Skip to main content

Sunday chemistry blogging: catalysts

Ok, it's a day late, sorry, and it will be a bit short.  But during the camp when we were having a bit of trouble getting a fire started (meaning a guy kept throwing huge pieces of wood on before it got started), someone produced a plastic bag.  "Any of you taken chemistry?  This is called a catalyst!" he said, and cast the bag into the flames, where it burned about like you'd expect (very quickly).  I imagine this reflects the popular understanding of catalyst as something that makes a reaction go faster, like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Of course, I couldn't help gleefully pointing out that I actually have a degree in chemistry, and that the guy's definition of catalyst was completely wrong.  (Why study science if you can't be an asshole about it at least once in awhile?)  Here's the real definition: a catalyst is something that changes the rate of a reaction while not being consumed by the reaction.  So the common movie trope when someone sprinkles a bit of "catalyst" into a big vat of chemicals and it starts to boil ferociously is close to the mark, but it's worth thinking about why this is.

The critical part of the catalyst definition above is the "not consumed" part.  Most catalysts do something like this:

R1 + R2 + C → R1-C-R2 → P + C

Here we've got a reaction where two reactants, R1 and R2, are reacting to form a single product P.  The catalyst, C, is helping things out by forming an intermediate stage on the way to the product—it's kind of like a chemical matchmaker that steps back after making introductions.  (Like anything in science, the details of each individual catalytic reaction can get stupendously complex, and sometimes work in ways completely different from my picture above.  But this is a decent way of thinking about it in general.)

Most catalysts are used to speed up reactions (called positive catalysis), but some are used to slow them down (negative catalysis).  Now you too can correct people at parties!


Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves tha

Caffeine Is Not a Bioweapon

I got into a discussion with Yves Smith about caffeine here , and somehow my comment got eaten, so I'd like to finish it up here. She said about this Raw Story piece about a girl who allegedly died from drinking two Monster drinks in two days, "The FDA lapse here is terrible. Caffeine is extremely toxic. We just happen to get highly diluted doses in coffee and tea." I commented: Yves, your implication about caffeine is incorrect on several levels. Most Monster drinks have about 10 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce, which is much less than even drip coffee (18 mg/oz) and WAY less than espresso (51 mg/oz). ( Source ) The whole idea of dilution is misguided in any case. The relevant measurement for caffeine intoxication (and most poisoning generally) is the total amount taken, not the concentration. Concentration is something to worry about, as it can make a lethal dose easier to take on, but the main concern there is pure caffeine pills, not energy drinks which are mostl