Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Possible reactions

  1. Sep 19, 2011 #1
    I am currently working on an un-named project and have hit a road block. I have a very shaky background in chemistry and, while I can do the research myself, I don't know where to sart.

    I am trying to satisfy a chemical equation which (if my terminology isn't as rusty as i believe
    ) is autocatlytic:

    A+B=C+D
    C+E=F+A
    D+F=E+B

    They have to react into certain states as well but I don't want to start my search too refined.
    Is there a name for such a reaction? Has such an equation bean considered before? Basically how can I start researching into this problem.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 20, 2011 #2

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You wrote three equations, yet you ask for one. Can't say I follow.

    I only guess that you are looking for a multistage process, in which initial reactants are also between final products?
     
  4. Sep 20, 2011 #3
    Sorry by equation I meant set of equations. And yes, I'm trying to find a set of reactions that is in theory never ending. But how do I start researching?
     
  5. Sep 20, 2011 #4

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You can already stop searching - there will be no such example. You overall reaction is

    nothing -> F + E

    and for obvious reasons is impossible.

    That said, it can be possible to find reactions where you need more A and B at the beginning, something like

    2A + 2B -> F + E + A + B

    where original reactants are also between products, but then your overall reaction is

    A + B -> E + F

    so I am not sure if it fits what you are looking for.

    I have a gut feeling such things are present in the biochemical cycles, but that's not my league.
     
  6. Sep 21, 2011 #5
    It is possible you are right; chemistry isn't my background, but i feel like you might be enterpreting what i asked differently then i meant so i just wanted to double check.

    I want to create a series of chemical reactions

    After completing the series i will be left with the same two chemicals i started out with

    In theroy the reactions should continue cycleing forever

    So if A + B = two new compounds (lets call them C + D) then C and D would go through another set of reactions which would result with the products A + B and the cycle would restart.

    I origonaly had:
    A+B=C+D
    C+E=A
    D+F=B

    But realized while A and B were constantly being used up and then replenished, E and F were only being used and so i changed my idea to:
    A+B=C+D
    C+E=F+A
    D+F=E+B

    Im confused where you say nothing = F + E because I dont have an equation that results in F + E, and all my equations contain reactants.

    (Everytime someone says something says it cant be done i always try anyways: It worked for einstein so the idea has to have some meit :) )
     
  7. Sep 21, 2011 #6

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Stuart Kauffman has done some interesting work on autocatalytic reactions although I am not very familiar with it. It may be worth looking up some of his papers. It may also be worth looking up some papers on oscillatory reactions like the BZ reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov–Zhabotinsky_reaction or http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/instruct/darnold/deproj/Sp98/Gabe/ [Broken]).

    Edit: For an example of a biological system that undergoes oscillation, see the following paper on the KaiC protein, which is involved in setting the circadian rhythm of cyanobacteria.

    Rust et al. (2007) Ordered Phosphorylation Governs Oscillation of a Three-Protein Circadian Clock. Science 318:809. doi:10.1126/science.1148596 PMC:2427396.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  8. Sep 22, 2011 #7

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. Thermodynamics doesn't allow that. That would be chemical equivalent to perpetual motion. There are systems where oscillations are observed (like Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction Ygg linked to), but they are powered by some underlying overall process, which runs only till the initial reactants are consumed.

    I am referring to the overall equation describing your system,

    For multistep processes we can "sum" the equations to see the overall reaction. For example if we have two reactions:

    A + B -> C + D

    and

    C + D -> E + F

    we can add these equations (simple mathematical trick) and what we get is

    A + B + C + D -> C + D + E + F

    But in this equation C and D are on both sides (and in the same quantities) - so we can cancel them, and the overall reaction is

    A + B -> E + F

    (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_process for an example of such multistep process described by a simple overall reaction).

    When the same approach is applied to the system of reactions you proposed, it turns out E and F are appearing but nothing is consumed - which is a clear violation of the principle of the mass conservation.

    Beware - this is the simplest path to become crackpot. There are places where we don't know what to expect, so someone stating "it is impossible" can be wrong. But there are places where we have rock solid laws and principle, tested and retested - and assuming something can be possible if it goes against these laws is just a waste of time.
     
