Materialscientist (talk | contribs) discussion with Dian John moved to his talk page |
Dian john1 (talk | contribs) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
* Your second correction contains more bad than good: "called by its discoverers" goes back to priorities; "At pressures above 80-90 GPa, theory predicts stability of a superconducting phase with the alpha-Ga type structure" sounds bad in many ways (i) no reference; (ii) not supported by experiment; (iii) high-pressure phases are too exotic for text on basic structures in a general-purpose article. Best regards. [[User:NIMSoffice|NIMSoffice]] ([[User talk:NIMSoffice|talk]]) 09:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
* Your second correction contains more bad than good: "called by its discoverers" goes back to priorities; "At pressures above 80-90 GPa, theory predicts stability of a superconducting phase with the alpha-Ga type structure" sounds bad in many ways (i) no reference; (ii) not supported by experiment; (iii) high-pressure phases are too exotic for text on basic structures in a general-purpose article. Best regards. [[User:NIMSoffice|NIMSoffice]] ([[User talk:NIMSoffice|talk]]) 09:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
=== |
=== Dubriovinskaia is a plagiarist === |
||
I agree with Onorem that this discussion starts repeating its arguments (and eating up space), thus I have moved this thread to the talk page of [[User:Dian john1|Dian john1]] ([[User talk:Dian john1|talk]]). [[User:NIMSoffice|NIMSoffice]] ([[User talk:NIMSoffice|talk]]) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
I agree with Onorem that this discussion starts repeating its arguments (and eating up space), thus I have moved this thread to the talk page of [[User:Dian john1|Dian john1]] ([[User talk:Dian john1|talk]]). [[User:NIMSoffice|NIMSoffice]] ([[User talk:NIMSoffice|talk]]) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Gamma-boron: Dubrovinskaia's plagiarism == |
|||
I had some message exchanges with NIMSOffice concerning the gamma-phase of boron. In those exchanges I argued that Zarechnaya, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky and Filinchuk tried to steal the discovery from Oganov et al. Fortunately, Oganov et al. eventually published their results, and did it earlier. I am outraged by the behavior of Dubrovinskaia and her coauthors, since I have some documents proving their misconduct. |
|||
They did publish a paper in a weird journal: |
|||
Zarechnaya E. Yu., Dubrovinsky L., Dubrovinskaia N., Miyajima N., Filinchuk Y., Chernyshov D., Dmitriev V. (2008) Synthesis of an orthorhombic high pressure boron phase. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9, 044209 (2008). Submitted 3 November 2008, published online 28 January 2009. |
|||
Their abstract claimed priority of the discovery: “the x-ray powder diffraction pattern and the Raman spectra of the new material do not correspond to those of any known boron phases”. But now look at the facts - they had Oganov et al.'s paper since 2006!!!!!!!! At that time Filinchuk was Oganov's friend and got this paper when it was submitted (first to Science, but later resubmitted to Nature). I got these emails and was shocked to the core. There should be scientific tribunals to punish people like Dubrovinskaia and Filinchuk. I think Oganov et al. should sue these people in courts. |
|||
'''MESSAGE FROM OGANOV TO FILINCHUK 9 DECEMBER 2006!!! +''' |
|||
Author Oganov Artem |
|||
Recipients Yaroslav Filinchuk, SNBL at ESRF |
|||
Subject boron story |
|||
Date Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:20:31 AM |
|||
Hi Yaroslav, |
|||
How are you? |
|||
I'm doing well - just finished a new work (submitted to Science). I think you may find it interesting. |
|||
I'd appreciate your comments. Please don't show this paper to anyone. |
|||
Tomorrow I fly to the USA, will be back on 19 December. Give my huge greetings to Masha |
|||
With my best regards, |
|||
Artem |
|||
* - file Oganov_Boron_Science.pdf attached |
|||
'''REPLY: ''' |
|||
From: Yaroslav Filinchuk, SNBL at ESRF [mailto:Yaroslav.Filinchuk@esrf.fr] |
|||
Sent: Sat 09.12.2006 16:09 |
|||
To: Oganov Artem |
|||
Subject: Re: boron story |
|||
Hi Artem |
|||
Very good work! Your method of prediction of new structures is very relevant in this work, I would say it is a key. Though, I guess with global optimization the structure could be solved on experimental data, they are quite good. But with theory it’s more fun, this method is newer, it is unique, and can work without any experimental data at all, or use three experimental peaks for validation, when the structure cannot be solved otherwise. The paper fully deserves to be published in Science. Congratulations! |
