dog with a sock. You got me. Congrats on your troll. No, it doesn't.... Stop trolling. You can't seriously be that stupid. Do you understand the difference between power and energy? Akita's original post is 100% correct assuming the average person eats 2000 kcal per day. EDIT: I've known the difference between calorie and kcal in the context of food since junior high school 27 years ago.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.08 16:41:00 - [60] Originally by: Sook Statta Hahndah Stop trolling. You can't seriously be that stupid. Do you understand the difference between power and energy? Akita's original post is 100% correct assuming the average person eats 2000 kcal per day. Yes. I do understand it. I'm thinking you're the one who doesn't understand it...

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.