Two concentrations of calcium ions inside and outside the membrane

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the Nernst potential for calcium ions given their concentrations inside and outside a membrane. It clarifies that equilibrium does not imply equal concentrations but rather a balance where the resting potential counteracts the concentration gradient. The participants note that calcium ions have a charge of +2, which affects the calculations. There is confusion about equating the Nernst potential with the resting potential, emphasizing that they are distinct concepts. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding concentration gradients in relation to ion movement.
msoric
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This isn't homework - just working through questions in my text. The question gives two concentrations of calcium ions inside and outside the membrane and asks to find the Nernst potential - ok no problem there.

Then it asks if the calcium ions are in equilibrium if the resting potential is 70mV. If they were in equilibrium, then

E = (RT/zF)(ln([outisde]/[inside])

But then, at calcium equilibrium, the ratio would be 1... ln(1) = 0 and there would be no potential... am I correct?

Thanks,

Mark
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I can't exactly figure out what you mean, but I wonder if you are mixing up a couple of ideas. At equilibrium, there is not equal concentrations; there is no current flow. The difference in concentration is balanced by the resting potential (which is the E in your equation). Don't forget calcium has 2 charges.
 


I still can't see how to figure out if the calcium is in equilibrium, I would only be able to get the ratio of the two concentrations... no?

mark
 


I suppose that's true, the concentration *gradient* is what drives motion, not the absolute value of concentration. But again, I think I am not really understanding your original question. It almost seems as if you are treating the Nernst and resting potential to be the same (and I don't think they are).
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top