Talk:Mass/charge Ratio: Difference between revisions
From Mass Spec Terms
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
* ''m/q'' ('''Da'''/'''Mi''') | * ''m/q'' ('''Da'''/'''Mi''') | ||
* ''m/q'' ('''Th''') | * ''m/q'' ('''Th''') | ||
'''References''' | |||
:[http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/Q04982.pdf gold book: quantity] | |||
:[http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/P04666.pdf gold book: physical quantity] | |||
:[http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/V06593.pdf gold book: value of a quantity] | |||
}} | |||
(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 08:33, 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)
