Talk:Autocatalysis

message: Read the sentence at the bottom carefully I think it's wrong
molecule-x-1 -> molecule-x-2 (molecule-x-2 is the catalyst*)
in my mind molecule-x-1 is the catalyst otherwise its not an autocatalyst but a mutating enzyme with high inertance
and after getting the first activation energy the reaction-speed multiplies or the reaction is self-preserving until
resources are depleted like a diesel motor.
An autocatalyst must always be an enzyme with a trigger otherwise it would be a radical.
If the statement at the bottom is true the description auto meaning self is wrong and a new word needs to be invented for this kind of reaction and the old (autocatalyst) needs to be reasigned to enzymes or chemicals with triggering mechanisms.
please explain.
*extracted from the logically wrong statement below.
A single chemical reaction is said to have undergone autocatalysis, or be autocatalytic, if the reaction product is itself the catalyst for that reaction.   
mfg
Jan Girke
19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

message: The idea is clearly exposed in a 1974's article of Nobel Prize Melvin Calvin.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.139.95.46 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Role in origin of life

message: I don't understand your reasoning but I am sure that the definition is correct, the product is increasing the reaction rate, this happens usually with Mn(II) which catalyses many reactions involving other Manganese ions. In biochemical reactions the process is usually the opposite and the product acts as an inhibitor.Knights who say ni 01:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's right

message: What about the self catalysis of healthy into diseased protein that happens in Mad Cow Diseas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biochemichal Example 

message: "The Lotka-Volterra equation is isomorphic with the predator prey model and the two reaction autocatalytic model. In this example baboons and cheetahs are equivalent to two different chemical species in autocatalytic reactions."
WHAT...THE...FUCK? Maybe try NOT explaining that "isomorphic" equivalence in the CAPTION of a diagram. Equations with chemical species of A, X, Y, and E we've managed to illustrate with axes of cute fluffy animals and a UNITLESS key plotting not points but curves of GOD...KNOWS...WHAT! Very sorry for cynically flinging my excrement like a baboon, if you will, but this deserves it. DAVilla (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotka-Volterra diagram 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Autocatalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217020941/http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~ault/Papers/Brusselator.pdf to http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~ault/Papers/Brusselator.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed most of the contents today.   I searched in vain within that removed content for "autocatalysis" or similar terms. Nothing.  Admittedly I am not talented mathematically, but most of the material seemed to be off topic.  It was far from garbage and possibly applicable to other articles, I couldn't figure out where though.  At least for chemists, autocatalysis is an important topic, so I tried to make the article useful for that audience.  I did keep the mathematics for rate expressions.  Also removed were the repeated references to various luminaries in the biogenesis area.  That topic is sufficiently thorny that readers dont need to be distracted by "big names", which are cited anyway.  Some topics that might be mentioned: self-replication, autoxidation, photography.  --Smokefoot (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit

message: with the rate equations (for an elementary reaction)
: {d \over dt}[ A ] =-  k_+ [ A ] [B ]  + k_{-} [B ]^2 \,
: {d \over dt}[ B ] = + k_+ [ A ] [B ]  -k_{-} [B ]^2 \,.
This reaction is one in which a molecule of species A interacts with a molecule of species B. The A molecule is converted into a B molecule. The final product consists of the original B molecule plus the B molecule created in the reaction.
The key feature of these rate equations is that they are nonlinear; the second term on the right varies as the square of the concentration of B. This feature can lead to multiple fixed points of the system, much like a quadratic equation can have two roots. Multiple fixed points allow for multiple states of the system. A system existing in multiple macroscopic states is more orderly (has lower entropy) than a system in a single state.
The concentrations of A and B vary in time according toMoore J.W. and Pearson R.G. Kinetics and Mechanism (John Wiley 1981) p.26  
: [A]=\frac{[A]_0+[B]_0}{1+\frac{[B]_0}{[A]_0}e^{([A]_0+[B]_0)kt}}
and
: [B]=\frac{[A]_0+[B]_0}{1+\frac{[A]_0}{[B]_0}e^{-([A]_0+[B]_0)kt}}.
Bluntly put, the solutions are INACCURATE. Yes they are the solutions to the differential equations of the following: 
: {d \over dt}[ A ] =-  k_+ [ A ] [B ] \,
: {d \over dt}[ B ] = + k_+ [ A ] [B ] \,
Just because the following sourceSteinfeld J.I., Francisco J.S. and Hase W.L. Chemical Kinetics and Dynamics (2nd ed., Prentice-Hall 1999) p.151-2   uses [A], [B] as their reactants and products respectively, the differential equations are different (see the one I uploaded above) because it assumes the reaction is irreversible. In fact, a simple look at the source material will reveal the different differential equations used and reveal the grossly overlooked error. 
Regarding the incorrect equations, basic calculus with limits would tell you that as n\to\infty, [B]\to[A]_0+[B]_0 and [A]\to 0. Which is by the way, not the definition of a reversible reaction. 
As for the solutions, the original differential equations can be solved by WolframAlpha, or even a 18 year old taking A-Level Mathematics and using integration by partial fractions. 
: [B]=\frac{[A]_0+[B]_0}{(\frac{[A]_0}{[B]_0}-\frac{k_-}{k_+})e^{-k_+([A]_0+[B]_0)t}+1+\frac{k_-}{k_+}}
: [A]=\frac{([A]_0+[B]_0)((\frac{[A]_0}{[B]_0}-\frac{k_-}{k_+})e^{-k_+([A]_0+[B]_0)t}+\frac{k_-}{k_+})}{(\frac{[A]_0}{[B]_0}-\frac{k_-}{k_+})e^{-k_+([A]_0+[B]_0)t}+1+\frac{k_-}{k_+}}
I will edit the section to ensure it includes the proper solution, as well as the original solution, carefully stipulating the conditions where it applies. View my user page for the procedure I used.  Matthionine (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical Inaccuracies