Talk:Quadrupole ion trap

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass spectrometry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mass spectrometry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Mass spectrometryWikipedia:WikiProject Mass spectrometryTemplate:WikiProject Mass spectrometryMass spectrometry articles

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddles?

Shouldn't this article contain explanation of saddle potential and how Earnshaw theorem means you can't create a potential minimum. So saddle potential is used and effectively spun to keep ion in trap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.248.238 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equations of motion

I started a new section following the discussion in March, R (1997). "An Introduction to Quadrupole Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry" (PDF). J Mass Spectrom. 32 (4): 351–369. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). A discussion of mass selective instability, etc. is still needed. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - equation 3 looks wrong still. The mass appears only on the first term. The dimensions of the first term are force, while those of the second are just position. My edit resulted from a straightforward substitution of (2) into (1), and caused the units to agree. Please justify equation 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.180.188 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an utterly impenetrable article

This article is written in a way that you can only understand it if you know more than is written in the article in the first place. There are even sloppy spelling mistakes (e.g. "the x, y, and z coordinated" instead of "coordinates"). Variables are undefined, and appear out of nowhere (e.g. "m" in eq 3, which probably represents ion mass). So, I'm trying to get a better grip on this subject, I've got some of it figured out, but this article is absolutely no help. Come on - someone please write an article that teaches, not merely shows that you know more than I do. 140.226.47.149 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impenetrable?

I'm inclined to agree (and sadly, the same could be said of many of the wikipedia mass spectrometry pages), but there is also much useful material here. Personally, I feel the article would be greatly improved by the addition of an "Introduction", which should cover roughly what a simple 3d trap looks like, and the saddle-shaped potential well inside, and how when this is spun, an ion is trapped. It might also be worth describing how it is used in a typical MS or MS/MS application. I'd be happy to have a go at this if anyone approves, but it will involve tinkering with the existing text a little, as different introductory comments tend to appear in dribs and drabs at the moment. Any feedback welcome Lionelmh (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely needs some overhaul, starting with the introduction. The theory section doesn't even start by mentioning anything about a quadrupole field. Equations of motion are given, but I think it's too much derivation, not enough qualitative explanation. I feel that only a rough sketch of the EoM is necessary, and interested readers can look up the references of which there are many (and a lot are listed on this article, one thing it is good at). I agree with Lionelmh that adding some applications for examples would be good. I'm willing to work on improving the introduction and theory sections. mvd (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration looks quite nice, but the AC (RF) source and its connections are disproportionately tiny; the artist who created the image needs to learn some basics of illustrating. Far worse, although this might be a cross-section, the description implies that the axis of the ring is vertical. Showing only a cross-section (if that's what it is) of a structure that is very unfamiliar to many readers only obfuscates. Are the top and bottom electrodes shaped like round plano-convex lenses? A perspective illustration of the electrodes (and, ideally, equipotential surfaces) would clarify the structure a great deal.

This reminds me of discussions of bipolar transistors where the structure is represented by by three rectangles of ideally-equal height, side by side, for the emitter, base, and collector. However, the term "base width", instead of "base thickness" seems to be universal, as if one's sense of reality were confined to A.K. Dewdney's Planiverse (or Flatland). It's as if one cuts a bologna sandwich into two pieces, then looks at the cut edge and refers to the width instead of the thickness of the bologna. This illustration surely seems to represent an equivalent failure to represent in three dimensions. Nikevich (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quadrupole ion trap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111102190045/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/AtomicMolecularOpticalphysics/?view=usa to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/AtomicMolecularOpticalphysics/?view=usa&ci=9780198539957

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]