Talk:Physisorption

Made some minor edits for clarification. Also, Van der Waal's forces are sometimes but not always the mechanism for condensation; the statement has been corrected.

Please Reconsider
Britannica DOES NOT have an entry for such a word. I myself have never heard of "physisorption" or "physical adsorption" -- this is an unnecessary linguistic invention -- please consider transferring all the material present here under the "ADSORPTION" wiki-entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldemahr (talk • contribs) 02:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, Waldemahr, just about anyone with knowledge of physical chemistry should be familiar with the word physisorption, and it's distinct cousin chemisorption. It might not be in Britannica, but it is in OED. 121.45.201.66 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In all the modern books on physical adsorption or physisorption use both descriptions. This is intended to distinguish from chemisorption. For example see "Adsorption by Powders and Porous Solids" by Rouquerol, Rouquerol, Sing, Llewellyn and Maurin. You will notice that they do not even use the words "physical adsorption" in the index. On page 11 they define the difference between physisorption and chemisorption. Basically, chemisorption uses covalent bonds and physisorption uses intermolecular attreactions, dipole moments,"hydrogen bonding" an induced dipoles (and mixes of these.)Condonj (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Energy units
Who had the stupid idea to use energy in eV? 99% of the world uses kJ/mol ¬¬

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.2.237.16 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen eV in the field for 60 years. The units are always now given a kJ mol^-1 g^-1 (i.e. moles of adsorbate and specific quantity, mass in grams, with respect to the solid.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Condonj (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)