| Revision as of 00:16, 28 October 2010 editKehrli (talk | contribs)834 edits →RfC: Is Kendrick unit original research?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:16, 4 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,283,391 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{Chemistry}}, {{WikiProject Mass spectrometry}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (57 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|
{{Chemistry}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mass spectrometry|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mass spectrometry|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
==Merge Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass== |
|
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes| |
|
Per original (de)PROD and move.: there is a Kendrick mass but not a Kendrick unit. Remove the redundant ]. --] (]) 03:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(August 2010–May 2011)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Better idea: merge Kendrick mass into Kendrick unit or even Kendrick mass unit. |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
Of course there is a Kendrick mass unit. "Kendrick mass" is not specific enough. What exactly is the meaning of "Kendrick mass"? Every mass unit is a mass, but not every mass is a mass unit. Kendrick mass unit corresponds to "]" (which is not called "atomic mass"), to ], ], and so on. |
|
|
|
{{Clear}} |
|
|
|
|
] (]) 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Kendrick called it a "mass scale" not a "mass unit" as do all others subsequently in the peer reviewed literature. Kendrick advocated "adoption of a mass scale in which the mass of the CH<sub>2</sub> radical is taken as 14.0000 mass units.<sup>{{doi | 10.1021/ac60206a048}}</sup> No mention of unit. A search of Google Scholar for "Kendrick Mass Unit" yields no publications whereas "Kendrick Mass Scale", "Kendrick Mass Defect", and "Kendrick Mass" net 255, 186 and 90, respectively. Nothing whatsoever in the literature about a unit with the symbol '''Ke'''. This appears to be ]. In response to "what is Kendrick mass", ] says that "conversion from IUPAC mass to “Kendrick” mass ... multiplying each mass by 14.00000/14.01565".<sup>{{doi | 10.1021/ac010560w}}</sup> There are many ways to talk about ], but not all of them have associated units. --] (]) 13:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 1) I get many Google results when I search for "Kendrick Mass units". |
|
|
:: 2) The terminology "scale" may have been common when Kendrick wrote his paper back in 1964 or so. Today "scale" is outdated. It is very seldom that one hears today of the "Dalton scale", the "meter scale", the "newton scale" and so on. Also in the IUPAC green book the term "scale" is used rather seldom. I am not saying it is wrong, but I think in Misplaced Pages we should use current terminology. |
|
|
:: 3) Where there is a scale, there is a unit. The two terms are not equivalent but they always go together. It is the equivalent of a "stair" and a "step" relation. |
|
|
:: 4) Marshall also used the term "Kendrick mass units". Look it up. The paper is referenced in the Misplaced Pages article. |
|
|
:: 5) It used to be the case that scientists used "scales" without naming the units. This is no longer good practice. It should definitely not be promoted in Misplaced Pages. Please read the IUPAC green book for current use and terminology of quantities and units in chemistry. |
|
|
:: 6) There are many ways to talk about the earth. During 99% of human life the earth was considered to be flat. Does that mean we should write in Misplaced Pages the earth is flat? I don't think so. This is why mass units should have proper names in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
:: 7) The "Kendrick mass unit" or "Kendrick" complies with modern terminology, it is used in the (modern) literature, we should use it. |
|
|
:: 8) Misplaced Pages is not museum |
|
|
:: 9) You asked for references. They already are in the article. |
|
|
:: 10) Kendrick may have been a modest person and therefore did not use the term "Kendrick mass unit". It would be somewhat strange to name a unit after oneself. This is why only his fellow scientists started using "Kendrick mass units". |
|
|
::::] (]) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If one makes a plot of relative abundance as a function of Kendrick mass, the axis is units (plural) of Kendrick mass. That does not imply that there is a unit (singular) of Kendrick mass with a symbol '''Ke'''. That is why you get multiple hits for "Kendrick mass units" (plural) and none for ""Kendrick mass unit" (singular). People are making plots with Kendrick mass as the x-axis, but they are not defining or using a ''unit'' of Kendrick mass or a symbol for that unit. I can make a plot of foxes caught as a function of hounds run and the x axis is in units of hounds. That does not imply that there is such a thing as a "hound unit" with symbol '''Ho'''. This does not mean that there cannot ever be a defined Kendrick unit with symbol '''Ke''', it's just that Misplaced Pages is not the place to make a proposal for adopting this new unit. --] (]) 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: 1) Mass is a physical quantity that is regulated by ISO, ] and ]. Foxes and hounds are not. If they were, all three organizations would actually create a unit for foxes and hounds, because that is how quantities are handled in the field of science. Mass quantities do have a unit. Period. |
