MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY OF THE HUMAN BODY 
127 
in a few specimen experiments with the subject M. A. M. and in one experi- 
ment with the subject E. P. C, these being compared in table 118 with the 
values for net efficiency taken from table 117. One objection to this form 
of comparison is shown instantly by the values for the oxygen consumption 
per minute in the sitting experiments with M. A. M., which range from 278 
c.c. to 386 c.c; this variation would not be expected, and can be explained 
only on the ground that the subject was extremely uncomfortable and dis- 
liked the experiments. 
Table 118. — Efficiency in respiration experiments with the bicycle ergometer. 
" [Basal values obtained with subject sitting on ergometer.] 
Date. 
Cur- 
Oxygen intake 
per minute. 
Heat output per minute. 
CO 
Revo- 
lutions 
Cff) 
Heat 
equiva- 
lent of 
(A) 
Effi- 
ciencv. 
g X100 
Net 
effi- 
(«) 
rent. 
(a) 
GO 
(c) 
W) 
Increase 
per 
external 
e 
ciency. 1 
Work. 
Sitting. 
Work. 
Sitting. 
over 
sitting. 
c-d 
minute. 
work per 
minute. 
Ergometer I. 
amp. 
c.c. 
c.c. 
cols. 
cols. 
cols. 
cols. 
p.ct. 
p. ct. 
M. A. M. 
Dec. 15, 1911. 
0.9 
1,338 
»278 
6.52 
1.35 
5.17 
62 
1.08 
20.9 
20.3 
1,439 
»278 
6.91 
1.35 
5.56 
60 
1.06 
19.1 
18.6 
1,444 
»278 
6.92 
1.35 
5.57 
62 
1.10 
19.7 
19.2 
Jan. 8, 1912... 
0.9 
1,959 
»278 
9.60 
1.35 
8.25 
86 
1.44 
17.5 
17.0 
1,989 
»278 
9.91 
1.35 
8.56 
95 
1.55 
18.1 
17.7 
Jan. 12, 1912.. 
0.9 
2,210 
^278 
10.88 
1.35 
9.53 
102 
1.63 
17.1 
17.0 
Ergometer II. 
Feb. 8, 1912 . . 
2,293 
»278 
11.21 
1.35 
9.86 
103 
1.64 
16.6 
16.5 
1.5 
2,565 
*355 
12.47 
1.69 
10.78 
112 
2.24 
20.8 
19.9 
2,146 
»355 
10.40 
1.69 
8.71 
94 
1.99 
22.8 
21.7 
Mar. 11, 1912 
1.5 
2,299 
386 
11.29 
1.82 
9.47 
102 
2.12 
22.4 
21.0 
2,220 
386 
10.98 
1.82 
9.16 
101 
2.09 
22.8 
21.4 
Ergometer I. 
E. P. C. 
Nov. 23, 1911 
0.9 
1,167 
«238 
5.79 
1.13 
4.66 
54 
.93 
20.0 
19.5 
1,368 
<238 
6.55 
1.13 
5.42 
58 
1.02 
18.8 
18.4 
1 Drawn from table 116, in which the values obtained with the subject lying quietly on a couch were used 
a base-line. 
* Average value obtained in sitting experiments of Dec. 7, 8, 11, and 12, 1911. 
* Average value obtained in sitting experiments of Jan. 23 and March 11, 1912. 
4 Value obtained in sitting experiment of Nov. 29, 1911. 
Difficulty was found in selecting the proper sitting values to deduct 
from the results of the work experiments inasmuch as on relatively few days 
were the work experiments immediately preceded by sitting experiments. 
For the experiment of December 15, an average of 4 sitting experiments, 
i. e., those of December 7, 8, 11, and 12, 1911, was used as a base-line, and 
likewise for the experiments of January 8 and 12. Since with this subject 
there was a marked difference in the sitting values when ergometer II was 
used, a change in the base-line was necessary for the experiment of February 8, 
the average value for the sitting experiments of January 23 and March 11, 
1912, being used. For the experiment of March 11 the base-line obtained on 
that particular day was employed. The influence of these different values 
as a base-line is apparent when one compares the efficiency as here computed 
with the net efficiency as drawn from table 116. For instance, in the first 
three experiments, with a base-line of 278 c.c. oxygen intake, the average 
increased efficiency by this method of computation over the net efficiency 
shown in the previous table amounts to approximately 0.5 per cent. On the 
other hand, with the base-line of 386 c.c. oxygen intake as used on March 11, 
