Exactly. In my original definition, I said something to the effect that a catalyst participates, but is otherwise unconsumed.
I guess that was too concise for whomever decided to add the more verbose, and incorrect, text. --dja
"net" is probably fine. I was thinking "overall" might be more precise, but I'm not sure.
--Matt Stoker
Also, I've been wondering to what extent reaction mechanisms should be discussed in this entry, or in Kinetics, or . . . somewhere else? I think some of our struggles with the description of a catalyst center around the difference between the bulk view of reactions versus a molecular understanding of those reactions. In the bulk sense, they are unconsumed. In the microscopic (ie, [microscopic reversability]?) sense, they are consumed and regenerated. This is close to, but not quite fully, a semantic distinction.
Thoughts?
--dja
Personally, I think a simple generic reaction mechanism (as is currently in the page) is appropriate at least for the initial general discussion. More detailed discussions of reaction mechanisms would probably fit nicely in Kinetics, especially if someone could take the time to demonstrate how some important kinetic equations (eg. Eleay-Rideal and Langmuir-Hinshelwood type equations) result from elementary reactions.
One additional thought I have been pondering is whether it would be appropriate to give some examples of important industrial catalysts and catalytic processes. Would this be more appropriate under Catalyst or Catalysis, also what level of detail is appropriate?
--Matt Stoker (sorry I omitted this label initially)