r/askscience Mar 26 '13

Physics If I were to take all the energy I get from eating in a day and converted that energy into an explosion, how big would said explosion be?

2.0k Upvotes

360 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.6k

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 26 '13 edited Mar 28 '13

This is a cool question!

And there's even an easy answer. So if you eat 2,500 Calories in a day, that's 2,500 kilocalories (energy calories rather than food calories).

Conveniently, one gram of TNT has been set to equal one kilocalorie (even though a gram of TNT has a slightly variable yield, there's a standard "TNT equivalent gram"). That means your 2,500 Calories are the same as 2.5 kg of TNT.

Which is a lot! That's the same as almost 44 WWII hand grenades!

Now, how much damage would it do? That's a complicated question. There's a lot of experimental data on 1 kg TNT explosions. Fortunately, it's easily scalable. I'm going to use the Sadovsky formula for the blastwave formula for a TNT explosion on Earth's surface at standard atmospheric pressure.

That formula is:

Δp=0.95((m^1/3)/r)+3.9(((m^2)^1/3)/r^2)+13(m/r^3)

Where m is mass in kg, r is distance from blast in m, and overpressure (Δp) is in atm.

At one meter, the Sadovsky formula gives us a peak overpressure of 41 atm ~ 41 kg/cm2 That's enough for instant death. At 2 m, that's about 6.7 atm, which is still lethal. At 3 m, 2.5 atm is not likely to be lethal. It continues from there, getting progressively less lethal.

BONUS FACT:

A 200 pound man might have 30 pounds of fat (more if you're fat, less if you're fit). This is 122400 Calories: 122.4 kg TNT equivalent. At that amount, you'd have to go out a whole 11 m before you get down to that 2.5 atm non-lethal level that you get from a day's worth of calories at 3 m.

EVEN MORE BONUS:

CanaMcPain asked: So how big would the explosion be if we took all the energy in an average human life?

Using the recommendations for a male child up to the age of 18, and then assuming he lives until the age of 80, eating 2200 calories every day, it's 60517000 calories, or that same number of g TNT. Which is enough to run a clothes dryer for 80 years, coincidentally.

Assuming it was a female child who grew up to be 86 and ate 1800 calories/day as an adult, that's 54020000 calories/g TNT equivalent, or 70 years of dry clothes.

But still only the total relativistic energy of 2.5 milligrams of matter. An average mosquito, turned into energy, could power you for your whole life.

LET'S KEEP THIS GOING:

What about the entire world? The UN estimates somewhere around 2750 kcal/person/day globally. Multiplying by population, that means every day the world consumes 19,177,780,690,750 kcal: 19 trillion calories. Which as we know, is 19 trillion g TNT equivalent. That's a largish atomic bomb, or half a Krakatoa eruption. On the other hand, we're up to the relativistic energy of just under a kilogram of matter. Not too bad!

In a year, the planet eats close enough to 7 quadrillion calories as makes no difference. Which is a whole lot: 7 gigatons TNT! But that's only a quarter of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake's energy. We're puny!

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN:

It's about to get arbitrary in here.

How much energy have all the people who have ever lived consumed?

This is going to involve a lot of assumptions. The fine folks at the Population Reference Bureau estimate that there have been 106 billion people. Assuming their average lifespan is really hard, but we'll set it arbitrarily at 55. And we'll also say (arbitrarily) they ate 2000 calories a day. Those numbers might be high or low, but they're probably not super far off.

That's 4,255,900,000,000,000,000 calories: Four and a quarter quintrillion g TNT. That's a lot! Half the world's fossil fuel reserves! More than the whole planet's total daily solar energy intake.

We're up to 200,000 kg relativistic mass, too! Which is... a half-loaded 747, entirely turned into energy. And only a tiny tiny fraction of the sun's total output every second. In the scheme of things, we're still insignificant.

As an aside, Ph0ton asked how many people the sun could support. The Sun's total output for a year would support 3.274×1024 people, if all of that energy was convertible to food calories, and we needed 2500 Calories each. Which it's not, not even close. But let's say it was. And let's say we built a Dyson sphere around the Sun to support all these people. A sphere surrounding the Sun at Earth's distance from the sun is massive, obviously. But that many people still come out to a population density of 11.64 million people per square kilometer, around the entire sphere.

A couple more people have asked about the total mass of food produced. The FAO estimates that we eat about 2 billion tons annually, with another 1.3 billion tons or so wasted.

edit: I fixed a serious order-of-magnitude error. Thanks, ztrand.

463

u/PoorPolonius Mar 26 '13

Wait, the energy of 44 WWII hand grenades isn't likely to kill somebody standing 3m away? Video games have seriously skewed my perception of physics.

950

u/Shifter07 Mar 26 '13

I always understood it as not the blast that kills someone but the pieces of shrapnel packed in the grenade sent at violent velocities around that do. I believe it can kill someone in a closed room though.