|||
Are you sure that this is the first „autoionised“ structure of an element? For many metals a segregation of electronic states occurs under pressure, and I guess this also leads to different charges on atoms |
|||
Masha and I will fly from Geneva on the 18th, through Budapest to Lvov, will be home on the 6th. Have a pleasant trip to the States! I, by the way, have an invited talk at Gordon in the Summer. I see that I also begin to travel to the States regularly :) |
|||
All the best! Regards to Agnes! |
|||
Yaroslav <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dian john1|Dian john1]] ([[User talk:Dian john1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dian john1|contribs]]) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 14:27, 28 March 2009
![]() | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 13:26, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:10, 18 Jun 2005).
Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Boron. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Boron, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
Talk
What the hell is "continental pizza crust"? (Isotopes section) ;Bear 04:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
- Funny vandalism. Reverting. JRM 05:57, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
"never" found as a free element in nature?
The statement near the top of the article "Boron is never found as a free element in nature" is not correct. In fact, we know that Boron does occur naturally in atomic form (sometimes neutral, sometimes ionized), in space. For example, the Sun contains each of the naturally occuring elements in atomic form. Whoever added the above statement was probably thinking only in the context of planet Earth, and as such the statement should be corrected or removed.
I have seen similar statements in other wikipedia entries about the elements, such as this on the magnesium page:
"The free element (metal) is not found in nature."
I can see a lot of work has gone into producing these wikipedia pages, but it is disappointing to find inaccuracies like this in scientific pages. From reading other talk page comments, I can see that there are many people who are keen to improve and look after the wikipedia elements pages - please could somebody go through this page and also the pages discussing the other elements, to correct the 'never found as a free element in nature' type statements? From scientists everywhere, thanks! AJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.98.27.91 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
possible Grafitti?
In the external links, the last one is for 'zeroman' - seems to have no relation to Boron whatsoever. Is this a Wiki version of tagging?
Umm, for the phase of boron, is it really supposed to be dick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.43.86 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Amorphous Boron: green or black?
In the first paragraph, it says that amorphous boron is a black powder. Later it states that amorphous boron is used in pyrotechnics du to its distinct green color. Which one is true? (129.132.168.19) --- (flame color, article been updated since then) Femto
Boiling point
I've seen it stated as 4000 °C, 4200 °C, and 3864 °C. Also that boron sublimates at 2550 °C, which is not mentioned in the article. Which is correct? Or does boron have both a normal boiling point and a sublimation point, or what? Femto 14:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You forgot this article, which lists it as 4200 K (which doesn't agree, even with rounding, with any of the values you mentioned). Gene Nygaard 14:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yikes. (that's all) Femto 14:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This sentence from the article is hard to understand, perhaps even meaningless: "The latter effect species preferential removal of the 10B(OH)4 ion onto clays results in solutions enriched in 11B(OH)3 may be responsible for the large 11B enrichment in seawater relative to both oceanic crust and continental crust." Perhaps it should be: "The last effect, the preferential removal of 10B(OH)4 ions onto clays resulting in solutions enriched in 11B(OH)3, may be responsible for the large 11B enrichment in seawater relative to both oceanic crust and continental crust." Or something like that.
Bulk modulus
Where has the bulk modulus figure (320 GPa) come from? Several papers [eg PRB 47 (1993) 7668, Comp. Mater. Sci. 17 (2000) 127, PRL 89 (2002) 245501, PRB 67 (2003) 174116] list it as closer to 200 GPa, though there's some spread in the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.229.116.34 (talk • contribs) .
