Archive:Gamma boron discovery controversy: Difference between revisions
the controversy is laid out based on facts given at http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/ |
wikademia>Aoganov No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The history of the discovery is detailed at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/ | The history of the discovery is detailed at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/ | ||
The first synthesis of this phase was probably performed by Wentorf in 1965, but the possibility of chemical contamination was not ruled out and no structure solution was given. The phase was synthesized again, and conclusively, in 2004 by J. Chen and V.L. Solozhenko, who proved that they are dealing with a pure boron phase. The structure was solved by A.R. Oganov in 2006. The joint paper of Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko collaboration appeared in Nature in January 2009. | The first synthesis of this phase was probably performed by Wentorf in 1965, but the possibility of chemical contamination was not ruled out and no structure solution was given. The phase was synthesized again, and conclusively, in 2004 by J. Chen and V.L. Solozhenko, who proved that they are dealing with a pure boron phase. The structure was solved by A.R. Oganov in 2006. The joint paper of Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko collaboration appeared in Nature in January 2009. | ||
The controversy was that at the same time another group (Dubrovinsky-Dubrovinskaia-Filinchuk) published their papers in other journals, initially claiming novelty of the phase (http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/false-claims). Dubrovinsky and Dubrovinskaia knew Solozhenko's results since 2004, and Filinchuk had the entire manuscript from Oganov (they were close friends) since 9 December 2006 - see their correspondence at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct | |||
The controversy was that at the same time another group (Dubrovinsky-Dubrovinskaia-Filinchuk) published their papers in other journals, initially claiming novelty of the phase (http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/false-claims). | |||
Dubrovinsky and Dubrovinskaia knew Solozhenko's results since 2004, and Filinchuk had the entire manuscript from Oganov (they were close friends) since 9 December 2006 - see their correspondence at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct | |||
Having lost the priority battle to Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko group, the Dubrovinsky-Dubrovinskaia-Filinchuk are now placing great emphasis on the likelihood that the phase might have been seen in 1965 by Wentorf (see discussion at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaborondata/novelty) and on claiming that gamma-B is a covalent phase and not ionic (as stated in Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko paper). However, gamma-B has both ionic and covalent characters (Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko paper described it explicitly as "partially ionic" and "polar covalent", while stressing the novel and surprisingly significant ionic character in a pure element). The actual data can be found in the original papers and some additional information is at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaborondata/novelty | Having lost the priority battle to Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko group, the Dubrovinsky-Dubrovinskaia-Filinchuk are now placing great emphasis on the likelihood that the phase might have been seen in 1965 by Wentorf (see discussion at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaborondata/novelty) and on claiming that gamma-B is a covalent phase and not ionic (as stated in Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko paper). However, gamma-B has both ionic and covalent characters (Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko paper described it explicitly as "partially ionic" and "polar covalent", while stressing the novel and surprisingly significant ionic character in a pure element). The actual data can be found in the original papers and some additional information is at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaborondata/novelty | ||
Revision as of 16:41, 8 May 2009
There is a controversy over which group of scientists actually discovered the gamma-phase of elemental boron, gamma-boron. The history of the discovery is detailed at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/ The first synthesis of this phase was probably performed by Wentorf in 1965, but the possibility of chemical contamination was not ruled out and no structure solution was given. The phase was synthesized again, and conclusively, in 2004 by J. Chen and V.L. Solozhenko, who proved that they are dealing with a pure boron phase. The structure was solved by A.R. Oganov in 2006. The joint paper of Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko collaboration appeared in Nature in January 2009.
The controversy was that at the same time another group (Dubrovinsky-Dubrovinskaia-Filinchuk) published their papers in other journals, initially claiming novelty of the phase (http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/false-claims).
Dubrovinsky and Dubrovinskaia knew Solozhenko's results since 2004, and Filinchuk had the entire manuscript from Oganov (they were close friends) since 9 December 2006 - see their correspondence at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaboron/Home/filinchukmisconduct
Having lost the priority battle to Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko group, the Dubrovinsky-Dubrovinskaia-Filinchuk are now placing great emphasis on the likelihood that the phase might have been seen in 1965 by Wentorf (see discussion at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaborondata/novelty) and on claiming that gamma-B is a covalent phase and not ionic (as stated in Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko paper). However, gamma-B has both ionic and covalent characters (Oganov-Chen-Solozhenko paper described it explicitly as "partially ionic" and "polar covalent", while stressing the novel and surprisingly significant ionic character in a pure element). The actual data can be found in the original papers and some additional information is at: http://sites.google.com/site/gammaborondata/novelty