  9. Sep 22, 2011 #8
    Ygggdrasil those are great references thank you.


    Perpetual motion is not possible because engery is lost (transferred), but what am I loseing which prevents me from creating this chemical system?

    What if I utilized a biological agent to fix this loss? It should work then yes?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  10. Sep 23, 2011 #9

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You are not losing, you are generating mass out of nothing.

    I guess you mean you will be adding something to the system so that the reaction can run? Then it can be possible. Mass in, mass out.
     
  11. Sep 23, 2011 #10
    I though abou that once but dismissed the though thinking that in my set
    A+B=C+D
    C+E=F+A
    D+F=E+B
    i have mass: there are four chemicals A,B,E, and F, constantly interacting. so instead of creating mass wouldn't i just be changing the existing chemicals over and overagain?

    the goal is constant interaction
     
  12. Sep 23, 2011 #11

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Any mixture of chemicals will have some equilibrium point at which the free energy of the system is minimized. Over time, the system will approach this equilibrium point, at which point, all the concentrations will remain stable. While most systems will approach equilibrium monotonically, under certain conditions you can create systems far from equilibrium that will oscillate (but still slowly approach equilibrium). The only way to keep a set of reactions cycling indefinitely is to couple them to a thermodynamically favorable process. For example, in the biological example I gave, the system is driven by the hydrolysis of ATP (i.e. the net chemical reaction after one cycle is x ATP --> x ADP + x PO43-).
     
  13. Sep 23, 2011 #12
    So using simply chemical reactions a constantly cycling system would stabilize into equilibrium.

    lets say then i use some biological component instead of using all chemicals; for example E and f in my previously posted system. Since the biological components would turn C and D back into A and B, and the biological component would likely draw some energy from another source such as sun light,this should prevent the system from reaching equilibrium. Unless I'm missing something else?
    A biological component will not act as quickly, but i could work that issue out.

    A+B->C+D
    C+E->F+A
    D+F->E+B
     
  14. Sep 23, 2011 #13

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Biological components obey the same laws of chemistry as any other molecules. The fact that the components are biological is not going to change anything. In order to get the reactions to cycle indefinitely, you need some input of energy.

    If one of the reactions (biological or non-biological) is powered by light, then yes, it would be theoretically possible to get a cycling reaction.
     
  15. Sep 23, 2011 #14
    Is there a relatively simple way to explain why they stop at an equilibrium? As in where does the energy go? I'm kind of hoping it is lost in heat energy because I can over come that :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  16. Sep 23, 2011 #15
    Second thought: Or does it depend on the situation?
     
  17. Sep 23, 2011 #16

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    As the system approaches equilibrium, some of the energy is irreversibly lost as heat. In addition, the entropy of the system irreversibly increases.
     
  18. Sep 23, 2011 #17
    I wont be converting the heat energy into any form of mechanical work so entropy shouldn't be a problem.

    lets say the first reaction is exothermic, while the second and third are endothermic
    A+B->C+D
    C+E->F+A
    D+F->E+B

    then take the entire system container and magnetically suspend it in a vacuum chamber (Designed and tested such a design for another project, it should work here to.

    While the suspended container would obviously draw and absorb the heat energy from the exothermic reaction, what if the design also forwarded this absorbed energy to the endothermic reaction? in theory would this come close to solving the heat energy loss? It is not a perfect solution obviously, as perfect heat transfer is more theory than reality, but it would come close and limit the need for added external energy right?
     
  19. Sep 24, 2011 #18

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You can't selectively "forward the energy" from one reaction to another if they all happen in the same container.

    You are trying to find a way to cheat on thermodynamics. It won't work, you are wasting time.
     
  20. Sep 25, 2011 #19
    Ok fine last question: if the energy lost as heat was re added into the system with another source, would it work or is it energy lost another was as well?
     
  21. Sep 25, 2011 #20

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It would just keep the container at another constant temperature. A higher one.

    :confused:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Possible reactions
  1. Possible Reaction (Replies: 1)

Loading...