- Reference is elastic properties of the elements (data page), we mostly rely solely on WebElements.com there. Any references welcome. I have expanded it with http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.47.7668 (have no access to the data of other refs) and changed this article to the 185 GPa of β boron from there. Femto 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
boron is gay
This is good
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html 159.134.175.205 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Elemental Boron
Any idea how this is produced? It has seen some research as a high-energy rocket propellant, in eg the Blackstar spaceplane.
THis is utter speculation and should not be included in Wikipedia
Boron: Electron eater?
I don't know if this is vandalism, but is certainly waxing melodramatic; "in an attempt to quench boron's insatiable hunger for electrons." CompIsMyRx 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Only Non-metal Usually Oxidized
"Also, boron is the only non-metal that usually is oxidized (losing electrons) in reactions."
Is this true? Usually is unclear. Sulfur is often oxidized, so are phosphorus and selenium. Borides (reduced boron compounds) do exist. Boron is, however, the least electronegative non-metal. I will replace the statement with, "Also, boron is the least electronegative non-metal, meaning that it is usually oxidized (loses electrons) in reactions." --71.227.190.111 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Name origin
The origin given seems to be for borax. I read that boron was a contraction of borax and carbon, due to the similarity in appearance of the latter to amorphous boron. This origin is given in both the book Life Science Library: Matter and the book Nature's Building Blocks by John Emsley. --71.227.190.111 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The contraction of Borax and Carbon sounds suspect to me. There are quite a few elements whose names end in 'on', yet their appearance is not necessarily anything like that of Carbon. AJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.98.27.91 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Periodic Table
So, uh... What's the deal with the weird-looking periodic table? Couldn't someone just go find a regular one? Similarly, I've noticed about five different forms of the table floating around Wikipedia -- wouldn't it help to stick to one design, for the sake of consistency (not to mention headache prevention)? 71.219.51.225 06:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- The tables in the infoboxes? It's a regular wide version, what is weird about it? If you want to contribute to standardization efforts, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements and its talk page. Femto 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Argument against merging "boriding."
It's just one more use for boron. What are we going to do, merge "burning" into "oxygen"? Boriding deserves to keep its own stub (although we can mention it as a use here, also). SBHarris 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Nonmetal or metalloid?
The article states that boron is a nonmetal, but the periodic table coloring indicates that it is a metalloid. Leon math 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Metalloid?
Isn't Boron a metalloid? Originally it was listed as a metal, but it can be redirected from the metalloid page, and it is also a well known fact that it has properties of both metals and nonmetals, therefore making it a metalloid. Am I right?
- It's definitely not a metal. Sometimes people call it a nonmetal, and sometimes a metalloid. There is no One True Answer. --Itub 10:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect atomic number on image
The periodic table image in this article (B-TableImage.svg) has the wrong number of protons and neutrons for Boron. The correct number should be 5 protons and 6 neutrons (for the most common isotope), not 4p and 5n as illustrated. Possibly a transcription error from the Beryllium image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.20.35 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a pretty glaring error and still persists 5 months later. Whoever has the capacity to generate these images should update it.--Lucent (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I finally fixed this myself using 5's and 6's culled from the text of the SVG of other elements' images. --Lucent (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Added Google Video Reference
"Google Talks video featuring the late Dr. Robert Bussard, former Asst. Director of the Atomic Energy Commission and founder of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2)" see [Boing Boing] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.152.39 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Boron Compounds
Borane is an important compound for the semiconductor industry and needs the attention of an expert. 11
B
is used to make semiconductors radiation resistant. I also have heard of borazine, whatever that is. Here is a good link to a company specializing in boron compounds, [[1]] .
Doesn't make sense
- "Boron-10 content may be as low as 19.1% and as high as 20.3% in natural samples."
