How Much Glucose Does a Person Metabolize Climbing a Mountain?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the mass of glucose metabolized by a 59.0-kg person climbing a mountain with a 1550m elevation gain. It notes that the work done in the climb is approximately four times the energy required to lift the weight vertically. Participants express confusion about how to begin the calculations, emphasizing the need to first determine the work done by the climber using basic physics principles. The enthalpy of formation for glucose is provided as a reference for energy calculations. The conversation highlights the intersection of biology and physics in understanding energy metabolism during physical exertion.
n.a.s.h
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The metabolism of glucose, C6H12O6, yields Co2(g) and H2O(l) as products. Heat released in the process is converted to useful work with about 70% efficiency.

Calculate the mass of glucose metabolized by a 59.0-kg person in climbing a mountain with an elevation gain of 1550m . Assume that the work performed in the climb is about four times that required to simply lift 59.0 kg by 1550m .

Homework Equations



(enthalpy of formation of C6H12O6(s) is -1273.3 kJ/mol.)

The Attempt at a Solution



Im so confused with this question and i do not even know where to start...Any help will be appreciated...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start calculating amount of work done by climber. This is simple physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top