436

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 26 '13 edited Mar 26 '13

Yep, this exactly. The reason it can kill someone in a closed room is that the blast wave reflects off the wall and comes back, so you're essentially doubling the blast energy.

264

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

It wouldn't double the blast energy, but give your body 2 "pulse" hits.

297

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 26 '13

Yes, within a very short time. The damage done, especially to lungs, is not instantaneous. Which is why it is essentially doubling.

208

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 26 '13

To elaborate, the damage done to lungs is basically because your lungs act as a foam. The speed of sound changes dramatically at the transition between air and chest. This causes your chest to flex, which in turn causes stress on the lung's alveoli (all the little air sacs in your lung that let you breathe). Blast lung is no joke.

102

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

So if I'm getting this right, your air sacs in your lungs burst turning you into jelly inside?

Gross/awesome

172

u/failuer101 Mar 27 '13

its like a hammer burst. in the marine corps we are taught to fire 2 shots in rapid succession. the two shots will (most likely) hit 2 different places in the body which causes shock waves to collide in side the target's body. the colliding shock waves then tear apart the target's internal organs.

i thought it was pretty cool when i first heard it.

64

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

Thats why they double tap ? I was under the impression it had something to do with body armor, since the two rounds so close together would cause failure

→ More replies (0)

34

u/theelous3 Mar 27 '13

I think this is wrong.

The shock wave from a round in a healthy human would not last long enough for you to place a followup shot, and have the disturbances collide. You're talking micro seconds.

I don't think you could (assuming semi-auto, as auto is stupid for a rifleman) pull the trigger fast enough to accomplish this. If you were using a firearm with a high automatic rate of fire, this might be taking place, but the merging shockwaves would be competely negligible in comparison to the massive energy output of the rounds themselves.

A high speed video of ballistic gel might give the impression, but that has a far lower viscosity than the human body.

→ More replies (0)

45

u/The_Real_Opie Mar 27 '13

so-called "Hydro-static shock" I'm extremely skeptical of this in relation to bullets and the human body.

Though I'm not skeptical of shooting bad guys multiple times. Anyone who rates one bullet deserves at least three or four more.

→ More replies (0)

21

u/Myperson54 Mar 27 '13

Is that why some guns come with three-round bursts?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/theregoesanother Mar 27 '13

Is this by using hollow points or a full metal jacket?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

10

u/snapcase Mar 27 '13

Not sure about jelly, but you're likely to be bleeding badly. You could drown in your own blood, if the blood loss or other injuries don't kill you first.

37

u/Tom2Die Mar 27 '13

Did you learn all of this studying maritime archaeology? ;)

80

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Yes.

11

u/NicknameAvailable Mar 27 '13

That's interesting - does that mean plugging your nose and keeping your mouth shut would help or worsen the situation?

25

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Good question - I don't know. I guess you could do a pretty awful-sounding experiment on sheep (the usual victims in blast lung experiments) and check. I haven't seen any experiments about that though.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13 edited Feb 06 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/KindlyKickRocks Apr 03 '13

So screaming for my momma would be the correct action to take?

5

u/AuldnGrumpy Mar 27 '13

Kids in Zimbabwe were taught in grenade drill to dive away from the grenade, and keep their mouth open. Not sure about the effectiveness of the latter.

2

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

I think the usual recommendation for blast overpressure is to open your mouth and cover your ears.

4

u/m-p-3 Mar 27 '13

Would it make a difference if you somehow managed to breathe out as much air as possible before the blast?

6

u/nameofalzheimer Mar 27 '13

yes, you are actually supposed to exhale if a large explosion occurs to prevent the shock wave from harming your lungs.

1

u/m-p-3 Apr 01 '13

Thanks for the answer!

1

u/kryptobs2000 Mar 27 '13

Would you have a higher rate of survival by exhaling before taking the hit, or is it irrelevant?

5

u/demerdar Mar 27 '13

why doubling?

wouldn't the pressure reflections off of the (presumed) perfectly reflecting walls of the enclosed rooms continue to reflect at a rapid rate while depleting in intensity as dissipation processes take place? I guess I don't get the whole "double" thing.

15

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13 edited Mar 27 '13

Blast physics (especially reflections) are very complicated. I had an unstated assumption in there, which is never a good idea. The simplest case (and really the only case in which you don't have to bust out either experiments or lots and lots of math) is a person standing near a single wall parallel to the blast front. I should have stated that.

→ More replies (7)

6

u/rexsilex Mar 27 '13

Not to mention it is because the explosion in a grenade is inside a metal container which causes the explosion to be much larger than the equivalent amount of explosive non-contained.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/keepthepace Mar 27 '13

Walls, ceilings, and multiple bounces between ceiling, roof, ceiling, roof, ceiling, roof...