This statement seems to be mistaken, as the average content is given as 18.8%. Please correct this statement. --132.230.1.27 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Pro-boron agenda
The title item "Boron compounds show promise in treating arthritis." in the section named "Of the several hundred uses of boron compounds, especially notable uses" is hardly a notable use. I think the language for "of the several hundred uses of boron compounds, especially notable uses" also reveals far too much of a pro-boron agenda on the part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.137.179 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Discrepency: "vacant p-orbital"
I believe that there is a incorrect statement in the "Characteristics", 4th-paragraph, 1st sentence. It reads: "Chemically boron is electron-deficient, possessing a vacant p-orbital." But Boron's electron configuration with 5 electrons is 1s2 2s2 2p1.
Therefore, Boron should not have a vacant p-orbital.
Also, can someone expand more in this section about how Boron does not follow the octet rule. bdodo1992 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This refers to boron in compounds such as BH3, where boron only has six valence electrons and hence it is called electron deficient. (BH3 in particular can actually dimerize to form B2H6, where one could argue that there are eight valence electrons due to the formation of three-center two-electron bonds.) --Itub (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In its ground state electron configuration, 1s2 2s2 2p1, boron has two vacant p-orbitals! The 2p subshell consists of three p-orbitals, px, py and pz (although there are more complicated ways of looking at it). Boron's electron config. can therefore also be written as 1s2 2s2 2px1 2py0 2pz0. It doesn't actually matter which of the three 2p orbitals is filled first, they're degenerate, so I could equally have written 1s2 2s2 2px0 2py1 2pz0 or 1s2 2s2 2px0 2py0 2pz1.
Ben (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Minor Error to Amend
As I do not like signing up for sites I rarely use (not to disparage Wikipedia, nor those who regularly contribute to such) I had no desire to join merely to edit this small oversight, but felt simply pointing it out would likely suffice: In the "History" section it reads "...isolated by Sir Humphrey Davy..." which is an obvious mistake as his first name is correctly spelled without an e ("Humphry"). By all means, feel free to delete this once the error is amended.
Misleading statements that need to be corrected
Section "Characteristics" contains several wrong statements. $ First, there is a confusion about the tetragonal phase of boron (the one with 50 atoms in the cell is not pure boron, as was proven some 30 years ago... there is another tetragonal phase with 192 atoms in the cell, and this is pure boron). Second, the new dense(st) boron phase was synthesized for the first time much earlier than in the reference of Zarechnaya (see recent Nature paper of Oganov, submitted in January 2007, furthermore, the same group published an even earlier paper on the new phase of boron that also needs to be cited. Oganov et al. proved that the new phase has unusual properties due to charge transfer and it is the first ionic form of a pure element observed experimentally. Zarechnaya paper was published later and did not add anything new). With these changes, the text should really be as below:
Crystalline boron, a very hard, black material with a high melting point, exists in many polymorphs. Two rhombohedral forms, α-boron and β-boron containing 12 and 106.7 atoms in the rhombohedral unit cell respectively, and 192-atom tetragonal boron are the three most characterized crystalline forms. The densest (2.52 g/cm3) and the hardest (Vickers hardness 50 GPa) boron phase has been recently synthesized at high pressures and temperatures (12-20 GPa, 1500-1700 0C) from β-boron powder. Its structure was for the first time solved with the evolutionary algorithm USPEX for crystal structure prediction. This phase, called by its discoverers γ-B28, has orthorhombic symmetry (Pnnm), lattice constants a = 5.054, b = 5.620 and c = 6.987 Å and 28 atoms per unit cell. [1] [2] The structure of γ-B can be described as a NaCl-type arrangement of two types of clusters, B12 icosahedra and B2 pairs. There is significant charge transfer (~0.5 electrons) between these clusters, making γ-B the first discovered elemental solid with significantly ionic type of bonding. Dian john1 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Will have a look in your references! Thanks--Stone (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted this information into the main article with some edits, which I hope you will understand and agree with. You probably understand scientific scepticism to phrases like "for the first time". There was (is) a clear priority battle between Oganov and Dubrovinskaya and despite all odds, Dubrovinskaya got an early publication date. But. The original phase was probably reported by Wentorf R H 1965 Science 147 49 and who knows who else made it in that time of HPHT boom, but never reported. Anyway, let us focus on science rather than history. Best wishes.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In the new version, two things are dubious or wrong. First, Wentorf's phase may or may not have been boron. There have always been heavy doubts that it was boron carbide or nitride. For this reason it was technically "disqualified". Wentorf himself never did chemical analysis of this phase, and the likelihood of contamination is high, given how readily boron absorbs impurities. Wentorf did not solve the structure and thus his material was basically uncharacterized. I suggest to remove this controversial reference. By the same token it's OK to remove "synthesized for the first time".
