Talk:Thomson: Difference between revisions

From Mass Spec Terms
Flemi (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
=Note: The thomson is a non-standard unit in mass spectrometry that has never been widely accepted=
The thomson is a unit, whereas ''m/z'' is a quantity.
The thomson is a unit, whereas ''m/z'' is a quantity.
Therfore, the thomson would not replace ''m/z''.
Therfore, the thomson would not replace ''m/z''.

Revision as of 09:54, 29 June 2006

Note: The thomson is a non-standard unit in mass spectrometry that has never been widely accepted

The thomson is a unit, whereas m/z is a quantity. Therfore, the thomson would not replace m/z. Instead, the dimensionless m/z would be replaced with m/q which has the unit Th.

m/q = n Th

where

  • m/q is the symbol for a quantity of mass/charge
  • n is the numerical value of the quantity m/q
  • Th is the symbol for the unit thomson

Example:

  • The base peak of H2O appears at 18 thomson.


Suggested Definition

New format - suggested definitions to appear in Discussion tab:

Thomson
A new unit of the physical quantity mass/charge. The symbol m/q would then be used in place of the dimensionless m/z.

Cooks, R. G. and A. L. Rockwood (1991). "The 'Thomson'. A suggested unit for mass spectroscopists." Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 5(2): 93.

"The Thomson (Th), a unit for mass-to-charge ratio, was proposed to alleviate problems with imprecise terminol. generated by the advent of multiply charged ion mass spectroscopy. The definition proposed for the unit is: 1Th == 1 amu/atomic charge."

"The Thomson (Th), a unit for mass-to-charge ratio, was proposed to alleviate problems with imprecise terminol. generated by the advent of multiply charged ion mass spectroscopy. The definition proposed for the unit is: 1Th == 1 u/atomic charge."

This is a Suggested Definition and should only appear under a discussion tab. Note that more than one suggested definition can appear in one discussion

Moved from Front Page

Mass Spec Desk Reference

See Mass Spec Desk Reference page 27 for an argument against the adoption of this term.

--K. Murray 21:42, 17 Jan 2005 (CST)