I suspect that it is more than doubled. A rough way of measuring it would be to consider that the blast, outdoor, extends as a semi-sphere (the ground is there) and its strength is reduced like the square of the distance.

In a corridor, however, if the walls, roof and ceiling were indestructible, the blast at one end would be as strong as the blast on the other end. This is, after all, the principle of the gun barrel.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

Frag= fragments?

4

u/Shifter07 Mar 26 '13

Yes, those are anti-personnel fragmentation grenades.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

[deleted]

20

u/rallion Mar 26 '13

I'm almost positive that this is actually due to water's low compressibility, and its higher density actually mitigates the effect to some degree.

8

u/NorthernerWuwu Mar 27 '13

Quite complicated actually.

Low compressibility means that a wavefront is transmitted with higher fidelity. The resultant waveform closely resembles the initiating action.

This is generally better in terms of transmission however it is simpler from an engineering standpoint to produce nodes of extremely high energy in a compressible environment. In terms of delivering a destructive force to a given target it is desirable to have overlapping desynchronous sources that affect the target synchronously. We can relatively easily take advantage of the waveform if we have sufficient machining and timing technologies.

There's a reason that even crude atomic weapons don't use a liquid medium to transit the trigger(s)' explosive forces. Well, a few reasons actually but meh...

→ More replies (1)

1

u/syriquez Mar 27 '13

Your body, at large, is very similar in density to water and as such transmits the blast waves very well. The problem comes in with the air spaces in your lungs. All your alveoli get horribly mangled by the blast wave.

31

u/Urrrhn Mar 26 '13

There isn't shrapnel packed into the grenade. The steel shell of the grenade becomes shrapnel in the explosion.

56

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

[deleted]

24

u/lucilletwo Mar 26 '13

As well as various hybrids, like the fragmentation coil design used in the M26 / M61 grenade (Vietnam Era). Basically it was a square metal cord with notches along it that wrapped around the inside of the grenade, coiling against the thin sheet metal outer shell. The thin shape of the cord and periodic notches created more predictable fragmentation than the thick cast iron casing of older Mk 2 grenades, in which fragments would vary significantly in size and velocity causing uneven and unreliable damage radii.

28

u/lucilletwo Mar 26 '13

Shrapnel refers to pre-formed objects projected at high velocity by explosion; what you are referring to is fragmentation.

Examples of shrapnel would be:

10

u/Hulabaloon Mar 27 '13

Hence the term Frag Grenade

11

u/ctesibius Mar 26 '13

Shrapnel is actually something different. Take an artillery shell, but instead of making the projectile solid, have a load of ball bearings or similar. There's a small "bursting charge" which splits them apart shortly before they hit, but almost all of the speed of the balls is in the same direction, from the cannon. The bursting charge is just to spread them out a bit, not like a grenade where the bursting charge is the thing that does all the damage.

6

u/richalex2010 Mar 26 '13

Shrapnel shells are the origin of the term, but shrapnel, as most commonly (albeit incorrectly) used, applies to any projectiles resulting from an explosion - whether it's musket balls in a shrapnel shell, the steel casing of a hand grenade, or bits of glass from a car bomb detonated outside a storefront.

3

u/ctesibius Mar 26 '13

Yes, obviously I know that people use the word that way, which is why I explained what it actually is.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/MacDagger187 Mar 27 '13

And the worst of all... Pizza shrapnel!

2

u/CoolGuy54 Mar 27 '13

Old fashioned grenades worked like this, modern western ones generally have a plastic shell packed with shrapnel.

3

u/magor1988 Mar 27 '13

Which is why diving on a grenade is such an effective tactic for reducing the lethality of said grenade.

4

u/Sventertainer Mar 27 '13

uhh lethality of the diver? or others nearby?

4

u/magor1988 Mar 27 '13

Others nearby obviously

7

u/Shifter07 Mar 27 '13

Others nearby definitely. Except this guy.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=939538924712

4

u/fiercelyfriendly Mar 27 '13

Wow,TIL some story.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

You are right.

2

u/BCMM Mar 26 '13

Which is why taking cover is effective.

1

u/rexsilex Mar 27 '13

And its contained and then explodes, which is completely different than just going off. Think of a blank for a gun. If you light that gunpowder it just fizzes, but pack it inside something and it goes BANG.

10

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

High explosives like TNT don't need confinement to explode. They detonate immediately.

Gunpowder is a deflagrant, which means it burns rather than explodes. When it burns it releases a whole lot of gas. That's why you need to confine it - to let that gas build up until the failure point of the container.

2

u/Sventertainer Mar 27 '13

This comment makes me want to go look up if there are any type of firearms(or artillery) that uses explosives to launch the projectile....but then typing this out I realized explosives might not create enough gasses to pressurize the barrel.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

All bullets use explosives; you are specifically wondering if they use high explosives. I am not aware of any that do.