Secondly, the reference to Zarechnaya really is a shame and must go. There has never been priority dispute, but an attempted plagiarism from Zarechnaya's team. As you know, priority is determined by submission dates. Look at submission dates - Oganov's paper was sent to Nature in January 2007, 2 years before Zarechnaya's paper! There can be no priority dispute already for this reason. Publication dates are also earlier for Oganov, especially if you look at the 2008 JSuperhardMat-paper. What's worst of all, Zarechnaya's team had Oganov's manuscript for all of these two years (since Jan. 2007), they never admitted it - but this is quite well known in the community. Cases such as Zarechnaya's paper are shame of science. To avoid disputes that could harm both teams, especially Zarechnaya's team, please remove reference to Zarechnaya.
Small comment - synthesis from alpha-B is less interesting, as alpha-B is less stable that beta-B and products of transformation may be metastable. Synthesis from beta-B, which is the stable form, does prove that the new phase is stable. In context of synthesis, we also should remove the word "powder". I also added a few things, for example on the highest-pressure phase. So, with this in mind, I suggest the following text:
Crystalline boron, a very hard, black material with a high melting point, exists in many polymorphs. Two rhombohedral forms, a-boron and ß-boron containing 12 and 106.7 atoms in the rhombohedral unit cell respectively, and 192-atom tetragonal boron are the three most characterized crystalline forms. The densest (2.52 g/cm3) and the hardest (Vickers hardness 50 GPa) boron phase has been recently synthesized at high pressures and temperatures (12-20 GPa, 1500-1700 0C) from ß-boron. This phase, called γ-B by its discoverers, has orthorhombic symmetry (Pnnm), lattice constants a = 5.054, b = 5.620 and c = 6.987 Å and 28 atoms per unit cell. [3][4] The structure of γ-B can be described as a NaCl-type arrangement of two types of clusters, B12 icosahedra and B2 pairs. There is significant charge transfer (~0.5 electrons) between these clusters, making γ-B the first discovered elemental solid with significantly ionic type of bonding. γ-B has a large stability field on the phase diagram, extending almost up to 80-90 GPa [5]. At pressures above 80-90 GPa, theory predicts stability of a superconducting phase with the alpha-Ga type structure.
Dian john1 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian john1 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please reply in right section.
- Your comments 1 and 2: Please let aside 2008 Oganov-Zarechnaya priority dispute. This is not a right place for it. Our purpose is to describe basic stable boron phases. Ref. on Wentorf (1965) is specifically added to avoid the priority issue. Wentorf's density (2.52 g/cm3) is remarkably same to that reported in 2008 and blaming him for dirty samples without evidence is not nice.
- Comment 3: Alpha-boron might be less stable than beta, but it is still regarded as the major phase, thus why deleting it ? (by this logic we should erase diamond).