|
|
:::: 2) A mass is a mass is a mass. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a Kendrick mass. There is no kg mass, there is no Dalton mass, there is no pound mass. "Kendrick mass" is a sloppy term for "a mass measured in Kendrick units". Kendrick mass indicates the same mass as the mass measured in any other units. In other words: the mass of a molecule is always the same, independent whether it is measured in Da, kg, lb, Kendrick or any other mass units. It is just the numerical value in front of the unit that changes: m = x kg = y Da = z Ke are all the same. The molecule does not change its mass depending on the unit it is measured. In this sense, the Kendrick mass unit is superfluous. Kendrick could just have used the modulo function. But he did not. He introduced a new mass scale, and with it comes a new mass unit. |
|
|
:::: 3) Every mass scale implies units which implies a single unit. Same as every stair implies steps which implies a single step. |
|
|
:::: 4) I did not "propose" the name "Kendrick mass unit", nor its name Kendrick, nor the symbol Ke. It is all in the literature and it is referenced in the article. Please read the article thoroughly before you make false accusations. |
|
|
::::] (]) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Could you provide a citation (DOI + page number) for the work that defines the kendrick unit and symbol '''Ke'''? Thanks. --] (]) 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: You find the article referenced in the ] in the article ]. --] (]) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I found "Kendrick units" (plural) but no definition of a "Kendric unit" (singular) or '''Ke''' symbol. Nothing that would suggest that this in not original research. --] (]) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Well, what should I say. I do find ''"... 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)."'' Dalton mass units and Kendrick mass units have to be treated the same way. It is that simple. These are both units, period. IUPAC explains exactly how to treat units. Could you please read the green book? It is all in there. Alternatively you can look it up on ]. Please show me a metrology textbook that proves that there is a "mass scale" without a unit. That would be the same as a stair without steps. It does not exist. It is OR. --] (]) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Your quote seems to come from this work: , coincidentally published the day you recreated the ] article. My suggestion is to merge per the above and note that the unit/symbol has appeared recently in a single article but has otherwise not been used. --] (]) 13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Based on my (admittedly cursory) read of the provided literature, I would say the best place for the information right now is Kendrick Mass. At this point, it seems more like a defined quantity to make data analysis convenient, rather than a true unit of measure. This can change in the future, and the article might have to change with it. But as of right now, a paper outlining the concept from 1963 and a single reference using the same concept in 2010 isn't really enough to call it a "unit". ] (]) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Here is a crash course in ]: measuring a ] means comparing it with a reference quantity. These reference quantities are called ]. This is all defined this way by ], ], and ]. The term "defined quantity" from ] however is nowhere defined in these documents. What does it mean? A constant quantity? A quantity that is defined? The mass of ] is a defined quantity, but it is not constant. It changes when he is eating, for example. Therefore it is not suitable as a "reference quantity" or a "unit" and should not be used here. Also, as already mentioned above: the term "Kendrick mass units" is widely used, since many years. Google it. It is old. Then google for ""units of Kendrick mass". There is not a single hit. We need to keep wikipedia consistent. Since we have a dalton mass unit (not a dalton mass), a atomic mass unit (not atomic mass), a kg mass unit (not a kg mass) we need a Kendrick mass unit. This is modern terminology in metrology. When Kendrick introduced his scale in 1963 these rules were not yet established. Units were less common, especially in chemistry. (Side note: Some chemists still think that atomic mass units are dimensionless, e.g. do not have a unit. They do not realize that has changed a long time ago.) Today, masses should be measured in quantites of dimension mass and therefore automatically need a mass unit. These are the modern rules (even if 50 year old literature seems to suggest otherwise). By creating a Kendrick mass scale one automatically creates a mass unit in the same way as when you make a stair you automatically create steps. Please read the ] red book, ], and ] green book. Google does not free you from reading these international conventions. This article is a matter of metrology, not of chemistry. Please ask a metrologist. If you think chemist are too good to "surrender" to modern rules of metrology then please create your own article (as you have already done), but leave my article alone. ] (]) 16:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:(outdent) I'm not sure we are having the same discussion here. Misplaced Pages doesn't currently have a ] page, they have a page for ]. That is simply a disambiguator. Note that ] doesn't have this same disambiguator, because it doesn't need one. What you are discussing isn't an issue of "metrology", its Misplaced Pages convention. To keep things consistent with Misplaced Pages, neither of the proposed options are correct. The page should be at ]. I didn't realize that you were comparing to Daltons, etc in terms of what was used on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::First: I would agree with ]. Second: my discussion is not about Misplaced Pages convention. It is about metrology. You claim that "Kendrick mass units" are not a unit, but "more like a defined quantity to make data analysis convenient, rather than a true unit of measure". I claim that in metrology there is nothing like "defined quantity to make data analysis convenient" and that according to the rules of metrology it is a unit. It looks like a unit, it is used like a unit, it is refered to as a unit, so it is a unit. The kg unit is something different than the kg mass, which is the realization of the kg unit and stored in Paris. ] (]) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You were discussing Misplaced Pages convention "we need to keep Misplaced Pages consistent" - that has nothing to do with metrology. I'm not particularly interested in the finer points of metrology, I would just like the page to be in the correct place according to Misplaced Pages convention. I think that is ]. ] (]) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Having looked at ] I completely agree that ] is the best address. ] (]) 07:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::On the other hand, there are ], ], ], etc., but no corresponding ], ], ], etc. There is an article on ], but this is the set of fundamental constants normalized to one. Again, there are many ways to express mass without defining a corresponding unit. --] (]) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: "Again, there are many ways to express mass without defining a corresponding unit." This statement is completely wrong. In your examples above, ], ], ] are all used as units. It even says so in the corresponding articles. Also, the article ] explains that the ] is the unit of mass in the Plank ]. But I see your question: why are ], ], ] all labeled as mass and not as units? The answer is simple but long: every mass can potentially be used as a unit. Some masses are uniquely defined to be used as a unit. Example: the kilogram mass is stored in Paris and it has no other purpose than being the incarnation of the kg unit. The other approach is to take a famous mass and use it as a unit. ], ], ] are all examples of this second approach. The ] is a unit, but its main relevance is not as a unit but as the mass of the sun. If the solar mass would change for some reason and, say, become 10% smaller, the earth would reach a higher orbit and all water would freeze within days. The ] and many other fundamental constants are often used as units. The main relevance of those fundamental constants is not their being a unit, however. It is quite the opposite. ], ] are good examples that are used as units, but their function as fundamental quantities is much more important. What you call the "Kendrick mass" has its main relevance as a unit. It is probably fair to say that not a single object in the whole universe has the same mass as the Kendrick mass. Neither is it a fundamental constant. It is a unit that has been defined because in its scale of measure the homologous hydrocarbons have the same mass defect. If the Kendrick would have been defined as m(12CH2) then we could argue. But since it is defined as 1/14 * m(12CH2) it is definitely a mass that has no other relevance than being a unit. ] (]) 09:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RfC: Is Kendrick unit original research?== |
|
|
{{rfctag|sci}} |
|
|