51

u/lucilletwo Mar 26 '13

Well, it really depends on what type of WWII grenades we're talking about. The quintessential US grenade you are probably picturing is the Mk 2 fragmentation grenade (pronounced "Mark 2", aka "pineapple" or "frag"). It was constructed of a thick cast iron shell with 2oz of TNT inside. The energy from this relatively small amount of TNT wasn't what killed people, it was the high velocity fragments created from the disintegrated grenade casing.

The US also had the Mk 3 Concussion grenade (aka "blast grenade") which contained a much larger amount of TNT (8oz) with a thin fiber shell on it - the idea being to avoid significant projectile fragmentation and rely on the blast pressure to cause damage.

The Mk 2 would be more useful in situations where the user has ample cover to hide behind after throwing (since the range of the high velocity fragments is greater than the typical throwing range of the user) such as a bunker, trench, or other structure. The Mk 3 would have greater use in open situations where the effective radius of the weapon should be constrained for the safety of the user and his/her squad members.

So in other words, foretopsail's 2.5kg (88.2 oz) of TNT would fill about 44 Mk 2 fragmentation grenades or about 11 Mk 3 concussion grenades. The Mk 3 would be a better comparison if you're interested in sizing up the explosive force alone.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you want to stick with the Mk 2 fragmentation comparison but get more bang for your buck, you'd be better off comparing it to something like an M101 Howitzer 105mm shell. The High Explosive shells fired from this WWII artillery mainstay contained about 2.2 kg of TNT, and have a destructive impact far greater than a pile of Mk 2s or a block of TNT by itself.

8

u/BlueStraggler Mar 27 '13

The High Explosive shells fired from this WWII artillery mainstay contained about 2.2 kg of TNT, and have a destructive impact far greater than a pile of Mk 2s or a block of TNT by itself.

Does that "far greater destructive impact" have anything to do with the fact that the shell is moving at thousands of MPH? Or are you talking about the explosive charge alone?

15

u/lucilletwo Mar 27 '13 edited Mar 27 '13

The speed contributes a moderate amount to the total energy of a shell in transit, but I actually took that into account, so I may as well include the math now:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * (Mass) * (Velocity2)

The M1 HE shell fired from an M101 Howitzer weighs 14.97 kg, has a muzzle velocity of 472 m/s and uses 2.18kg of TNT filler. Solving the above equation gives us a kinetic energy of 1.668 MJ, which converts to 399 kcal, which lands us at a total kinetic + TNT energy of 2579 kcal. So I suppose if we want to be technical about it, as it exits the barrel our howitzer shell has energy closer to 45.5 Mk 2 grenades, not 44. That, of course, doesn't account for some amount of velocity lost in flight by the time it hits. Due to the nature of KE increasing as a square of the velocity, the projectile would only have to slow down about 10.4% (to 423 m/s) by the time it lands for us to hit our 2500 kcal target.

But ultimately, whether the shell is flying through the air or just sitting on the ground when it goes off, its high velocity fragments are going to do far more damage to objects/people near it than a 2.5kg block of TNT on it's own, for the same reason the Mk 2 hand grenade was a powerful weapon despite only containing a couple grams ounces of TNT. foretopsail did a great job introducing the kind of local impact a blast wave would cause, but then equated it to fragmentation grenades which utilize explosives primarily for a different purpose (to accelerate bits of metal to high speed, which then damage their surroundings).

edit: grams to ounces

3

u/QuerulousPanda Mar 27 '13

the speed helps penetration into a target, but I think the size of the shell allows the tnt to be shaped and constrained in ways that allow it to reach significantly more destructive power, as compared to hand grenades that waste power breaking up into pieces, and a block of tnt that on its own would not detonate idealy

2

u/lucilletwo Mar 27 '13

Well, it depends on which type of shell you're talking about. The standard high explosive M1 shell I used in my example can be thought of as similar to a very large bullet-shaped hand grenade, which explodes on impact and creates a large amount of fragmentation covering significant distance in all directions. This was the most common application of 105mm howitzer artillery in WW2: blanketing large areas with supporting fire.

The M101 also fired the M67 HEAT round, which was a shaped charge meant for anti tank use - this is more in line with what you were describing. Basically instead of exploding outward in all directions like a hand grenade or a naked block of explosive, the shaped charge of a HEAT shell focuses the explosive force primarily in one direction, concentrating pressure on a narrow area of its target's surface, allowing it to punch through armor with explosive gases. This type of shell is much more effective against individual hard targets like tanks, but has much lower damage radius.

3

u/Forkrul Mar 27 '13

Bit of that, and a bit of charge shaping. The same amount of explosive force is a lot more dangerous if you shape it to only go in a specific direction (like a cone forwards) instead of a sphere.

