Talk:Atomic weight
|
|
Describe the new page here.
I think a typo has crept in - atomic weight is about the mass of an atom (not just the nucleus) and the reference is scale is that which an atom (not nucleus) of Carbon-12 is 12 units.
You should also make it clear that the 'average' is a weighted average over naturally occuring isotopes.
Perhaps I should have been bolder and simply editted the page but it is my first time here.
Kenneth Evans 3 February 2002
Atomic mass
I propose that this definition be moved to be primarily "Relative Atomic Mass" with "Atomic mass" and "Atomic weight" as redirects to that. It is the more correct term, and therefore should have the title really. At the moment statements like "atomic weight...is the mass" do not even make a great deal of sense, and really are contradictory.
Any strong disagreement? Thought the change was major enough to ask views first...
- I can not see any reason why not, while I can see many reasons why. I say go ahead with it.
- I proposed it on the changes page and people disagreed saying that it should reflect current usage, and that RAM was not current usage (it is current everywhere I've been, and among physicists is certainly standard, but possibly not among chemists, they are known to be terminologically lazy I'm told). Hence I've not changed it yet.
This page is a mess! I basically agree with the above posts. Why are we still insisting on the archaic term atomic weight? Totally inconsistent to use weight with units of grams. I've been teaching chemistry for 20 years and only refer to atomic weight in a historical context. Current usage is atomic mass. I have revived the atomic mass page - still needs work. Comments? -Vsmith 02:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Atomic weight should now be a redirect... which I'll go do now. Eric119 02:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)