Talk:Catalysis

message: I have now redirected the 3 links reported by WildBot today: Substrate, Free energy change and Membrane. Dirac66 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Deleting this doesn't make this page any less useless. 
Great field.
Bad page.
Keep up the good work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.201.215 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless 

message: Please the graphic showing the two competing curves at high and low Gibbs energy values for the non-catalyzed and catalyzed pathways is wrong and should be removed or changed from the figure. It is just too simplified, does not show the presence of several steps in the catalytic process.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.2.63.88 (talk) 10:00, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
The term "catalysis" can mean things outside the discipline of chemistry.  It can refer to any force that encourages change while remaining separate from the changed entities.  For example, I wanted to GAY* you can go for the see also option, or add content to Catalyst (disambiguation) where other meanings are already present. Beware that you might get shot down by the wikidictionary people though.....(they are ruthless)  V8rik 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something other than chemistry? 

message: Dear reader/editor.  When I entered Wikipedia this document contained a phrase 'the opposite of a catalyst is an inhibitor' (or something of the like), I did disagree with that, an inhibitor is a compound that slows down a catalyst, but that is not the opposite.  Today someone changed the 'acceleration' into 'process of altering' .. again .. I do not agree .. Catalysts accelerate a reaction, I do not see how a catalyst can slow down a reaction (when compared to an uncatalysed reaction).  The catalyst in that case would have to bind a substrate, but then all the other substrates would react with normal rate.  Or the catalyst has to be stoichiometric, and hold the substrate, but then, it is not a catalyst, because it is altered, the moment it releases the substrate, the substrate would react .. please, comments.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alter rate/accelerate/inhibit 

message: What is the 'Energy' axis? Heat? Potential Energy? Total Energy in system? 
According to the Graph you start somewhere then the energy rises for a while (substances are heated up from the outside?). Then at the same time, when you reach the 'activation energy' (=energy needed for reaction to take place) the line of the catalysed and the uncatalysed reaction start to drop (the chemical reaction starts?) and they reach the same low point at the same time (according to legend this means they have the same result). Having the same result at the same time this seems to mean the overall speed was the same.
Maybe there is a very simple explanation for this Graph but I fail to see it. If someone would explain and/or alter the legend I would appreciate it.
Pukkie 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An explanation is given in the article about catalyst. I have added a merge tag to the latter.   Andreas   (T) 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The merger is a good idea. To be honest I do not see the explanation. I think I do understand the text in the catalyst and catalysis articles but I still fail to understand the graph. Maybe the solution is scale: is this supposed to give a graph for indidual molecules or for, say, kilojoules and minutes? If someone would give a clear example with units I probably won't be too stubborn to admit it was my mistake and this graph, as it is, is informative enough for most people. Pukkie 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "energy" in the graph is really the free energy.  This is the thermodynamic energy of the system.  The graph shows that you need to go over an energy barrier to get from the reactants to the products.  The type of energy you add to get over this barrier can come in many forms, but heat is the most typical (light is not uncommon either).  The x-axis is more complicated.  Technically, this is the "reaction progress".  At one point in the reaction progress, you have a reactant.  At another point, you have the product.  At points in between you have something between the product and the reactant.  For a very simple reaction like 2 H· → H2, you can think of the distance between the two H atoms as the reaction progress.  For the reactants, they are very far apart.  At the products, the distance is the same as a H-H bond length.  In between the distance is somewhere in between.  Isthmus Labrat 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your explanation makes sense to me, more than the generic graph anyway. I still have problems with a macro interpretation. Also: maybe the X-axis should be named: reaction progress. Pukkie 10:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The Gibbs free energy is a thermodynamic term that pertains to the average of a class of molecules/particles. The schematic graph shows the energy of a reaction complex along the axcis of "reaction progress", depicted as a smooth function. This can only pertain to a single reaction complex. In contrast, the activation energy as such is a thermodynamic concept, because the peak in the graph corresponds to a particular (instable) quantum state, and the Gibbs free energy or reaction complexes in that state can be defined. This concept is admitted very poorly treated in conventional textbooks.   Andreas   (T) 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not understand the Generic Graph. 

message: *Support. That article is a poor one and overlaps with this one. It can be improved by merging here. --Bduke 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[Catalyst]] to here

message: Could someone add a mention of a simple example of catalysis that the layman can understand?  i.e. "A common example used to demonstrate an catalyst is...yada yada yada" Pdelongchamp 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: This article names the chemist Alexander Mitscherlich: "Other early chemists involved in catalysis were Alexander Mitscherlich who in 1831 referred to contact processes" The problem is that he was born in 1836 so that does not add up. Can someone who understands this topic look into this? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error ? 