Does the definition of a unit of mass called Kendrick with symbol ''Ke'' constitute original research/synthesis and should ] be merged with ]? ] (]) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See also comments above. My position is that there has been no attempt to define a Kendrick unit in the scientific literature, although the concepts of Kendrick mass, the Kendrick mass scale and Kendrick mass defect are widely used. The unit of mass kendrick that is defined in ] goes beyond the scientific literature and is therefore ]. For background, this article doesn't require a subscription and gives a good overview of Kendrick mass: ] --] (]) 18:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* ] should be merged with ], or otherwise removed from wikipedia namespace. The Kendrick mass scale is a simple renormalization for the sake of convenience for certain types of molecules and has never been referred to as a unit in and of itself, nor is there any standard abbreviation. These creations are novel to wikipedia and original research. --] (]) 16:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I have added a direct citation into the article ] that shows that your claims are not true at all. The Kendrick mass units as well as the symbol Ke is referred in the latest literature. ] (]) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I did work on the Article to make it less biased and give a more ]. This will help to decide which article has to be merged into which address. ] (]) 07:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Encyclopedias are for established knowledge and conventions, not a place for trying to grapple with how best to do things. That is for the scientific literature. The *one* paper that you cite is doing an appropriate job of making an argument in the appropriate context, the primary literature. This is not the place for that same argument. --] (]) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I agree that Encyclopedias are for established knowledge and conventions. This is why I am pushing for the conventions established by the ], the ], the ], and the ] instead of some ad-hoc terminology created by non-metrologists 50 years ago. The one paper that I cite keeps much better to the established conventions than anything that was written before. Maybe you should read the conventions. ] (]) 12:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: In response to ]: The point was to present both sides of the Kendrick mass vs. Kendrick unit discussion in the two articles so that other editors could compare and comment. With your edits (, ), both articles have the same POV and a balanced discussion is now more difficult. Most importantly, you have failed to provide any scientific literature reference that defines a unit called a "kendrick" This reference () does not define a unit, it just uses the shorthand notation "Ke" that is not standard. A much more widely used shorthand for Kendrick mass is KM (e.g. , ]). As stated above, the Kendrick mass scale is renormalization for convenience (it doesn't even have to be a renormalization to CH<sub>2</sub>, for example see ] where CH<sub>2</sub>O is set to exactly 30 Da) and has never been called a unit. Misplaced Pages is not the place to define a kendrick unit and to do so, however reasonable and well-intentioned, is original research and POV pushing. --] (]) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Well, you suggested that in the merged article both sides should be presented. Then you presented the version that is in agreement with the conventions established by the ], the ], the ], and the ] only poorly. This gave a very biased view. ] (]) 12:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well said. I would suggest to Kehrli that his/her contributions could be welcomed if the scope, purpose and policies of wikipedia are respected. An open minded acceptance of input from other editors simply striving to maintain such purposes and policies such as Kkmurray may help.--] (]) 19:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Kkmurray is pushing a terminology that is old, outdated, and faulty. I am pushing for a terminology that is in line with the conventions established by the ], the ], the ], and the ]. I do think that my approach is better suited to maintain purposes and policies of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of errors of the past. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would have to state that the earth is flat, because that was the conventional view during 99% of human history. Kkmurray and Nick Y. are behaving like ]. They seem not to realize that science and metrology is moving on. ] (]) 12:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to give you one example on how faulty the terminology is that kkmurray is pushing. He claims: |
|
|
: <math>Kendrick~mass = SI~mass \times \frac{14.00000}{14.01565} </math> |
|
|
With ''SI mass'' he means a mass in Daltons (or u), which means: |
|
|
: <math>SI~mass = n \times Da</math> |
|
|
This, however, would make the ''Kendrick mass'' also be in Da. |
|
|
: <math>Kendrick~mass = n \times \frac{14.00000}{14.01565} \times Da </math> |
|
|
However, this is not at all what Kkmurray is claiming in the remaining article. His formula contradicts his own opinion. And he does not even realize it. ] (]) 12:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What you fail to realize is that your argument is not with me, it is with Alan Marshall and the editors of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The equation you object to |
