Talk:Ion-attachment mass spectrometry

message: Ion Attachment
In Mass Spectrometry, all conventional ionisation methods (not only electron impact ionisation (EI) but chemical ionisation (CI) and also electron attachment or related techniques (EA)) inherently brake the sample molecules. It produces some fragmentation ions due to the high ionisation energy. 
To solve the problem of fragmentation, ion attachment mass spectrometer (IAMS) was developped; It has a soft ionisation technique. A lithium ion is "stucked" on to the sample (this is why I used the word not destructive, but it is not proper, I admit) . Its ionisation performance for many organic compounds is being tested. What can be reported today is that quasi-molecule are detected without any fragmentation.
This ionisation technique allows for quicker, faster, simplier analysis of complex molecules, as no separation (GC) or fragmentation (hard ionisation) has happen in the analytical process. 
References:
Fragment-free Measurement by Ion Attachment Mass Spectrometry. (2001) by M. Nakamura, T. Sasaki and Y. Shiokawa, in Shitsuryo Bunseki Sogo Toronkai Koen Yoshishu.
Maseracing 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maseracing-Welcome to Wikipedia. Your input and contributions are welcome. I would like to ask about your level of involvement with this work. How are you involved? Are you a user? A co-inventor or co-author? If you are involved in this work it does not preclude you from contributing. In fact an expert on this particular technique is very much needed. It does, however, mean that we need to be careful in judging the notability of the subject. I currently am concerned that the subject is not sufficiently notable. I am open to being convinced that it is with proper citation of its notability from reliable unrelated third party sources. I am also willing to bend my personal perception of notability within the mass spectrometry field if this is marginal and ends up being a really well done article. We would just need to write more articles about more notable subjects. As it stands now I only see a very few scientific articles about this and no popular or trade press. This makes me doubtful that it is very notable. Please address these issues. Thanks.--Nick Y. 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ionisation

message: I think that this article is notable. You have the two patents above, I get 70 hits on Chemical Abstracts (most since 1999) and it turns out you can buy one from Canon (Anelva Technix Corp): Non-cracking IAMS mass spectroscope (not this Iams). The article needs references and expanding, but notability-wise, it looks OK. --Kkmurray 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some more refs and took the notability box off the front page per above. --Kkmurray 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. I concur on notability. Commercial availability from a major manufacturer in particular seals notability in my mind in this case (not that it would always). The evidence for notability should have been included by the originator of the article but it is now clearly demonstrated with your help. It seems that the lack of peer reviewed articles on it in English is likely due to being a Japanese invention directed at industrial process monitoring rather than research.--Nick Y. 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen IA-Mass used outside of Wikipedia. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am working on it ! We will be releasing some info regarding recycling of plastics used in IT equipments.
Maseracing (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that I haven't seen the term IA-Mass used outside Wikipedia. To my ear, IA-mass should be IA-mass spectrometry, which just brings you back to the acronym IAMS (which is fine). --Kkmurray (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: At this point, I believe it is time that  explain to all exactly what his relationship with this technique is. You seem very protective, attempting to WP:OWN this article, and attempting to emphasize how it is a trademarked, etc. You appear to have quite a severe conflict of interest. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please inform us as to your involvement. From your most recent post you seem to be very directly involved, perhaps a co-inventor or head of marketing the Canon MS. I asked this question once already and did not get an answer. Having a conflict of interest, as I think we must assume at this point, will not prevent you from being involved in the article, although it may change your role in some ways. I would warn you that not being forthcoming may prevent you from being involved in the article at all.--Nick Y. (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am involved, as explained above , I am involved in a project focusing on defining an industrial plastic recycling process(es) that can deal with BFR rich materials as found in most of IT equipments that have reached their end of life. The first step of this process is to identify good (recyclable) and less good (special incineration process required, today... else tomorrow...) plastics. The second step is to make sure that no BFR rich products are used anymore.
I am not an inventor or yet at Canon MS! ...I hope to have answered to your questions.
Maseracing (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, you do not work for and have never worked for or with the inventors or Canon? You work for a waste/recycling management company or perhaps a green chemistry academic group and you find this technology interesting for the recycling project you are working on. You do not profit directly from the adoption of the technology? You *might* profit from the implementation of it in your work only in that it solves a recycling problem effectively and therefore benefits the company you work for and makes you successful in your work? Is this all correct?--Nick Y. (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest