Thread Content
Our impression of catalytic phenomena is often one of awe, finding them truly mysterious and wonderful. The underlying logic behind our admiration actually lies not so much in the fact that its presence speeds things up, nor in the fact that it can have a significant effect despite being used in small quantities, but rather in the fact that \"it remains unchanged over time.\" People’s first reaction is often that this seems to violate some law—perhaps the law of conservation of energy! Upon reflection, yes – by adding a certain substance, it’s possible to achieve continuous operation with no further effort required (although in reality this isn’t the case; catalysts do need to be replaced, but such replacement is due to wear or contamination rather than actual consumption of the substance, so it’s still hard to grasp). This function of facilitating things does bear some resemblance to that of a \"perpetual motion machine\"! But upon closer consideration, we actually have misunderstandings in at least two aspects: First, after the catalyst is added to the reaction system, the system has already become a new one, yet we made a mistake by still analyzing it based on the original old system. In other words, the catalyst itself being \"occupied\" as a substance—even if it does not change—is actually a form of consumption; it cannot be considered no consumption just because it remains unchanged (or is worn out for other reasons). For example, when we go from one place to another, whether we walk, run fast or slow, or even roll by curling up our bodies, the amount of energy required is more or less the same. However, if we ride a bicycle, it saves both time and effort. Moreover, the bicycle remains essentially unchanged – although there is certainly some wear and tear over time, the bicycle is still in use, at least while we are riding it, and it becomes an integral part of that entire experience. Bicycles actually act as a catalyst, and there’s no doubt about that; it’s easy to understand. In fact, the catalytic process works in a similar manner. The concept of using things is probably the core idea behind it. Secondly, regarding the role of the catalyst, although we cannot \"see\" it, we always assume that some effect must be taking place, and even believe that there must be a \"specific action\", such as adsorption. Yet, it’s very likely that we are still misunderstanding things—even though electron microscopes and other tools have now proven that catalysts do carry out specific actions—it’s hard to imagine that a catalyst simply needs to be there, to show up, and that’s enough to get the job done It is not impossible to imagine, nor is it impossible to achieve, a catalytic process through some kind of field, some kind of non-contact force. A field, this kind of existence, isn’t it “as tangible as the chair we are sitting on”? The question is, how exactly should the existence of catalytic phenomena be theoretically explained? It’s simple too; it’s just that reactions are often difficult—there are energy barriers—this is a natural, pre-existing condition, and everything is essentially in a state of stability and equilibrium. Therefore, for the reaction to proceed smoothly, external force is needed. This external force is nothing more than a perturbation or alteration of the microelectric field, with the aim of bringing about an appropriate change. Therefore, catalysis is not rare at all; rather, it is widespread. This is also the conclusion we have reached: over 80% of reactions require the assistance of a catalyst. Cases where no catalyst is required are actually rare in chemistry; in other words, the reactions that are easy to carry out are those of \"artificial substances\" that have been selected. Reactions between natural substances cannot be that easy, unless they are separated by large distances in space; otherwise, they would have reacted already.