message: I think Jöns Jakob Berzelius was the first one to use the term "catalysis", but he's not mentioned here. I attach the link for Berzelius in the enciclopaedia britannica: 
--193.147.219.225 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article used to said that but someone vandalized it. I have fixed it. --Itub 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berzelius 

message: MySpace offers the option of a mood, "catalyzed," characterized by a smiley-face emoticon rotating clockwise, strongly implying that the user influenced by this mood had experienced chemical catalysis. Recommend a small marijuana leaf be affixed to the top right corner of the Popular Culture section I so hope you will include in this magnificent article. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.74.157 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Is it worth mentioning that many catalysed reactions, particulally organic reactions involving H+ regernerate the catalyst with a different proton?  For examle a keto enol tautomerism is acid catalysed - the reclaimed H+ is not the same as the H+ from the acid.  This can be proved using a deuterated acid. Noosentaal (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regernerating catalysts 

message: I think the two sections headed notable examples and catalytic processes should be merged, and if anything, the latter section removed completely.  It you scroll down you get the impression that the authors gave up writing towards the end and decided to merely list things.  What does everyone else think?
--Cimex (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge: Notable examples - Catalytic Processes

message: The intro to this article states that catalysts are not consumed, reagents/reactants are. Yet catalyst is used much more often than those terms by people without a scientific background, usually to mean anything, including consumed things, which facilitate chemical reactions. Even scientific organizations use catalyst for something consumed see  
. This page needs to be updated to reflect that. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a short sentence stating this at the top is appropriate to reduce confusion, as this lead has confused people already ("if it gets consumed somewhere, it can't be a catalyst, and must be a reactant!". I've added that sentence (diff). If you want to BRD, we can do that. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are catalysts really not consumed? 

message: To Smokefoot:
I think this sentence that you added today is missing a verb where I have put 3 dots, but I am not sure which verb you intended.
"In this way the particularly strong triple bond in nitrogen is weakened and the hydrogen and nitrogen atoms ... faster than would be the case in the gas phase, so the rate of reaction increases."   Dirac66 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb missing 

message: The extensive revisions by Smokefoot last week have produced a much improved article, and have addressed most of the problems with the article. I have made a few further minor revisions today.
I also have two small questions at this time.
1. Sec. 2.4 "Precatalyst"
Could someone provide a simple example of a "precatalyst" and associated catalytic mechanism to clarify the definition? I am not familiar with this term. Would an example be CFCl3 in the stratosphere, which photodecomposes to give Cl atoms which are the true catalyst for ozone decomposition? If not, why not and what is a better example?
2. Sec. 3.2.1 "Catalyst loading" 
What is the definition of this term? Is it the amount of catalyst necessary per amount of reactant, or the amount of reactant per amount of catalyst, or something else?  Dirac66 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding precatalysts: I think a common example is organometallic (pre-)catalysts that have to get rid of a ligand before entering the catalytic cycle proper. See for example Wilkinson's catalyst, which loses a triphenylphosphine, or Crabtree's catalyst, which loses the cyclooctadiene. --Itub (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Another precatalyst in the heterogeneous world would be the material used for hydrodesulfurization: the precatalyst is a mixture of the oxides of cobalt and molybdenum but the real catalyst, generate in situ, is the cobalt-molybdenum sulfide.  It may not be an exaggeration to say that most so-called "catalysts" are really precatalysts, for the reason that many catalysts are pretty lively (super-Lewis acidic, catch on fire, that sort of thing) and precatalysts are easily weighed and stored. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much improved article. Questions re precatalyst and loading. 

message: Why on earth is the first image that of a coin and some random piece of metal? It is not appropriate for the beginning of the article, and should perhaps be placed later on. A good opening image should actually illustrate the subject at hand. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image? 

message: I suggest to include in the article a reference to a distinction between "direct catalysts", and "indirect catalysts".
For example, water molecules might not intervene directly in a certain chemical reaction; but water might be the supporting domain where the reaction can take place. In this case, water is an "indirect catalyst".
In this sense, for example, human skeleton could be thought as an "indirect catalyst" for chemical reactions occurred in the brain. --Faustnh (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for including a certain distinction on catalysts 

