Human enthalpy

In human thermodynamics, human enthalpy is the value of enthalpy associated with an individual human molecule (person), in a given state, or enthalpy of a system of human molecules (social system or social configuration) in a given state. Overview The enthalpy calculation of humans is a little discussed subject, respectively, say as compared to human entropy or human free energy. In 1994, citing previous comparisons made by Hungarian physicist Bela Lukacs, Australian organic chemist and commerce theorist James Reiss, in his chapter "Comparative Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Economics", correlated enthalpy to work or labor energy. [1] American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims's 2007 tabulation of the enthalpy components of a human (human enthalpy), attributing the measure largely to physical attributes. [2]

In the mid-2000s, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims began to work a human chemical theory on the nature of enthalpy in relation to human chemical reactions, generally correlating enthalpy measure to heat content measurements of sexual factors in human relationships, the 2007 formulation result of which is as follows: [2]

where HAVG is the enthalpy (heat content) associated with the physical attractive trait "averageness" (the most averaged person tends to be the most physically attractive), HAGE with the physical attractive trait age (age 22 for females is the most physically attractive age), HS with the physical attractiveness trait "symmetry" (the most physically symmetric persons tend to be seen as the most attractive), HX with the physical attractiveness associated with the testosterone to estrogen ratio of a given individual (high estrogen women tend to pair with high testosterone men), HL the physical attractiveness associated with one ethnicity, i.e. latitude of development (people tend to be most physically attracted to individuals differing in ethnicity to their own by 15 degrees in latitude, as determined experimentally via the Sweaty T-shirt study, i.e. MHCcompatibility complex matching, and in person surveys), HF the physical attractiveness associated with "fitness" (fit people are seen as being more physically attractive than less fit people), and HC the physical attractiveness associated with "complexion" (people with better complex are seen as being more physically attractive). In 2007, Hungarian astrophysicists Attila Grandpierre, in association with Hungarian physicist Katalin Martinas, in the article Thermodynamic Measure for Nonequilibrium Processes, estimated the entropy of a 70-kg human to be 202 KJ/K and on this value estimate the extropy of a human to be 2.31 MJ/K. The calculation, although a good first attempt, is nearly baseless in that its value is ascertained using entropy estimates of things such as glucose and water. In the article, the attempt a calculation of human enthalpy, using data such as the combustion of heat of fat, and use these estimates of S and H, to calculated a human Gibbs free energy G, using the formula G = H - TS (see: human free energy). [3]

Discussion Comparing the Thims and Grandpierre methods of estimating the entropy of humans, there seems to be disjunct between whether or not enthalpy is gauged by combustion heats (e.g. sexual heat) of human chemical reactions or with combustion of lard factors (burning of a human body in a calorimeter)? References 1. Reiss, James A. (1994). Comparative Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Economics, in: Economics and Thermodynamics: New Perspectives on Economic Analysis (ch. 5, pgs. 47-72) edited by Peter Burley and John Foster. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (enthalpy components of the human chemical bond, pgs. 270-72). Morrisville, NC: LuLu. (b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two) (human enthalpy, pg. 671). Morrisville, NC: LuLu. 3. Martinas, Katalin and Grandpierre, Attilia. (2007). Thermodynamic Measure for Nonequilibrium Processes, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 5(1): 1-13.

System of Enthalpy
Rooted in our language is a bias. Its a bias that we can hardly be blamed for, based as it is in our conception of ourselves as distinct entities whose existence can be felt, from one moment to the next, through time. Nature appears to move forwards, the ice-cube melts if left unattended, the scream in the night dissipates into silence. For very similar reasons we see society as a progressive entity. The 19th Century, Positivist appeal to a human reality that moves towards an ultimate goal still lingers in our rational arguments, in our science, in our humanist rhetoric. Again, we see technology as endlessly progressive. The tractor is fundamentally better than the plough, the internet trounces the telephone; the mailed envelope; the scream in the dark night. But forwards is not the only way that things can move. Most days I head to the British Library and pick up my pile of books from the counter. At the moment half of them are about play, about the systems of rules that mediate human games and what the order of games can tell us about human social activity. The other half of my book pile is made up of works of philosophy written in the last 30 years. Works by Deleuze, Serres, Agamben and Foucault. Their work speaks to me in a non-progressive way. Deleuze and Serres especially expound systems of thinking that grow like a supernovae or a colony of slime mould. From one perspective the supernovae is a system destined to implode, its central core rebounding the slew of material manufactured in the stars long lifetime, out and into the wider cosmos. A slime mould, similarly, appears to be a system destined to grow, procreate and expand its genetic impact on the world. Both of these systems though can be better understood if we take them out of their human perceived, progressive contexts. To really grasp the supernovae one must understand the laws that govern its cycle of energy ebb and bloom. The same laws that govern

the life cycle of the slime-mould. Thermo dynamics and the transitional principles that underlie physical systems as seeming chaos bifurcates into autopoietic order. How these principles underlie the philosophy of Deleuze and Serres is difficult to summarise here, and also dangerous. I am still a novice when it comes to their theoretical paradigms. What can be said though is that their principles are non-progressive, non-positivistic. The order they see in social systems, in cultural artefacts and metaphysical constructions is better understood as order determined by thresholds rather than historical movements, by the flow of information between systems, rather than the inevitable consequences of scientific and social orders. At present I am working through the vague notion that our systems of symbolic communication would be better understood through their non-linear logics. That sacrifice and sacrament, scribe and inscription, digital code and malleable media are each a series of complexity thresholds in a grand order of semiotics that has been growing and blooming, shrinking and decaying in time with the ebb and flow of human culture and technology. I write this here as an annotation on things to come (on my website). It is not a delineated path of enquiry. It is merely a structure I intend to topographically identify, map and encourage. Heres to Gilles Deleuze and Michel Serres, as well as some other names I will label their accomplices, such as Giorgio Agamben, Manuel de Landa, Lev Manovich and a whole heap more. Agreed! The universal soil, that supreme order underlying all things, appears more like a tissue than an individually-segmented grid, and if time (and the technology growing out of it) are in anyway 'determinable' , then it must be in a way that is somehow involved with gravity, a force we do not generally conceive of as 'moving forward,' yet one which exerts a physical and indeed scientifically measurable influence on our lives! Outstanding post Daniel. I don't have much to say other than I think your strain or rhizome of thinking here is profoundly appropriate for the tasks of being human in the worlds we currently inter-inhabit. I am with you on all fronts - and look forward to gleaning off whatever threshold you intend or haphazardly push through or intensify, eventually explodes causing shards and ripples that tear through accepted dogma and open doors to something as yet totally unthought of, and ultimately more life-affirming.