Talk:Thomson (unit)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article in Japanese
Anyone read Japanese? Only the abstract of this article is in English: --Kkmurray (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was told by someone who reads Japanese that this editorial is supportive of the thomson unit, so I added the ref and some words to that effect to the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update
I updated the article and added some refs. Note that Rockwood specifically defines the unit in terms of z, not e as in the previous version of the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

POV and OR
I removed some POV and OR that had crept back into the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

More cleanup
It said, “For example, for the ion C7H72+ has an exact mass of 91.0 Da.” I rewrote it as, “For example, the ion C7H72+ has a mass of 91 Da.” 91.0 Da isn’t exact; atomic masses aren’t exact multiples of a dalton, the ion has lost two electron-masses, and there is a possibility of the ion being heavier than usual due to a deuterium or carbon-13. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomson (unit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814091330/http://db.wdc-jp.com/mssj/search/abst/200701/ms550051.html to http://db.wdc-jp.com/mssj/search/abst/200701/ms550051.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

it seems to be all wrong
thomson cannot be a unit for m/z or so-called mass-to-charge ratio (relative molecular mass to charge number), as (not only) according to IUPAC, m/z is a dimensionless quantity, thus thompson [Th] per se also needs to be dimensionless unit. the whole confusion comes from rather misleading use of dalton [Da] as a synonym for atomic mass constant u and thus misinterpreting the relative molecular mass (m in the m/z term) with the molecular mass with u or Da as unit (Mr(12C) = 12 ~ m(12C) = 12 u or Da). followingly, next problem is a labslang use of the word charge, where we should use scientifically correct charge number. voilà, and here we are. in my professional opinion as a mass spectrometrist, Da and Th are just psychological issues (our brain likes to say "how much of what", not just plain numeral, it is more pleasing to say mass of 125 thompson than em-over-zet 125) rather than necessary units. Regis (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right. It is all wrong. The underlying problem is that the definition of m/z as a "unitless" quantity is nonsensical at the outset. It makes no more sense to define m/z as unitless than it does to define the meter or the kilogram or one meter per second as unitless quantities. Mass is not a unitless quantity and charge is not a unitless quantity, so it makes no sense to define the mass to charge ratio as a unitless quantity. Therefore, to the extent that m/z is considered unitless it makes no sense to refer to it as a mass to charge ratio. In that sense any attempt to put m/z on a solid metrological footing is doomed to failure as long as it continues to be considered a unitless number. This creates a terrible mess of the terminology of mass spectrometry that would not pass muster in an introductory chemistry class.

To give one small example of the problems of a unitless m/z, one cannot substitute it into the equations of motion of an ion in an electrostatic or magnetic field and have the units come out correct in the answer.

A simple solution to this would be to re-define m/z as a number that has units, and specify the units to be unified atomic mass units per elementary charge. It also makes sense to give it a name, such as "Thomson" because "unified atomic mass units per elementary charge" is too much of a mouthful and therefore awkward to say or write.

A quick note on the proper way to report a measurement. A proper measurement consists of several parts. including 1) What type of quantity is being measured (mass, velocity, mass-to-charge ratio, etc.) 2) Specifically what is being measured (e.g. the mass of an individual named "Robert", the mass-to-charge ratio of the CO+ ion, etc.) 3) A number 4) Units

For example, one could say "The mass of Robert is 77 kg". Here we have the type of quantity being measured (mass), specifically what the measurement is being applied to (Robert), a numerical value (77), and the units of the measurement (kg). Any measurement that does not contain these four elements is not a scientifically correct measurement. For example, one could not say "The mass of Robert is 77." Unfortunately, the way mass spectrometrists report m/z does not conform to these rules and is therefore nonsense from a metrological point of view.

The paper by Cooks and Rockwood attempts to correct this, along with giving a convenient name to the mass to charge ratio on the atomic/molecular scale. Unfortunately, the mass spectrometry community seems to not care about these matters and refuses to use terminology that is metrologically correct and consistent. Massmanute (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)