If our bodies could run on fusion power

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the hypothetical scenario of the human body operating on fusion power, specifically calculating the energy available from converting 0.8% of a 60 kg mass into energy. Using the mass-energy equivalence equation, the calculation yields approximately 4.32x10^16 joules of energy. Dividing this energy by the body's power requirement of 120 watts suggests a potential operational time of about 3.6x10^14 seconds. Participants acknowledge that while the calculations are straightforward, the complexities of energy production and conversion are overlooked in the premise. The conversation highlights the intriguing yet simplified nature of the question posed.
jaredogden
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
So I saw someone post this question on facebook and naturally being an Engineering student I'm curious to know now. I haven't done any Physics in a while so I'm not sure how you would tackle this one. The question was:

"The power needed to operate your body is about 120 watts. Suppose your mass is 60kg and your body could run on fusion power. If you could convert 0.8% of you mass into energy, how much energy would be available to run your body and for how long could you operate on fusion power?"

My first instinct was to just take 0.8% of 60 kg to get .48 kg and plug that into the mass-energy equivalence equation to get

E = (.48 kg)(3x1088 m/s)2
E = 4.32x1016 J

then do 4.32x1016 J/120 Watts to get 3.6x1014 second.

I'm not even sure if the mass-energy equivalence equation can be applied to this situation or not. I don't think there is a way to use the nuclear binding energy equations either, however I'm not a physicist and don't know nuclear physics too too well.

Well thanks for any explanations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes that's correct. All the complications as to how the energy would be made are swept under the rug by just saying "convert 0.8% of your mass into energy". All the interesting specifics go away by saying that.
 
I thought so but just wasn't sure. Thanks for the help!
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top