Talk:Atomic weight: Difference between revisions

From MS Terms
No edit summary
m (sig looks better under)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
The name '''atomic weight''' should no longer be used for a mass quantity, because weight is a force, not a mass.
The name '''atomic weight''' should no longer be used for a mass quantity, because weight is a force, not a mass.


-- [[User:Kkmurray|K. Murray]] 14:52, 6 Jan 2005 (CST)
----


The [[Gold Book]] entry for [http://www.nicmila.org/Gold/Output/A00505.xhtml atomic weight] just referes back to [http://www.nicmila.org/Gold/Output/R05258.xhtml relative atomic mass]. By the way, there is an [http://www.iupac.org/divisions/II/II.1/II1_01min.html IUPAC Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances], so the atomic weight terminology is well entrenched (which isn't to say that it shouldn't change).
The [[Gold Book]] entry for [http://www.nicmila.org/Gold/Output/A00505.xhtml atomic weight] just referes back to [http://www.nicmila.org/Gold/Output/R05258.xhtml relative atomic mass]. By the way, there is an [http://www.iupac.org/divisions/II/II.1/II1_01min.html IUPAC Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances], so the atomic weight terminology is well entrenched (which isn't to say that it shouldn't change).
:-- [[User:Kkmurray|K. Murray]] 14:52, 6 Jan 2005 (CST)

Latest revision as of 16:53, 6 January 2005

--Ionworker 12:27, 6 Jan 2005 (CST)

The name atomic weight should no longer be used for a mass quantity, because weight is a force, not a mass.


The Gold Book entry for atomic weight just referes back to relative atomic mass. By the way, there is an IUPAC Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances, so the atomic weight terminology is well entrenched (which isn't to say that it shouldn't change).

-- K. Murray 14:52, 6 Jan 2005 (CST)