|
|
:: <math>Kendrick~mass = SI~mass \times \frac{14.00000}{14.01565} </math> |
|
|
:is Equation 2 on page 18092 of ] (now reference 3 in the article). The scientific literature has many other similar constructs for Kendrick mass |
|
|
|
|
|
:: <math>Kendrick~mass = IUPAC~mass \times \frac{14.00000}{14.01565}~</math> ], ], ], ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:: <math>KM =exact~measured~mass \times \frac{14.00000}{14.01565}~</math> |
|
|
|
|
|
:But I see your point and the use of SI mass in Marshall's PNAS paper is somewhat confusing. I would suggest that the "IUPAC mass" construct be used in the article since it is more widely used in the literature. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Marshall's PNAS paper is more than "somewhat" confusing. It uses a terminology that is a disgrace to scientific communication. It should never have been published in this form. The peer review process failed completely. Your minor correction using ''IUPAC mass'' only helps marginally. IUPAC has many other mass units beside daltons. It has kg, g, tons. Therefore ''IUPAC mass'' could mean anything. |
|
|
:::::: The fact that there are several different definitions out there that are only "similar" (an ] for contradicting) only shows the mess that people like Marshall are creating. You should not promote this messy jargon on Misplaced Pages. There are not two papers using the same terminology. Why not use the terminology of the last paper, which is the only paper using a consistent terminology? |
|
|
:::::: And what you still do not understand: A MOLECULE DOES NOT CHANGE ITS MASS WHEN USING A DIFFERENT UNIT! You guys have a very basic misconception of physical quantities. In your way of thinking a person could loose weight when he would stop using a pound scale and start using a kg scale. THIS IS RIDICULOUS! Loosing weight is not that simple! |
|
|
:::::: Look, we both agree that, let's say, a COO group has a mass that is not changing in time. It is a constant. Even if the earth would disappear, the mass of the COO group would stay the same. And if the solar system would collapse, the mass of the COO group would still remain the same. Hence, its mass is really, really, really constant. Agree? But in your formula (which I know is not yours, but you promote it) you claim that you can change this molecule's mass just by thinking in a different unit! How can you not realize that this formula is deeply flawed? It is rubbish! Even though it is from Marshall. Even though it went through a review process. It is absolute rubbish. And that is really easy to see. Just use your own brain. It is as easy to see as the faultiness of ''SI mass''. Actually it is even easier: you don't even need to look up the SI booklet. All you need is your brain and some 7th grade math. ] (]) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Note also that Kendrick mass scaling is not limited to CH<sub>2</sub> as is indicated in these two articles: |
|
|
:: "The Kendrick mass defect of points along a trend line represents a characteristic difference in the elemental formula (e.g., CH<sub>2</sub>, COO, H<sub>2</sub>, H<sub>2</sub>O, etc.). If we label these trendline variations as F, then the following equations can be used to define the Kendrick mass defect for any F trendline." |
|
|
:::<math>Kendrick~mass~(F) = (observed~mass) \times \frac{nominal~mass~F}{exact~mass~F}~</math> ] |
|
|
:: ... "Other normalizing units (e.g., F, H<sub>2</sub>, H<sub>2</sub>O, and O) can be selected for Kendrick mass defect analysis and applied to data lying along the respective lines."] |
|
|
|
|
|
:and |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Any combination of atoms can serve as the base for calculating Kendrick mass (KM). The Kendrick mass defect (KMD) is then defined as the difference between the nominal mass and KM. For example, if formaldehyde is used as the base, KM<sub>CH<sub>2</sub>O</sub> and KMD<sub>CH<sub>2</sub>O</sub> are obtained by setting the molar mass of CH<sub>2</sub>O to exactly 30 amu ."] |
|
|
:::<math>KM_{CH_2O} = mass \times \frac{nominal~mass_{CH_2O}}{mass_{CH_2O}}~</math>" ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:These two works are completely at odds with your proposed unit "kendrick" since the Kendrick scaling factor for each functional group is different. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Kermit, here you actually have a good point. It is the first valid point that you made. Congratulations! Here is my answer: There is no such thing as "scaling a unit" without creating a new unit. The kg happens to be a scaling of the Da by the Avogadro constant. It thereby does not become unitless. It also does not keep the same unit Da (as is claimed by many other chemists, e.g. in the textbook of Jürgen Gross who btw uses a different Kendrick equation than Marshall). It becomes a kg. Yes - you would require a new unit for each of these groups. I have not chosen that road. These other "scalings" were probably not anticipated by Kendrick. He is not to blame when other people misuse his terminology. I don't like this either. This is why I have the section on the equivalence relation (modulo function) in my ] article. This would be the only consistent way to avoid creating new units. I would prefer that. Unfortunately Kendrick did not take that road. He could have spared us a lot of troubles (and units). :-) ] (]) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You say "I am pushing for a terminology" but that is exactly what you should not be doing. Misplaced Pages is not a ], it is not a place for your ], and it is ]. I agree with Nick Y that your contributions are valuable and welcomed when they fall within Misplaced Pages guidelines. I hope that we can have a good faith effort to improve this article. |
