Slashdot Mirror


It Takes 2.99 Gigajoules To Vaporize a Human Body

Have you ever wondered how much energy is needed to power a phaser set to kill? A trio of researchers at the University of Leicester did, so they ran some tests and found out it would take roughly 2.99 GJ to vaporize an average-sized adult human body. Quoting: "First, consider the true vaporization – the complete separation of all atoms within a molecule – of water. With a simple molecular structure containing an oxygen atom bonded to two hydrogen atoms, it takes serious energy to break these bonds. In fact, it takes 460 kilojoules of energy to break just one mole of oxygen-hydrogen bonds — around the same energy that a 2,000-pound car going 70 miles per hour on the highway has in potential. And that's just 18 grams of water! So as you can see, it would take a gargantuan amount of energy to separate all the atoms in even a small glass of water — especially if that glass of water is your analog for a person. The human body is a bit more complicated than a glass of water, but it still vaporizes like one. And thanks to our spies spread across scientific organizations, we now have the energy required to turn a human into an atomic soup, to break all the atomic bonds in a body. According to the captured study, it takes around three gigajoules of death-ray to entirely vaporize a person — enough to completely melt 5,000 pounds of steel or simulate a lightning bolt."

38 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just in time now that Texas can't get Sodium Thiopental.

    1. Re:well done by s13g3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Leicester is correctly pronounced "lay-ses-ter".

      No it isn't. It's pronounced "les-ter".

      Source: I've been there. Also, this.

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  2. Hmm by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's gonna take a mighty big shark to carry around that kind of firepower . . .

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    1. Re:Hmm by Delarth799 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sharkalance, Sharknado, Sharkquake, Sharkquake 2 The After Sharks.

    2. Re:Hmm by petteyg359 · · Score: 4, Funny

      SyFy (sigh)

      Iy think you myght have meant (sy).

    3. Re:Hmm by mapinguari · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. 2.99GJ is simply 1.21GW over 2.47 seconds.

    4. Re:Hmm by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Nonsense. 2.99GJ is simply 1.21GW over 2.47 seconds."

      But it's all irrelevant, because OP's main premise is obviously false.

      If we want to take the situation even a little bit literally, then a phaser could not be "vaporizing" its target. If it did, there would be a tremendous explosion. In fact, 2.99 GJ worth of "boom".

      But we don't see that. Therefore a phaser could not be a "vaporizer" at all. Nor could it be a "molecular dissociation" device because the result could be the same.

      I would have to theorize that it was some kind of device to send matter into another dimension, or some such. The energy required for that is completely unknown. It could be only a mJ or two. Who knows?

  3. Disintegration by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Phasers don't vaporise a person. They disintegrate them.

    Since we don't yet know the physics behind this phenomenon we can't say how much energy it needs.

    1. Re:Disintegration by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      The normal maximum setting on a hand phaser would vaporize a humanoid lifeform or a Human-size android with a single hit. (TOS: "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"; TNG: "The Vengeance Factor"; Star Trek: First Contact) This was also called disintegration. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II")

      - memory-alpha.org

      Though I suspect the Star Trek phaser suffered from the same problems as the StarGate zat'n'ktel, in that the effect would be a wee bit too convenient for plot reasons - as I've rarely seen them use it (even when they definitely had little regard for the wellbeing of whatever they pointed them at) in this manner.

    2. Re:Disintegration by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Often on TV, killing is actually easier than dealing with the bodies. The network censors really hate bloody corpses, but have less objection to the process of making them. A common solution is to introduce either mooks that conveniently diappear when dead (See Buffy, Charmed - the prefered fantasy solution) or weapons which leave no body (See half the weapons in Doctor Who or STs phasors - the prefered sci-fi solution).

      The vaporisation option usually ignores the difficulty of where approximately eighty kilograms of water vapor is going to end up - boiling a human in such a short time would result in a blast of high-pressure superheated steam and organic soup.

    3. Re:Disintegration by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I don't see why "vaporization" must be defined as "completely separating all atoms within a molecule." Evaporation and boiling are two means of vaporizing (making into vapor) without complete atomic separation.

      Because most molecules in the human body are simply too big: the energy needed to separate them from each other is greater than the energy needed to break them apart. You can observe this behavior if you have a fireplace: a log of wood will first burn with a flame as volatiles evaporate and mix with the air (and burn), but even after the flame goes out there'll be a lot of charcoal which smolders as its breaks apart burn while it still remains solid.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Disintegration by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      I think the most logical way a phaser on disintegrate setting could work would be some effect that neutralizes the strong nuclear force. Then whatever you hit with it would just disintegrate to a cloud of quarks.

