Live data from Hacker News

A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

twitter.com

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's off by at least an order of magnitude. Otherwise, lighting 10 candles would be like firing up a 1000-watt space heater, which is obviously not the case.

Or the space heater is more efficient because it's not producing light.

Safe to say it's a fraction of a watt at most. Some sources found via a quick Google search indicate that the light output from a 70-watt incandescent light bulb is equivalent to about 100 standard candles. Sounds truthy enough.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put your hand on the cooker ring and tell me.

You understand that if things touch each other the heat transfer isn't from radiation right?

You understand you've been utterly whooshed, right?

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#154

Text for those who don't do the bird site: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human — 80 to 100 watts, also consuming about the same amount of oxygen and producing the same amount of CO2. In an enclosed area, adding candles is about like adding people from an air quality standpoint.

There’s some excellent discussion in the book Burn: The new science of metabolism about this.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#155
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't an e.g. 60W lightbulb output 60W of heat? I can't see any reason it wouldn't just be 1:1.

It's not so simple anymore. Now you have a 60W (equivalent) bulb outputting 9 watts. If you ignore the numbers you can still easily feel the heat, but it's not so easy to translate into human equivalents.

Isn’t that because in that case, 60W refers to the legacy socket size rather than the power output?

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#156
flagged as inaccurate, from an air quality standpoint a combustion won't be as clean a humain respiration lot of dangerous particulates from the violent chemical reaction of burning, also the CO2 of humain is mostly biogenic and from a candle it is mostly fossil

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#157
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? The "electromagnetic radiation" from stoves has not been shown to be harmful in the amounts absorbed during cooking. Particles in the air _have_ been shown to be harmful, even ignoring CO and gas leak risks from gas stoves.

> even ignoring CO and gas leak risks from gas stoves Right, but they don't generate CO and they don't leak. If they do, they are faulty and should be repaired or replaced. Don't you have safety inspections where you are?

[deleted]

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#158
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? The "electromagnetic radiation" from stoves has not been shown to be harmful in the amounts absorbed during cooking. Particles in the air _have_ been shown to be harmful, even ignoring CO and gas leak risks from gas stoves.

> even ignoring CO and gas leak risks from gas stoves Right, but they don't generate CO and they don't leak. If they do, they are faulty and should be repaired or replaced. Don't you have safety inspections where you are?

> [...] they don't leak. If they do [...]

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#159
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I'm doing. They're referencing this poem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ... A lament about systematic murder and the complicity of the speaker.

Oh, right. My bad.

I could've also been clearer, I don't think you were the only one who didn't understand what I meant.
Post reply on HN