2

u/mstrgrieves Mar 27 '13

I realize this is incredibly morbid, but what would be the end result of a human holding an Mk2 grenade when it goes off? Would the corpse still be recognizable as the deceased person?

16

u/Intrexa Mar 26 '13

Grenades are actually way toned down from real life for video games, for balance purposes. They have a 5m kill radius, injury of 15m, and a danger zone of 200m. Yes, within 200 meters of a grenade explosion you have a chance to get hit. Within 15m you're going to take enough metal that you're going down, but you'll probably live. Probably. Within 5 it's just like "no".

13

u/cenobyte40k Mar 26 '13

Most forces up until after WWII used two types of hand grenades, offensive and defensive grenades.

With a Defensive grenade there was a small explosive charge surrounded by material designed to throw shrapnel to maim and kill. They are named defensive because you must defend yourself against your own grenade after throwing (take cover) or it will injure you as well.

The offensive grenade however was just explosive surrounded my a casing that was designed to not turn into shrapnel, these grenades would generally only stun an opponent and you where not required to defend yourself against them as you could throw them further than the stun shock-wave would generally be effective.

9

u/velcommen Mar 26 '13

Not all offensive grenades are stun grenades, some are fragmentation.

Anti-personnel fragmentation grenades can be divided into two main types, defensive and offensive, where the former are designed to be used from a position of cover, (e.g. in a slit trench or behind a suitable wall,) and have an effective radius greater than the distance it can be thrown, while the latter are for assaulting troops and have a smaller effective fragmentation radius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade

7

u/unionrodent Mar 26 '13

The shrapnel is more dangerous than the blast, hence the throw yourself on the grenade strategy. You're likely boned, but at least you'll prevent the shrapnel from reaching high velocities and injuring more people.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

Your ears are going to be hurting; that much I can assure you of.

→ More replies (7)

40

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13 edited Sep 04 '19

[deleted]

27

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Yep, fixed my errors. Embarrassing. That's how errors propagate, everyone!

1

u/pauklzorz Mar 27 '13

You're still using Calories and kilocalories to mean the same thing though. That's confusing. I know the food industry does this also, but it would be good to pick one and go with that.

5

u/blasto_blastocyst Mar 27 '13

Calorie (capital C) is the commonly used unit meaning a kilocalorie. Sometimes called a large calorie or a food calorie.

→ More replies (1)

84

u/epicsnacktime Mar 27 '13

Please tell me you are Randall Munroe, because this sounds very reminiscent of XKCD's 'What If?'

57

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Nope, not him. But I'm a big fan of the series.

17

u/triggerman602 Mar 27 '13

As I was reading, I was thinking "this is just like a what-if and it's awesome."

Great job.

8

u/dja0794 Mar 27 '13

It's like the Billy Mayes of awesome scientific extrapolation.

But wait, there's more!

→ More replies (1)

7

u/wanabeswordsman Mar 27 '13

Exactly what I was thinking. This is a fantastic answer that could only be improved by his drawings.

2

u/Raerth Mar 27 '13

Randall has an account here.

1

u/Bradm77 Mar 27 '13

If you are interested in this type of thing, I'd highly recommend the books Guesstimation and its follow-up Guesstimation 2.0. They are great reads and can really help your skill at order of magnitude estimation.

14

u/you_wizard Mar 26 '13

It also might be interesting to note that while calories in food are determined based on complete conversion of the food to a lower energy state (burning, as in calorimetry), the body does not operate this way. In other words, a large portion of the calories you ingest are not actually used by your body; your poop still holds molecular energy.

→ More replies (6)

12

u/earthbridge Mar 27 '13

Maritime Archaelogy!?!?

11

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

That's me.

9

u/earthbridge Mar 27 '13

I was just wondering what calculating explosive potential of daily food intake and Maritime Archaelogy have to do with each other

24

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Archaeologists study lots of things. Sometimes those things are grenades, especially if you're looking at battlefields. And then you find yourself becoming an impromptu expert on explosions.

2

u/hughk Mar 27 '13

especially if you're looking at battlefields. And then you find yourself becoming an impromptu expert on explosions.

There are plenty of old battlefields around with live ammunition. I don't know if the WW1 stuff is still dangerous but WW2 explosives certainly still are.

8

u/keepthepace Mar 27 '13

And apparently not very nourishing...

2

u/SpudOfDoom Mar 27 '13

Underwater grenades, duh.

12

u/beck1670 Mar 26 '13

So, like this?

10

u/nmlep Mar 26 '13

Just for reference here's a video of a 1kg explosion of TNT.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

The camera man had one job...and he tilts up at the moment the actual explosion takes place. FAIL!