    5. Re:Disintegration by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Often on TV, killing is actually easier than dealing with the bodies. The network censors really hate bloody corpses, but have less objection to the process of making them. A common solution is to introduce either mooks that conveniently diappear when dead...

      Saves money, Saves time.

      You don't have to show the blood and bodies on screen. You don't have to remove the blood and bodies on screen.

      The same reasons why Star Trek and Dr. Who have teleportation. Why the TARDIS is bigger on the inside than the outside.

    6. Re:Disintegration by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I thought a phaser basically writes someone out of a script.

    7. Re:Disintegration by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      I always figured that phasers had some sort of reclamation tech -- where the energy deployed in the first phase was then reclaimed, thus solving the issue of a bunch of superheated water vapor -- leaving it instead as ambient temperature water vapor, and the phaser as reusable. That was my own way of reasoning it away all those years ago, anyway.

      I could never figure out how you could set a phaser to "stun" though -- does it just change the phase of some molecules while ignoring the bulk of them?

      I figured it used transporter/replicator technology and this is where all the food in the galley came from...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  4. Bad science by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since when does "vaporization" involve breaking chemical bonds inside a molecule? When you boil water you're not turning it into hydrogen and oxygen, you're just overcoming the vanderWaals bonds keeping the liquid together and giving them enough energy to float away. Likewise if you "vaporize" someone. You need enough energy to turn them from a solid/colloid state to a gaseous state, not the energy required to reduce the person to elemental atoms.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Bad science by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even so when you go from a liquid to a gas let alone a solid to a gas you increase volume by well allot! Considering the epic calamity that is ~man sized boiler, say the type that was used to power to power stream tractors makes when it bursts; it should be clear that a phaser blast is not turning the victim into a gas or plasma. If it did that, it would be very disruptive and probably harmful to anyone in the immediate vicinity. Yet in Star Trek you can safely stand next to someone that is being disintegrated by phaser/disruptor.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Bad science by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You need enough energy to turn them from a solid/colloid state to a gaseous state, not the energy required to reduce the person to elemental atoms.

      I can't wait to see how much energy people say the transporter requires.

      I assume it is a similar principle.... except the phaser set to disintegrate just has to scramble and disperse their molecules, so that the person or thing no longer exists in a recognizable form; the transporter has to reassemble people.

    3. Re:Bad science by NoMaster · · Score: 2

      Yet in Star Trek you can safely stand next to someone that is being disintegrated by phaser/disruptor.

      Only if you stand perfectly still while they're being shot, then don't react until just after they've disappeared ...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    4. Re:Bad science by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      van der Waals forces are not the main factor that keeps water molecules together - it's hydrogen bridges and dipole-dipole interactions.
      In fact, in a water molecule, van der Waals forces are tiny.

    5. Re:Bad science by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      depends if you're wearing a red shirt or not

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Bad science by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shouldn't my clothes be left behind, too?

      That's "The Rapture," not a phaser. Different canon, so to speak.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  5. Since when did a phaser VAPORIZE its target? by harvestsun · · Score: 2

    The phasers I remember just made their target clutch their chest and fall to the ground dramatically.

  6. Self Bootstrapping Death Ray by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Directly providing the power to vaporize a person is not the elegant way to do it. The correct, elegant mad scientist method is to use the power contained in the vaporized mass to power the vaporization.

    Consider if you develop a means to "program" a plasma such that it generates a contracting magnetic field that causes fusion inside the vaporizing object and then absorbs some of the energy from this fusion reaction to power itself.

    Now you're talking! Now you've got an effect that can vaporize any object provided you can provide the initial energy requirement.

    There could be variants on this. Perhaps you've got an effect that flips matter into antimatter and absorbs some of the released energy to continue the effect.

    If this is an expanding effect instead of a collapsing effect you've got a world killer like the weapons in Ender's Game.

  7. useful info by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    *turns knob up to 8*

    Ready Player One...

  8. Reintegration by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're called "Phasers". I like to think that they don't disintegration or vaporize people, they just phase them into another dimension, a dimension where all the other folks who got zapped are hanging out, bitching about the Federation in some kind of distributed cosmic basement...

    ...and that's why the A.C.s here are so maladjusted.

  9. Re:JiggaWatts by compro01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Depends on how quickly you want it done.

    If you wanted it done in 2.5 seconds, 1.21 gigawatts would be perfect.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  10. Potential? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    around the same energy that a 2,000-pound car going 70 miles per hour on the highway has in potential.

    Wouldn't that be kinetic?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Re:JiggaWatts by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2

    Jiggawatts is just jiggagoules over time.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  12. Overkill by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    Vaporization isn't needed to kill. I assume that's what death rays are all about. I suppose it would take a little extra to make the remains difficult to identify. If you've gone the death ray route, using lots of power is part of the "send a message" image thing anyway. For an eco-friendly kill, it is still best to club the victim and let hungry pigs dispose of the corpse.