message: Being a stranger here & rushed, a brief couple of notes.
"Catalysts that speed the reaction are called positive catalysts. Substances that slow a catalyst's effect in a chemical reaction are called inhibitors. Substances that increase the activity of catalysts are called promoters, and substances that deactivate catalysts are called catalytic poisons."
Is there a negative catalyst?  Unless that's another sense of inhibitor, here limited to its effects on catalysts (not on the reaction).
Rewrite last three clauses into three sentences or one;  fix order so promoter doesn't separate inhibitor and poison;  also fix italics.  Good luck!  ABS (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to follow these suggestions - thank you. I also removed the reference to positive catalyst. The article section Inhibitors, poisons and promoters contains much more detail, and notes (with a source) that negative catalyst is an occasionnal synonym for inhibitor, but this does not need to be in the article intro. Dirac66 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for sentences in introduction 

message: I vote that we remove any reference to so-called 'complexometric catalysis' in this article. It is not a concept which is widely recognised within the catalysis community, its description is poorly written and makes no sense, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable references for it. Throw it away.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColloidsMan5000 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and removed this material, hopefully others will let my removal stand.  Thanks for your comments.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Complexogeneous Catalysis" 

message: Mentioned catalytic antibodies ("abzymes") in the section on emzymes and biocatalysts.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalytic antibodies

message: Would it be better if the image "Low Temperature Oxidation Catalyst.jpeg" be better displayed at a higher resolution and cropped?
When I first saw it I thought it was vandalism because it looks like a sphere being held by a women.
The hands take up too much of the picture. It was only when I clicked on the image that I could see the grid pattern.
DGerman (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  filter image  

message: Can someone improve the sentence which states 
"Because catalysts are not consumed, they are recycled. "
The wikipedia article on recycling states:
"Recycling is a process to convert waste materials i"
Perhaps something like "reusable"?
DGerman (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written a longer phrase which is clearer although perhaps more awkward. I think that technically recycled is accurate as the molecule does enter a new catalytic cycle, but unfortunately  recycled will for many readers suggest waste disposal as you have said, so it is better to reword the article. Dirac66 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recycled? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catalysis. 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/20080405195443/http://www.chem.umn.edu/services/lecturedemo/info/genie.htm to http://www.chem.umn.edu/services/lecturedemo/info/genie.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.documentroot.com/2010/03/catalytic-antibodies-simply-explained.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517071700/http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-143.pdf to http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-143.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Catalysis is a very, very big area.  Citations to this topic should follow WP:TERTIARY (well recognized textbooks and monographs) or at least WP:SECONDARY (reviews).  Data: 443940 references (journal articles, reviews, patents,  etc), of which 181000 have appeared since 2009.  That number translates to many papers per day.  Hence the guidelines WP:TERTIARY and WP:SECONDARY.  Hence the avoidance of individual specialized reports.  Its impossible.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The guidelines [[WP:TERTIARY]] and [[WP:SECONDARY]]

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that catalysis, not catalyst, best describes the topic of this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Catalysis →  – Catalyst was merged into Catalysis in 2006; the merge was warranted, however it should have gone to the article Catalyst instead of Catalysis. Catalyst is by far the more notable topic between the two:    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=catalyst%2Ccatalysis&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccatalyst%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccatalysis%3B%2Cc0 .  Furthermore, any discussion of catalysts must necessarily also include discussion catalysis, but the reverse is not necessarily true, and catalysts are at least as notable as catalysis in their own right, and likely more so. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Interesting suggestion, but my experience is that the topic of catalysis is far more general and more useful than catalyst.  What can one say about "catalyst"?  No generic catalyst exists.  Zillions of individual catalysts are known but their only unifying aspect is that they catalyze reactions.  No common structural or electronic principles describe them.  Here is another way to think about this issue: no university course or a symposium would be entitled "Catalyst".  No.  But "Catalysis" or "Principles of Catalysis" or Heterogeneous Catalysis" are titles of classes throughout the world.  And similar titles describe international symposia.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Catalysis is a more general topic, and our article has sections which would not be well described by Catalyst. For example Mechanism refers to the reaction, not the substance. And Inhibitors, Poisons and Promoters are not Catalysts but rather other substances which modify the Catalysis mechanism. Dirac66 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I can see how this article might seem like it should be moved to catalyst.  After all, the term catalyst appears 122 times in article as compared to the 49 times of catalysis. However, the article in question is specifically structured around the idea of catalysis, not catalysts in general. Catalysts are just individual substances. There are plenty of opportunities to expand upon other chemical articles about their use as catalysts without bogging down this article. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: oppose they are two separate things this article covers the process as a wholecatalysisnot more narrowly the catalyst substances—blindlynx (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose I agree with others reasonings. This is fine as it currently is. --Tautomers(T C) 01:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 June 2021 

message: The first two paragraphs off this section are repetitious. 2603:6011:2903:C25A:7409:E4E2:21D1:3EEC (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalytic reaction mechanisms