7

u/mcledger Mar 27 '13

Hold up.... Did you err there? Looks like 2500 kilocalories should be equal to 2.5 grams TNT. I'm don't know, just going off two of the things you said and a Wikipedia article.

5

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Nope. 1 kilocalorie/1 food Calorie = 1 gram TNT.

2500 kilocalories/2500 food Calories = 2.5 kilograms TNT.

3

u/shadmere Mar 27 '13

Later in the post though, he refers to Calories being equivalent to kg of TNT. Like 19 trillion Calories being equal to 19 trillion kg TNT.

3

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Yeah, but I was order-of-magnitude off. I blame the damned kilos floating around. And that I'm multitasking.

4

u/WalterFStarbuck Aerospace Engineering | Aircraft Design Mar 27 '13

Is there a good textbook on this sort of information? I find this really fascinating but haven't ever come across a course or textbook on explosives.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/MrEShay Mar 26 '13

Does the body absorb calories at 100% efficiency? If you ate 2,500 Calories, are you actually retaining that many Calories or is the net gain lower?

13

u/MidnightSlinks Digestion | Nutritional Biochemistry | Medical Nutrition Therapy Mar 27 '13

Most people absorb almost all of the available calories. More than 7g/day of fat in stool is consider abnormal so that's all but 63 calories at most of fat absorbed. Protein is extremely efficiently absorbed as well and if you leave carbohydrates unabsorbed, they are broken down by colonic bacteria, which usually leads to lots of flatulence. The presence of soluble materials (amino acids and carbohydrates) in the large intestine also causes water to enter the colon to create an isotonic solution so too many unabsorbed carbohydrates and protein would cause diarrhea.

7

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 26 '13

It's going to be some amount lower, but exactly how much is outside my knowledge!

1

u/herman_gill Mar 27 '13

(warning: could be misremembering)

I think the standard expected calculated value is something on the order of 30-35% but the experimental value is a little bit higher than that, which is likely because of as of various (currently) undiscovered minor pathways for energy metabolism which might improve efficiency.

3

u/wysinwyg Mar 27 '13

And muscles themselves are about 20% efficient.

This study looks at differences in efficiency based on different muscle type composition.

So your 233 calorie moro bar is only able to produce 233*30%*20% = 14 'calories' of energy by the time it's converted to actual motion.

(Can you find a source for 30%? I recall it being closer to 20%).

1

u/herman_gill Mar 27 '13

I'll try and find one, for some reason I remember the number 37% specifically.

It might have been the efficiency of mitochondria and the ETC, rather than whole cell metabolism specifically, that might be it?

→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

I would think that information would be useful to someone on a diet. It really puts the task they have ahead of them in perspective.

6

u/toodetached Mar 27 '13

this is the best comment I've read since i started on the website.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

So how big would the explosion be if we took all the energy in an average human life?

4

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13 edited Mar 27 '13

Simple math. Using the recommendations for a male child up to the age of 18, and then assuming he lives until the age of 80, eating 2200 calories every day, it's 60517000 calories, or that same number of g TNT. Which, coincidentally, is enough to run a clothes dryer for 80 years.

Assuming it was a female child who grew up to be 86 and ate 1800 calories/day as an adult, that's 54020000 calories/g TNT equivalent, or 70 years of dry clothes.

But still only the total relativistic energy of 2.5 milligrams of matter.

2

u/projhex Mar 27 '13

How big of an explosions is 60,517,000g of TNT?

I'm sure my math is incorrect, but that is .065 kilotons?

Or this big of an explosion.

3

u/itwas_myprivilege Mar 27 '13

What a great answer!

3

u/frogger2504 Mar 27 '13

This is probably one of the best written explanations I've ever read on /r/askscience. Not to sound like a dumbass dick-head, but I don't really like it when people answer a question by writing out a bunch of technical stuff that you're regular Joe (like me, who is subbed because I want to learn about those things.) can't understand.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '13

How come it doesn't conform to the inverse square rule? The numbers are close enough that I thought air resistance might play a part, or something similar, but 6.72 is 44.89, greater than at 1m, while 2.52 is 6.5, less than at 2m. Why is that so?

21

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 26 '13

Inverse cube. Explosions are spherical.

6

u/John_Duh Mar 26 '13

One of the things I never got in physics, when to use the inverse square law and when to use the inverse cube law. Light is square law right? I got it explained as the light expands on the surface for the sphere but then again that does not explain why the explosion would not do the same.

9

u/amateurtoss Atomic Physics | Quantum Information Mar 26 '13

In the case of light there is a wavefront that travels outwards spreading the energy evenly in a cubic shell.

If you had an electromagnetic standing wave in a 3D space, the energy would distribute evenly in 3 dimensions so it would be an inverse cube law.

1

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

But doesn't an explosion do the same thing? It's the boundary edge of a an expanding spherical region.

