Talk:Thomson (unit)

message: For anybody out there who can actually dig up a real reference for this article, can you correct the references section? Brian Jason Drake 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kehrli 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update  

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  More cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  it seems to be all wrong