Talk:Mass/charge Ratio: Difference between revisions
From Mass Spec Terms
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
I moved the [[Suggested Definition]] from the front page and used the new template: | I moved the [[Suggested Definition]] from the front page and used the new template: | ||
{{Sugdef|m/ | {{Sugdef|m/z|The mass/charge ratio is a physical property that is measured by [[Mass Spectrometer | mass spectrometers]]. | ||
The symbol for the physical quantity mass/charge is '' | The symbol for the physical quantity mass/charge is ''m/q''. The former ''[[m/z]]'' is based on a missconception and should no longer be used. | ||
The SI unit of the physical quantity ''m/q'' is kilogram/coulomb ('''kg/C'''). | The SI unit of the physical quantity ''m/q'' is kilogram/coulomb ('''kg/C'''). | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
: [''m/q''] = '''u'''/'''e''' | : [''m/q''] = '''u'''/'''e''' | ||
'''u''' is sometimes called [[Dalton]] ('''Da'''). '''u'''/'''e''' is sometimes called [[Thomson]] ('''Th'''). Hence, a [[Mass Spectrum | mass spectrum]] x-axis should be labeled as either of the below: | |||
'''u'''/'''e''' is sometimes called [[Thomson]] ('''Th'''). | |||
Hence, a [[Mass Spectrum | mass spectrum]] x-axis should be labeled as either of the below: | |||
* ''m/q'' ('''u'''/'''e''') | * ''m/q'' ('''u'''/'''e''') | ||
* ''m/q'' ('''Da'''/''' | * ''m/q'' ('''Da'''/'''e''') | ||
* ''m/q'' ('''Th''') | * ''m/q'' ('''Th''')}} | ||
}} | |||
(Note that this isn't my def, just my edit to put it on the Discussion page - KKM) | (Note that this isn't my def, just my edit to put it on the Discussion page - KKM) | ||
: -- [[User:Kkmurray|K. Murray]] 15:03, 13 Jan 2005 (CST) | : -- [[User:Kkmurray|K. Murray]] 15:03, 13 Jan 2005 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 08:03, 15 January 2005
Jean-Fran??????????????ois GAL?????????????? 02-28-2004 10:07 AM ET (US)
"Mass/charge ratio Add your comment on this item (m/z) ratio." Sorry to insist ... Sparkman would say "mass-to-charge ratio".
m/z is wrong
let's get rid of the m/z. It is conceptually wrong. I made a new proposal.
I moved the Suggested Definition from the front page and used the new template:
This template is no longer used.
(Note that this isn't my def, just my edit to put it on the Discussion page - KKM)
- -- K. Murray 15:03, 13 Jan 2005 (CST)
