Read the explanation
The native source assigns an Arrhenius factor of twelve point five times the exponential of minus activation energy in joules divided by eight point three one four times temperature. Hold its activation energy at thirty kilojoules per mole and compare native temperatures three hundred fifty and six hundred kelvin. Both held bars use ten thousand pixels per assigned factor unit. The hotter case has the larger exponential factor because the same negative barrier is divided by a larger temperature. The bar widths use the unrounded source expression. The page stores the factor after rounding it to four decimal places, so its displayed value can hide small differences. This comparison teaches that specific numerical expression. The particle velocities do not automatically rescale when the temperature slider changes: their thermal speed is assigned when particles are created. Changing the analytic factor is therefore not proof that the existing particle population instantly reaches a new physical thermal distribution. These assigned coefficients are not a measured reaction rate calibration. The source catalyst mesh affects the collision gate locally. With assigned activation energy sixty, an uncatalyzed collision compares pair pseudo energy against sixty. When the mesh is on and either particle lies within eighty pixels of the bottom, the source multiplies the assigned barrier by zero point four five, giving twenty seven. Each held barrier uses eight pixels per assigned pseudo energy unit. For two particles whose velocity vectors are both one and zero, the source kinetic energy getter gives twelve point five per particle, so their pair value is twenty five. The white comparison bar is two hundred pixels long. Twenty five is below both sixty and twenty seven, so this pair still fails the energy gate even with the mesh on. Lowering a barrier does not guarantee a reaction. A qualifying A and B pair must also satisfy the separate orientation gate. The colored mesh drawing occupies sixty pixels at the bottom while the source gate extends eighty pixels, so the numerical action is not identical to the drawn band. These are explicitly assigned pixel and pseudo energy rules, not calibrated molecular activation energies. The native formation rate display is an analytic product of the unrounded Arrhenius expression and two current species counts, each divided by ten. At native temperature six hundred and activation energy thirty, a fresh density of eighty creates forty A and forty B particles. A fresh density of one hundred sixty creates eighty of each. Both held bars use three hundred pixels per assigned rate unit. Doubling both counts multiplies the displayed formula by four, rather than two. The source rounds the final rate to two decimals. This comparison concerns newly reset reactant counts before particle conversion, not a prediction of every random collision trajectory. The actual collision engine converts A and B into C and D when its energy and orientation gates pass. It contains no reverse conversion, despite a reversible arrow on the page. Its equilibrium indicator is an assigned initial value updated after a product count threshold, not a verified equilibrium solver. Simulation time advances by a fixed zero point zero five per animation frame, and the plotted concentration history uses raw particle counts. These displays are therefore source assigned telemetry, not calibrated chemical concentration, physical time, or thermodynamic equilibrium.