🚀 go-pugleaf

Following up on my own post, but it has to be done...

In article <5kg79v$8m1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> cjc@pandora.bio.purdue.edu (Christopher Carrell) writes:
>In article <5kg5cn$1a8a@nntp6.u.washington.edu> fujimoto@u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto) writes:
>>
>>"pparso39@swbell.net" <pparso39@swbell.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>john baez wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> In article <3369749D.3D21@midusa.net>, T. Haug <tjhaug@midusa.net> wrote:
>>>> >John:
>>>> >How do you define equilibrium?
>>>> 
>>>> In physics (and I'm posting from sci.physics), "equilibrium" is
>>>> a condition in which a physical system remains in the same state
>>>> as time passes.    According to this definition a sleeping dog is
>>>> not in equilibrium, because while it might look static to the casual
>>>> observer, it is actually breathing, metabolizing, pumping out heat
>>>> into the environment, and so on, and eventually it will wake up
>>>> and walk off.  By this definition, living systems are never in
>>>> equilibrium; you only reach equilibrium when you die and completely
>>>> decompose.
>>> No.  Equillibrium is a dynamic state.  For example, we take in air,
>>>water, and nutrients, which become components of our bodies, which 
>>>give off waste products.  That is equillibrium.  The body stays the
>>>same, more or less, but the actual materials move through the system.
>>
>>At equilibrium, the forward and backwards rates of all processes
>>are equal.  For an living organism, this would mean that the rate
>>at which it takes in air, water, and nutrients is equal to the
>>rate at which it gives off air, water and nutrients.  Also the
>>rate at which it gives off waste products is equal to the rate at
>>which it takes in those waste products.  That would be equilibrium,
>>however, that is not what occurs in any living organism.  
>
>Your conclusion is correct, but I have to nitpick about the definition of equilibrium.
>The equilibrium constant of some reaction is equal to the ratio of the forward
>rate and the reverse rate of that reaction. If forward and backward rates are
>equal, the equilibrium constant is 1. In which case, we'd never talk about
>such-and -such a reaction is driven by ... at any rate, living organisms are
>_not_ in a state of equilibrium, but they can't get too far from it, either.

Braaaackkk!!! This is a pile of you-know-what from me. Of course Bryant
is correct and I'm bloody wrong. It's not rate ratio that's the equilibrium
constant; it's the rate constant ratio. What an idiotic brain-cramp by
me. I thought I knew better. Sorry to take up your time with my 
occasional idiocies.

Chris