3 ms·

There's something fucky about that. He's comparing the total amount of electrical potential energy in a human body to the amount of chemical energy available t

There's something fucky about that. He's comparing the total amount of electrical potential energy in a human body to the amount of chemical energy available to a living worm's metabolism. A typical human has about one hundred thousand times the mass of a typical earthworm, so this guy is saying human flesh is one thousand times more energy-dense than worm flesh. Horseshit. Edit: That whole article is riddled with errors. For example, he states 220mm^2 is 88% the surface area of a dime when in fact it is 87% of the surface area of one face of a dime.

acqq 3y ago
The actual sentence from the https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09486 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09486 (Mitochondria) "The electron and proton transfers of chemiosmotic energy coupling generate a transmembrane potential of 150–200 mV over the membrane (~5 nm across), giving a field strength of about 30 million volt per metre, equal to that discharged by a bolt of lightning." Nick Lane and William Martin obviously don't talk about any directly obtainable energy. That number just can't be compared to the "Available energy reserves (Ea)" "measured by quantifying the total lipid, protein, and carbohydrate content" from the https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6689315/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6689315/ Also note: worms have mitochondria in their cells too. Conclusion: "metabolism of a person and a worm" article is a good example of false claims which could be found on the internet, and the author, if he wants to help, should delete all the claims from it and put a note that what was on the page was false.