So in order to understand his analogy I propose to consider a different analogy. Instead of a rod moving through a membrane driven by thermal fluctuations; take a simple chemical reaction.
A + B <-> C + D
The reaction can move either left or right. There is only a small difference in energies which can easily be supplied by thermal fluctuations.
The equilibrium can become biased when the activation energy for the products becomes large. In this way the amount of product will increase and reactant decrease (like the sliding of the rod).
By simply removing amounts of the product (Le Chatelier’s Principle) the reaction will keep forming products and use up the available reactants (like applying a force on the rod).
I quite like the way you've chosen to reiterate this example using a different analogy. Certainly we can treat the activation barrier as our spring, and the removal of products as a pull of the rod across one of the springs, which then pop up and prevent it from moving back across that activation barrier (which from this side is a lot larger)
ReplyDeleteIt certainly in a way though makes it somewhat like a one-shot machine to me though, since the activation barrier prevents the reverse reaction from occuring. Still though, clever thinking here.