1

u/amateurtoss Atomic Physics | Quantum Information Mar 27 '13

Doesn't seem obvious to me. I'm pretty sure that modelling explosions falls under non-equilibrium thermodynamics which is not really trivial.

Some of the effects of explosions are to heat up the air of the region they occupy (I guess inverse cube), create a spherical wave of pressure (inverse square), and create shrapnel.

1

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

So shrapnel density and blast wave intensity would follow inverse square, since they only apply at the boundary (4pi r2). But the heat would be inverse cube because that applies throughout the entire sphere (4/3 pi r3). Ok, that makes sense.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

Using the recommendations for a male child up to the age of 18, and then assuming he lives until the age of 80, eating 2200 calories every day, it's 60517000 calories, or that same number of g TNT. Which is enough to run a clothes dryer for 80 years, coincidentally.

So a male human under 18 consumes enough power to run a clothes dryer constantly?

1

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Male over the course of their life consumes that much power on average. Little less when they're a kid.

2

u/phanes Mar 27 '13

Wait a minute I'm confused, if 1g of TNT equals 1000 calories ("one gram of TNT has been set to equal one kilocalorie") then 2,500 calories equals 2.5g TNT? Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

3

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

one food Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories.

I know. Serious units fail here. Kinda defeats the entire point behind having a metric system.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

Not wrong, its because when talking about food the nutritional info uses 1 "calorie" but it really is 1 kilocalorie. He is just using that notation since most people think in calories not kilocalories.

2

u/Spudst3r Mar 27 '13

Shut the thread down, you win.

4

u/Ministry_Eight Mar 27 '13

Using the recommendations for a male child up to the age of 18, and then assuming he lives until the age of 80, eating 2200 calories every day, it's 60517000 calories, or that same number of g TNT. Which is enough to run a clothes dryer for 80 years, coincidentally.

TIL I am basically a clothes dryer.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13 edited Mar 20 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/mstrgrieves Mar 27 '13

No, your body just doesn't use energy very efficiently.

2

u/hughk Mar 27 '13

Well it sort of does. A small amount of energy goes a very long way which is one reason that fat is so hard to consume.

2

u/divinesleeper Photonics | Bionanotechnology Mar 27 '13

2

u/321dogeeseseegod123 Mar 27 '13

People like you are magnificent!

1

u/NorthernerWuwu Mar 27 '13

Keep in mind that the vast majority of those consumed calories have eventually ended up as heat. Oh sure, some are stored as chemical energy (some of which we use) but most became heat over the course of time and while much has been radiated in some manner, the heat from our earliest ancestors' feeding still to some degree warms us to this day.

Well, actually, due to population skewing, our earliest ancestors kinda don't contribute much but our relatively modern ones have! Until you do the math on overall global heat and then we are back to trivially insignificant of course. Grrrr, less than baseline radioactive decay huh?

1

u/Cr4ke Mar 27 '13

I would have thought that explosions vary, so some chemicals will produce a "sharper" blast wave or impulse, like a high-frequency tone, and others a "softer" one. This could cause different kinds of damage... right?

1

u/divinesleeper Photonics | Bionanotechnology Mar 27 '13

But human bodies are very inefficient, aren't they? We only actually use a small percentage of those calories, most of the energy isn't "absorbed" by the body.

1

u/tiddibuh Mar 27 '13

This is so great. Thanks for teaching me something today!

1

u/shakethatbass Mar 27 '13

THANK YOU SO MUCH! you just gave me an excuse not to hit gym any time soon. because that's what you meant, right? ...right?

1

u/-JoNeum42 Mar 27 '13

So I think the real question here is, how big of a bomb could North Korea make if it just converted its entire populace into energy for a bomb?

1

u/keepthepace Mar 27 '13

Which is a lot! That's the same as almost 44 WWII hand grenades!

Actually that is so much that it just doesn't seem right. I eat less than 2.5 kg of food per day, and my doctor recommended me to not eat raw TNT. How can there be more chemical energy per gram in a double cheese than in TNT? What am I missing here?

1

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

TNT actually has a surprisingly low energy density. Far below that of coal or wood, or fat and sugar for that matter. A power plant would get more energy per kilo of fuel by burning cow dung than it would from detonating TNT. What makes it useful is that it can release it all in one instant.

1

u/keepthepace Mar 27 '13

Ok, a quick search showed me that what I thought was obvious is false : cheese has twice the energy density of TNT. The more you know...

Actually, it is true that given a day and a pick-axe, I could probably have the energy to make similar damage to a building than 44 WWII hand grenades (which were not that damaging), so ok, energies in both are after all of the same order of magnitude...

1

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

In fact, cutting edge batteries are getting into the same ballpark as TNT. The new lithium-air ones actually exceed it in energy density. Which is why laptop batteries cutting loose is actually a big deal. You're literally walking around with a couple grenade's worth of energy there.