  13. Kickstater to raise 2.99GJ to vaproize Justin Bieb by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    If successful we can work our way down list with future kickstarters:

    Ashton Kutcher
    Miley Cyrus
    Kate Perry
    Guy from Verizon Wireless commericals
    Congress

  14. Awful calculation - the real answer is almost zero by craighansen · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm going to do some rough calculations - the paper's computation is also pretty rough - just to get the right order of magnitude.

    First of all, to vaporize water, you don't even need to boil it. Spill some water on the floor and it vaporizes pretty darn quick just from the ambient environment - it changes from liquid water at room temperature to water vapor at room temperature. The only heat that needs to be added is the "Enthalpy of vaporization" which is 2260 kJ/Kg. For the 78kg human described in the paper, if it were all water, that would only be 176 Megajoules. Given that a human is normally at about 37C and room temperature about 25C, you can also take away 4kJ/Kg*78Kg*(37-25) = 4 Megajoules that the water vapor releases as you cool it from 37C to 25C. The net result is that with 172 Megajoules, you can turn a human body's mass of water to vapor.

    However, as the paper suggests, the body isn't all water - it's about 85% water and 15% "dried pork." That means 172MJ*0.7 for the water, 146MJ, and the 11.7Kg of pork releases about 4KCal/g when oxidized (4 dietary Calories/g), 1 Kcal=4.2KJ, so burning the "dried pork" releases 196MJ. Assuming the "dried pork" gets fully oxidized (i.e burned) into CO2, the result is a gas. So overall, vaporizing a human body (in the sense of turning all the body into a gas) can release more energy than you started with - about 50MJ.

    The paper estimates the energy required to break every molecular bond. However, all those bonds are going to reassemble into something else, whether into H2, O2, or H2O, or including the "dried pork," CO2, releasing much of the energy back.

  15. Vaporize or ionize? by swamp_ig · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hang on a moment... TFA isn't talking about vaporizing - turning water to steam. It's talking about ionizing, which is clearly going to require a much bigger quantity of energy.

    For actual vaporization, making a very rough calculation - 60kg person, 2,270 kJ/kg latent heat of vaporization of water = 136 MJ,
    Sure there's specific heat to add in there too, but the vaporization of water is the dominant term, so it's at least out by an order of magnitude.

    Lesson learned - don't try and be 'all sciency' and use the wrong jargon!

    1. Re:Vaporize or ionize? by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From TFA

      the complete separation of all atoms within a molecule

      And then what? You have <however> many moles of highly reactive ions in a location. What are they going to do? React again. So all you've done is apply energy to a mass, liberated a bunch of ions that will then recombine as soon as the input power goes away (or they dissipate from out of its field) and then release the energy of ionisation that they had absorbed. Result: Boom! All that 3GJ comes back at you as a chemical explosion.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  16. They don't know anything about phasers by istartedi · · Score: 2

    Everybody knows that when set to kill the phaser emits high energy polarized tachyons that send most of the mass into other dimensions. From the PoV of the infinite other universes a harmless burst of neutrinos occurs at several random locations. The matter that doesn't get transferred by the tachyons may remain as a dusty residue, but that's only if the phase correlator is poorly adjusted. Properly maintained phasers set to kill won't do that.

    And yes, I just made all that up, and some of it is mumbo-jumbo. That's how Star Trek technology works. Dammit Jim, I'm a Slashdot poster, not a phaser technician. Why do I have to explain this?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  17. 3 GJ to vaporize? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, another way to look at this is that the human body contains 3 GJ of constrained energy, and that if you released that energy -- like an atom bomb -- rather than trying to match energy for energy, you'd *get* 3 GJ, which you would then have to put somewhere, or you'd be vaporized along with it.

    Remember: A good sized atom or fusion bomb contains (and will release) more than 3GJ of energy, but it takes one hell of a lot less than 3 GJ as a trigger to let that energy free.

    And given that there are at least those two ways to approach bounded energy release, odds are reasonable that there are others, as well. Yes, yes, fissionables sort of *like* to be let free, but that's kind of the point. Perhaps there are other mechanisms.

    And therefore, I'm just going to go with "Phasers don't have to deliver 3 GJ to vaporize a Klingon."

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:3 GJ to vaporize? by msi · · Score: 2

      And therefore, I'm just going to go with "Phasers don't have to deliver 3 GJ to vaporize a Klingon."

      Yes Klingons are generally bigger and wear armour.

  18. Roughly 2.99!!! by Unicorn+Setu · · Score: 2

    Not roughly 3 GJ, but roughly 2.99!!!!! Clearly not written by anyone who understands engineering!

    --
    Unicorn Setu. "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines".