bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (11/07/86)
In article <601@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: > > Activated charcoal is pretty general -- it will absorb just about ^^^^^^ > any molecule within a certain range. I believe the word should be "adsorb".
mikes@tekecs.TEK.COM (Michael Sellers) (11/13/86)
In article <3792@hplabsb.UUCP>, bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes: > In article <601@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: > > Activated charcoal is pretty general -- it will absorb just about > > any molecule within a certain range. > > I believe the word should be "adsorb". Boy, this distinction haunted me all through college, and now here it is again on the net! I think the answer is a partial "yes" in favor of adsorbtion. If you view the charcoal collectively/macroscopically, then it would appear to be absorbtion, while on the particulate scale, it is actually adsorbtion. Amazing the little things you remember from school; now if I could just remember the formula for a differential solid of rotation or the algorithm for Quicksort or the names of the various cortical sulci and gyri ... ah, well. --