Talk:Mass-to-charge ratio

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing Title

I was attemting to check up electron charge to mass ratio, and typed that in to wiki's search. Due to the dashes in between words, it yielded no results. Ditto when I did mass-to-charge. When one googles it, one can find it, as google's search method is superior, but it should be possible to find it within wiki. This would have saved some pointless frustration. Is it possible to change the title so as to make finding electron charge to mass ratio possible? For some reason this is simply not included in the 'electron' page, thus making this data inaccessible. 24.37.203.118 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Troye Petersen

I don't think that a rename is needed. Charge to mass ratio, charge-to-mass ratio, and mass to charge ratio already redirect here. Searches for "electron charge to mass ratio and [1] charge to mass[2] give the page as the top hit. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

—§→≤′’…≤× —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.96.232 (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the unbalanced treatment of the dimensionless quantity abbreviation m/z and the Thomson unit and removed the POV notice from the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

dunnington

the link for dunnington sends you to a page about a village. there is no citation for that section and no obvious evidence for it (from google etc). conisder deleting this bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.182.8 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

m/z unit

I'm a little confused about the units for m/z. This article gives u/e as the unit based on the assumption that it is molecular mass divided by number elementary charges. However, the German wiki article states that m/z is mass number divided by charge number, both of which are dimensionless. Therefore m/z would be dimensionless.

The text books I have access to right now (Skoog, Holler, Nieman - Principles of Instrumental Analysis 5 ed. and Harris - Quantitative Chemical Analysis 6 ed.) don't give any units for m/z either, but do not discuss this matter in detail.

To add further to the confusion, the mass spec software I use (AB Sciex Analyst) simply uses Da (since I'm doing small molecule analyses, that's not much of a problem).

Any other thoughts / opinions?

Destruktor5000 (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look at the IUPAC Goldbook. It clearly states m/z is a dimensionless quantity and that m is NOT the ionic mass NOR is z a multiple or the elementary charge. Therefore, I will change the article accordingly.

Destruktor5000 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Why "non-classical" effects?

The "Exceptions" section is written to suggest that any effect seen in a Stern-Gerlach experiment is necessarily quantum mechanical. It's not at all clear to me that this is true. A Stern-Gerlach experiment should affect the motion of any particle that has a magnetic moment, whether that magnetic moment is due to quantum spin, a tiny rotating charged ball, or anything else. I'll admit that in practice, any angular momentum on the molecular scale or below will be significantly quantized, but I don't think it's fair to characterize the Stern-Gerlach effect itself as quantum mechanical. (To put that another way, Stern-Gerlach experiments could still give interesting results in a universe without quantum mechanics.)

I'm hesitant to rewrite that part of the article without first seeing if anyone has a major objection here, but I think it ought to be rephrased. --Steuard (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)