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."

17 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. 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).

  2. 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 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. 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 JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      depends if you're wearing a red shirt or not

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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