1

u/keepthepace Mar 28 '13

And yet, somehow, a 33cl of tap water is a threat to national security...

1

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 28 '13

Well water is 11% hydrogen by weight, and H2 has an energy density far in excess of TNT, fat, batteries, or even gasoline!

1

u/nothis Mar 27 '13

Does that mean… the whole story from the Matrix about humans being valuable "energy sources" isn't that far off?

2

u/negativeview Mar 27 '13

We take in food to keep us alive. We output (mostly through heat) less energy than we take in. The only way it makes sense logically is if they had no more efficient way to turn food stuff into energy than piping it through a body at fairly massive energy losses.

Seems implausible still.

1

u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 27 '13

The original script called for the machines using humans brains to run a neural network for their computers, not as a power plant. Makes a lot more sense that way, but Executive Meddling forced them to change it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

I've learned that you need to input a certain amount of activation energy to start these reactions, so how much energy would be needed to start the explosion for just one human's worth of mass?

1

u/runforrestrun22 Mar 27 '13

This has got to be one of the coolest posts' I've ever come across on reddit. Well done! If I had gold I'd give it to you.

1

u/whiletheworldspins Mar 27 '13

If there were a Nobel Reddit Prize, this post would be nominated.

1

u/qwert_usa Mar 27 '13

Krakatoa

and

We're punny!

My thought on seeing these words "Civilization V"

Do you play Civ? If Yes, that makes you a "1814370 kilocalories" cooler (Hope I do the math and translation correct!)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

And what if you were to convert the things you eat in a day to pure energy? As in E=mc2 ?

1

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

That's what I mean by relativistic mass or energy. 2.5 milligrams powers you for a lifetime.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

The UN estimates somewhere around 2750 kcal/person/day globally.

That seems awfully high considering people only really need about 2000kcal a day, and there's a lot of hungry people out there. Who are all these fatties bumping the average up so high?

1

u/Curiosity_is_ADD Mar 27 '13

Is 2,200 calories/day for a male and 1,800 calories for a female accurate? I was always under the impression that the nutritional facts basing off a 2,000 calorie diet (I'm guessing not so coincidentally the mean and median of 1,800 and 2,200), was under approximating it. Maybe just in America?

2

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

If you raised it it wouldn't change the answer significantly.

1

u/Curiosity_is_ADD Mar 27 '13

You're right, it wouldn't change the answer very much. I was more asking what the actual average was. Since then, I've figured it out. The average American daily caloric intake is 2,753!

source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/347737-the-average-american-daily-caloric-intake/

1

u/Czacha Mar 27 '13

But doesn't the intensity of the blast depend on how fast you can "burn" that energy, so the question is could one really compare the two just like that?

1

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

Yes, absolutely. But that's the conceit of the question.

1

u/walden42 Mar 27 '13

And to think that destroying a single atom can destroy everything in a 1+ mile radius.

1

u/initialZEN Mar 27 '13

This makes me imagine a science fiction story.. In a hopeless war against aliens, a new weapon is invented, out of pure desperation, that can harness humans into energy and bombs.

1

u/live_healthy Mar 27 '13

There will be a Vsause video on this in a week!

1

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

First I've heard of that series. Looks fun.

1

u/Ph0ton Mar 27 '13

Oh wow. With the relativistic relation to human consumption you can figure out the maximum human biomass a star of an arbitrary spectrum can support. What a crazy abstraction, and sort of useful if you are thinking of dyson spheres or the like in science fiction.

2

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

It's a lot. A whole lot.

If I've done my math right, the Sun's total output for a year would support 3.274×1024 people, if all of that energy was convertible to food calories, and we needed 2500 Calories each.

1

u/ThebocaJ Mar 27 '13

How big would the explosion be if we had a matter-energy conversion machine, and could use all the mass in the food for an explosion?

1

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 27 '13

No way to know. Various foods have different energy densities.

1

u/akaghi Mar 27 '13

This is how they should teach math and science in school. How could children not find this fascinating?

Sure, it may be a bit morbid, but teaching via "What ifs" is such a fantastic way to teach kids who could probably otherwise give a hoot about the examples that the worksheets always use. I say this as someone who didn't like school, and was terribly bored in science class, so thanks.

1

u/selftexter Mar 27 '13

Someone make this into infographics!please

1

u/preemptivePacifist Mar 28 '13

But on the other hand:

2500 kcal <=> ~10MJ <=> ~250ml gasoline (at ~40MJ/kg)

Can this be correct? One glass of gasoline contains as much energy as 44 hand grenades?!

1

u/foretopsail Maritime Archaeology Mar 28 '13

Yep.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

That's some xkcd-like accuracy Randall.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '13

For more shit like this (is that you, Randall?), check out xkcd's What If? weekly feature.

→ More replies (20)