Heart's Work Output: Viscosity & Vein Length

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the factors influencing heart work output, specifically questioning the relevance of height in calculating energy expenditure. Participants argue that viscosity and vein length should be prioritized over height, as closed circulation systems do not directly correlate with gravitational effects. The complexity of accurately calculating the energy required for the heart to pump blood is highlighted, noting that variations in vein diameter and curvature introduce significant "minor losses." It is suggested that using average measurements may lead to substantial inaccuracies in calculations. Ultimately, the consensus is that precise calculations are challenging due to the non-linear relationships between various factors affecting blood flow.
michaelwoodco
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I saw an example where the work of a heart was found to be 2 watts based on the height of a person and the liters of blood that it pumped throughout the day. Since we have closed circulation systems (unless we have a cut, annerism, etc. ) I thought height would not matter, and in order to achieve the best accuracy we would consider instead viscosity and vein length. Or perhaps take the pressure difference before & after the heart at the current flow rate and you could use that to calculate the resistance to flow. In theory with no viscosity wouldn't our blood just flow forever because although on one side of the loop the blood has to go up against gravity on the other side gravity is pulling it down?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Yeah I don't see why they would take into account height. Gravity doesn't affect the circulation work done since it is a conservative force.
 


How exactly would I calculate the energy needed for the heart to pump blood then, take into account viscosity and vein length/diameter? I'm guessing I could make a rough calculation by using average vein diameter?
 


Eh, its too difficult since each time the flow changes diameters there is a "minor loss" which is based on velocity squared, geometry, etc.
And wall friction factor isn't at all linear with diameter or velocity, so taking an average will give a poor result. Curvature in veins also contributes to "minor losses" which are impossible to determine.

Doing a "rough" calculation will probably end up being off by a factor of 100.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top