Talk:Kendrick mass scale
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Kehrli in topic Orignal research/merge
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Glenfarclas (talk · contribs) on 17 January 2010 with the comment: Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD It was contested by Glenfarclas (talk · contribs) on 2010-01-17 with the comment: Remove PROD, I guess the Kendrick mass scale exists, but it's not generally called the "Kendrick unit" |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Orignal research/merge
editSee Talk:Kendrick_mass --Kkmurray (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No OR, since the cited article does define the unit Kendrick with symbol Ke. It says:
- [...] It simplifies the interpretation of a complex organic mass spectrum by expressing the mass of hydrocarbon molecules in Kendrick units (where m(12CH2) = 14 Ke) instead of Dalton (where m(12C) = 12 Da) (Kendrick, 1963). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I merged the content of Kendrick mass into this article. I also mentioned the shortcomings of the view expressed in the Kendrick mass text. I tried to do this as good as possible in an objective way. The content of Kendrick mass has the following shortcomings:
- Mass indicated in Da is referred to as "SI mass" which is outrageous considering that Da is explicitly a mass unit "outside the SI"
- The conversion formula is wrong. It implies that a molecule gains mass when expressing its mass in Kendrick mass scale. This is also outrageous. It is like a person would get fatter when he changes from a kg scale to a lbs scale. This is of course absolute nonsense. He does not get fatter, he just gets a larger numerical reading.
- The third error is more formal: a dimensioned quantity needs to be indicated as Q = n * unit. These are the rules according to ISO and therefore also by law.