The human body can deliver lots of work. Consider, for instance, the athlete running a marathon, or the cyclist racing in the Tour de France. We also know that human body temperature is normally 37°C and that usually the environment is cooler, say 20°C. From this we could suggest that there is some resemblance between a heat engine, in which the body is the heat source, and the cooler environment could act as a heat sink. So let’s make a few simple calculations to see how closely the body resembles a heat engine. We know that the efficiency of a heat engine is determined by the temperatures of the heat source (the body temperature, Tbody = 310K) and the heat sink (the environmental temperature, Tsink = 293K):
Efficiency = [Tbody – Tsink]/Tbody = [310-293]/310 = 5.5%
Thus, based on this temperature difference, the body would be able to achieve only 5.5% efficiency. Fortunately, scientific studies already have estimated the human body’s efficiency [1] in other ways. One study reasons that for an average man to produce 75 Watts of power, he will need to breathe about one liter of oxygen per minute. That liter of O2 is combusted in body cells to form carbon dioxide (CO2). It has also been determined that one liter of oxygen generates in this way about 300 Watts of power. Thus, we can conclude that the efficiency of the human “engine” is 75/300 = 25%. What causes the difference between the 5.5% efficiency as calculated above, and the 25% from the combustion determination? The explanation is that the human body cannot be considered a heat engine. The work is not generated in the same way as a steam engine, which directly transforms heat into work and lower-temperature waste heat. Instead, the human body is more like a fuel cell, where chemical energy is transformed into work (see also Whitt et. al.). For this kind of transformation, one obviously cannot use the efficiency formula of a heat engine.
[1] Whitt, F.R. and Wilson, D.G., Bicycling Science, MIT Press, Cambridge (1976)
August 27, 2009 at 7:56 am
[…] Can the Human Body Be Considered a Heat Engine? « The Second Law … […]
September 7, 2009 at 4:53 am
The body is a heat engine, however, in Arizona the efficiency is pathetic when mountain biking in the desert.
September 8, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Glad I came back to this site some new very interesting items which I wanted to know more about. Great work on your site.
November 29, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Efficiency = [Tbody – Tsink]/Tbody is only true for a Carnot engine, which exhibits the theoretically maximum efficiency and reflects what would be the case if all processes were reversible. For all other engines, the inequality holds: Efficiency < [Tbody – Tsink]/Tbody. I am not surprised by the discrpancy, since the human body is not Carnot. However, the equlaity still holds for Efficiency=1-(Qsink/Qbody) provided that "Qsink" is the heat flowing out of the body and Qbody is the energy catabolized from carbs and stored fat. Provided that you start the calculation with catabolzed energy (e.g. "burned" Calories), the body can still be likened to a heat engine, but I agree that the fuel cell is a closer parallel if you begin with the biochemical processes.
November 29, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Oh, now I’m catching on. I recall the same oxygen combustion problem in a textbook, and that it gave a larger than realistic work output. I didn’t wonder then about why there’s a discrepency. I’ll read this book for more details. When teaching thermodynamics, I usually describe work as any energy transfer that is not heat. But the only work considered in a heat engine’s efficiency is “useful” work, in this context mechanical work done by the body. When I teach thermodyanics, I group all transferred energy into heat or work. But the usual treatment of heat engines does not account for “waste work”. I wonder if the unaccounted for energy in the carbon combustion would go in that bucket. If it were waste heat it would come out of the body as a measurable portion of Qbody. In which case, including that energy with the waste heat, or Qbody, above should produce a realistic efficiency.
November 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Steve, still thinking here. Since the gross mechanical efficiency of the chunky legs is around 20%, it even further calls into question the description of the body as a heat engine since it actually exceeds Carnot. Also, I realize that eff=1-(Qsink/Qbody)comes from the 1st law, whereas Efficiency < [Tbody – Tsink]/Tbody comes from the 2nd law, so of course the first expression with the equality always works, since energy is always conserved.
March 27, 2010 at 9:04 pm
A heat recovery ventilator will replace the moist air with fresh air from outside that is dry. This happens using a fan to create a constant slow incoming flow of outdoor air while concurrently having an outward flow of indoor air that has become stale. In essence, fresh air is in constant supply as the allergens and other pollutants are regularly being escorted out.
July 29, 2011 at 2:44 am
The aspect of evaporative cooling is very significant in terms of heat flow out of the body. When working out, we can only maintain 37C when our sweating (or some other process) cools us efficiently. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 Joules/gm or 540 calories per gram. So a kg of of evaporating sweat would take 540 Kcal, = 540 food calories to make it evaporate. That is some of the “waste heat” in the process, but it keeps the operator cool. Impair that and energy production drops
The comment about biking in the desert is very true.
August 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Hi all, this is certainly such a marvelous subject to learn about.