|
|
::--] (]) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I am pushing for the terminology that is the consensus of ], the ], the ], and the ]. I am not pushing for my opinion, which is different from the Kendrick unit. You are pushing the faulty terminology used in faulty PAPERS of a fringe group in a fringe field of chemistry. I am pushing a consensus that represents easily 100'000 times more people than yours (VIM includes all trade and commerce). A consensus that was peer reviewed by approx. 1000 times more reviewers than your handful of papers that are so faulty that one has to wonder whether they were reviewed at all. And by whom. ] (]) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Just to expand on Kkmurray's point and hopefully clarify for Kherli why his/her current efforts fall under NOT. The synthesis of two or more elements, be they standards, papers, stated opinions of respected authorities etc. to reach a logical conclusion that produces a new statement of fact, a new standard or a new interpretation is original research and outside the scope of wikipedia. This is true no matter how logical, truthful, useful or internally consistent the resulting statement is. This is distinct from summary where multiple sources are combined in novel language to briefly explain the whole without contributing any novel ideas or interpretations of the whole. --] (]) 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Nick: Kermit and you have a ] to chemistry in general and mass spectrometry in special. You guys think Misplaced Pages should be swamped with faulty mass spec jargon that no one else understands because you can find this jargon in some poorly reviewed papers in the field of mass spectrometry. Misplaced Pages is not a mass spec project. You should keep to the wider consensus terminology as it is explained in the ], the ], the ], and the ]. You claim that I am doing synthesis. Not true. Each one of these books alone is sufficient to prove what is wrong in your jargon. ] (]) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If the ], the ], the ], or the ] define the ''kendrick'', please provide a cite. I'm fairly certain that there isn't one. ], ] and ] are not fringe journals, but I take it from your dismissal of them that you agree that they are inconsistent with your position on the kendrick as a unit. I really don't think that your position will stand and I hope that you reconsider it. --] (]) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Kermit: the ], the ], the ], or the ] define what physical quantities and units are and how they are handled. Hence they define how a mass and therefore the kendrick mass scale must be handled. Compare this to a law book where it says how traffic crossings must be designed, how priority rights are handled, what signs should be used and what they mean. You won't find the names of specific crossing in a law book, but the law book still applies to specific crossings. ] (]) 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I did not say that those journals are fringe journals! I said they address a fringe group (in the larger scale of schemes) and that you cite faulty papers. With all due respect: a paper that addresses a mass measured in daltons as "SI mass" is faulty and extremely poorly reviewed. A paper that claims esoteric effects like a change of mass just by thinking in different units is incredibly poorly reviewed. Such a paper is a disgrace for science. In the long term, science will loose all its credibility with papers like that. ] (]) 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Please understand that I am not defending '''my''' position on the Kendrick mass. I am defending the position of the consensus established by the ], the ], the ], or the ]. My personal postition on the Kendrick mass unit is still different. I won't even mention it here because it is irrelevant for this discussion. ] (]) 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::*Summary: The term Kendrick mass refers to a rescaling{{Citation needed}} of the standard atomic mass scale to zero the mass defect of a chosen moeity in limited and very specific situations in the field of mass spectrometry. It is neither formally{{Citation needed}} defined nor recognized{{Citation needed}} as a unit. It is sometimes informally used in place of units or without units but indicated in some other way. Although many such informal shorthands are used{{Citation needed}} throughout science they do not conform to the widely accepted principles and standards set forth in formal documents regarding units and notations. |