- Your second correction contains more bad than good: "called by its discoverers" goes back to priorities; "At pressures above 80-90 GPa, theory predicts stability of a superconducting phase with the alpha-Ga type structure" sounds bad in many ways (i) no reference; (ii) not supported by experiment; (iii) high-pressure phases are too exotic for text on basic structures in a general-purpose article. Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Dubriovinskaia is a plagiarist
I agree with Onorem that this discussion starts repeating its arguments (and eating up space), thus I have moved this thread to the talk page of Dian john1 (talk). NIMSoffice (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Gamma-boron: Dubrovinskaia's plagiarism
I had some message exchanges with NIMSOffice concerning the gamma-phase of boron. In those exchanges I argued that Zarechnaya, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky and Filinchuk tried to steal the discovery from Oganov et al. Fortunately, Oganov et al. eventually published their results, and did it earlier. I am outraged by the behavior of Dubrovinskaia and her coauthors, since I have some documents proving their misconduct. They did publish a paper in a weird journal:
Zarechnaya E. Yu., Dubrovinsky L., Dubrovinskaia N., Miyajima N., Filinchuk Y., Chernyshov D., Dmitriev V. (2008) Synthesis of an orthorhombic high pressure boron phase. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 9, 044209 (2008). Submitted 3 November 2008, published online 28 January 2009.
Their abstract claimed priority of the discovery: “the x-ray powder diffraction pattern and the Raman spectra of the new material do not correspond to those of any known boron phases”. But now look at the facts - they had Oganov et al.'s paper since 2006!!!!!!!! At that time Filinchuk was Oganov's friend and got this paper when it was submitted (first to Science, but later resubmitted to Nature). I got these emails and was shocked to the core. There should be scientific tribunals to punish people like Dubrovinskaia and Filinchuk. I think Oganov et al. should sue these people in courts.
MESSAGE FROM OGANOV TO FILINCHUK 9 DECEMBER 2006!!! + Author Oganov Artem
Recipients Yaroslav Filinchuk, SNBL at ESRF
Subject boron story
Date Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:20:31 AM
Hi Yaroslav,
How are you? I'm doing well - just finished a new work (submitted to Science). I think you may find it interesting.
I'd appreciate your comments. Please don't show this paper to anyone. Tomorrow I fly to the USA, will be back on 19 December. Give my huge greetings to Masha
With my best regards,
Artem
- - file Oganov_Boron_Science.pdf attached
REPLY:
From: Yaroslav Filinchuk, SNBL at ESRF [2]
Sent: Sat 09.12.2006 16:09
To: Oganov Artem
Subject: Re: boron story
Hi Artem
Very good work! Your method of prediction of new structures is very relevant in this work, I would say it is a key. Though, I guess with global optimization the structure could be solved on experimental data, they are quite good. But with theory it’s more fun, this method is newer, it is unique, and can work without any experimental data at all, or use three experimental peaks for validation, when the structure cannot be solved otherwise. The paper fully deserves to be published in Science. Congratulations!
Are you sure that this is the first „autoionised“ structure of an element? For many metals a segregation of electronic states occurs under pressure, and I guess this also leads to different charges on atoms
Masha and I will fly from Geneva on the 18th, through Budapest to Lvov, will be home on the 6th. Have a pleasant trip to the States! I, by the way, have an invited talk at Gordon in the Summer. I see that I also begin to travel to the States regularly :)
All the best! Regards to Agnes!
Yaroslav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian john1 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevich O.O., Solozhenko V.L. "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron" Nature (London), DOI: 10.1038/nature07736 (2009). [3]
- ^ V.L. Solozhenko, Kurakevych O.O., Oganov A.R. "On the hardness of a new boron phase, orthorhombic γ-B28". J. Superhard Mater. 30, 428-429 (2008).[4]
- ^ Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevich O.O., Solozhenko V.L. "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron" Nature (London) (2009) published on-line 28 January 2009
- ^ V.L. Solozhenko, Kurakevych O.O., Oganov A.R. "On the hardness of a new boron phase, orthorhombic γ-B28" J. Superhard Mater. 30 (2008) 428
- ^ Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevich O.O., Solozhenko V.L. "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron" Nature (London) (2009) published on-line 28 January 2009