Talk:Atomic absorption spectroscopy

Untitled

The Analytik Jena being the first commercially available, is there a source for that? Also, their company history says they were founded in 1990, is this a second company picking up where the first left off. If not, how could they be the first to offer a commercially available AAS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.230.88 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No commercially available atomic absorption spectrometers use acetylene+oxygen flames. It is only possible to safely use this mixture when the gases are mixed at the point of combustion - as in a welding torch, and the mixture cannot be used to establish a stable, long pathlength flame that is needed. All AA flames use pre-mixed combusion gases, almost invariably air+acetylene (about 2300'C) or nitrous oxide+acetylene (around 3000'C). Steve Morton.

Wow this article downright blows compared to the De version. Anyone know german?--Deglr6328 01:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the German version is on "atomic spectroscopy," so it covers a wider range of topics. -Kholst

I worked for Analytik Jena USA from 2007-08 and trained for a few weeks on their equipment, and helped launch the ContrAA in N. America at PittCon and by lecturing in Mexico. They deserve credit for beating this old horse when most have given up in favor of ICP. The reason you see a lot of AJ stuff on this page is because they are pushing the technology forward. Jamball77 (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the German version. Jamball77 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ICP for AA? To the best of my knowledge ICP is used in emission spectroscopy / MS not absolution. Jasoninkid (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever seen/used ICP for Emmission, never absorbtion.. but it does actually exist. It's just rare. Zatnik (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Commercial Product Photos; Acceptable or Not Acceptable? WHY is it acceptable to show AnalytikJENA commercial equipment, but not show Tekran equipment for the CVAFS article?? INCONSISTENT EDITING MUCH?? WPostma. June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.111.140 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what the image depicts; the issue is whether the image is copyrighted or not, and whether its license allows Wikipedia to use it.—Tetracube (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

VG-AAS - somebody more literate than I am should put this in. It isn't even mentioned. Zatnik (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)