|
|
|
|
|
::*Synthesis: The term Kendrick mass has sometimes been used in a manner consistent with being a unit and the ], the ], the ] state that all such uses must be formally defined and conform to certain standards. Thus, it is necessary to reconcile this by conforming this previously inconsistent usage to the standards of metrology here in order to properly define the Kendrick unit and clarify its future usage. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Both of these statements are truthful. One reflects the world as it currently is. The other reconciles the inconsistencies and synthesizes a more internally consistent and elegant solution. The synthesis statement is however NOT within the purpose or scope of Misplaced Pages, nor do I believe a very important subject to be addressing even in the proper context. Go write an opinion article and submit it to JASMS.--] (]) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Nick, I wish it were that simple as in your summary. Fact is: every paper has its own definition on what your "scaling" is. These is no majority view. Some of these definitions make some sense. Some make no sense at all. Kermit picked the one definition that makes the least sense. It talks about scaling, which we all understand is applying a different mass scale (which is equivalent to using a different unit) to a mass quantities. However, in the formula they do exactly the opposite: they use the same mass scale and change the quantity. It is insane. Some other papers get it right. The one I picked has a consistent definition of the scaling and it makes sense. So your summary is not accurate at all. |
|
|
::::: Your Synthesis is also incorrect. The main criteria on Misplaced Pages are neutrality and verifiability. We have ten different definitions of the Kendrick mass scale. I picked the one that is most verifiable: it is published in a paper (] AND it is in line with the ], AND the ], AND the ], AND the ] (all ]). It has the most and the best references. Kermit however picked the one definition that has one single reference and that even he himself had to admit uses ''confusing'' terminology which is not only not verifiable but which is verifiably wrong. My article is also more neutral, because I did not pick only one of of the definitions, I picked two and discussed both in detail. I showed that the second one contains terminology that is FERIFIABLY not in line with the metrologic consensus of the ]. I do not do synthesis, I just have more and better sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::This is it exactly. The synthesis happens when one believes that the general principles stated in the Red Book/Green Book/ISO 31 "define how a mass and therefore the kendrick mass scale must be handled" even though they do not define or even mention a kendrick unit. This synthesis is then used to reject peer reviewed publications in respected journals such as the ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science'' as "faulty and extremely poorly reviewed" and "a disgrace for science" because they are at odds with the synthesis. --] (]) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Kermit, there is not synthesis. You seem to forget that the article I am backing is based on the most recent and the most relevant paper in the field of our discussion (]). And, in ADDITION, it verifiably agrees with the general principles of the ], AND the ], AND the ], AND the ]. There is no synthesis, these are all independent ]. You don't have a single ]. My article simply has the most and the best sources and therefore is much better verifiable, which is a key requirement on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::::: I am not using a synthesis to criticize the paper, I am using the fact that the authors used terrible terminology (like ''SI-mass'' for a mass in Da even though the Da is a unit outside the SI), erroneous math (like changing the mass of a molecule instead of changing the mass scale, what they claimed to be doing), and many more terrible errors. All these errors were not caught in the review process, which is absolutely frightening. It shows that the review process for this paper was completely dysfunctional. I can just hope for this journal that it is not always like this. |
|
|
::::: The fact that a professor is backing such a poor definition on Misplaced Pages (a definition that is full of verifiable errors, has only one source, and contradicts all tertiary sources) is not very encouraging for this field of science either. |
|
|
::::: Look, you guys are on a rampage. Cool it down a notch. Use your brain and don't get carried away defending stuff that even you understand is wrong. You need to keep a NPOV. Don't get your personal feelings involved. ] (]) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
