Documentation to "My Case"

October 11, 2004

Dr. Charles T. Prewitt
Geophysical Laboratory
Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015


Dear Charlie,

My account of what will become the true legacy of CHiPR is almost complete. You are the last missing piece. On the enclosed CD is the documentation and evidence that I put together between April 2003 and August 2004. You will find out that I mention you only marginally in my letters to the NSF and SUNY, which I did out of respect for you. However, your role was far more than marginal, being one of the four executive directors of CHiPR. You were at best a silent bystander, at worst an active participant in my persecution. Because my letters did not achieve the intended goal, to bring the parties to their senses, it has become necessary to complete this by writing a letter to you.

I still remember clearly the sudden realization, within six months after you left Stony Brook to become the Director of the Geophysical Laboratory, that your departure would have disastrous consequences for my career. What started as an exciting project and a joined effort by the four of us to bring the multi-anvil research capabilities to the scientific community in the United States and, at the same time, to make meaningful and lasting contributions to the advancement of science, has become for me a long and lonely struggle to succeed against all odds. Liebermann and Weidner never cared about my contributions to science, and viewed my success in research as an obstacle to their own advancement. All they cared about was money and power. But I believed for a long time that they would never dare to do what they did to me if you had remained in Stony Brook. Now I am not so sure.

The efforts to get rid of me intensified when it became clear that CHiPR would be approved. In addition, Liebermann and Weidner stonewalled all my suggestions for future developments; they simply did not want me to play any role. You may remember my correspondence with you from November 15, 1991 (enclosed), about the possibility of building my triaxial press at the Geophysical Lab, since it had become obvious that this would not be possible to do in Stony Brook. I am convinced that such a press could have been used with the existing positioning table to make possible routine in-situ experiments in the Sumitomo range of pressures and temperatures before the Japanese achieved that in 1995 at Spring 8. This was just one of the missed opportunities resulting from the Liebermann and Weidner’s reluctance to collaborate with me and, thus, to share the credit potentially resulting from such collaboration. You pointed out the problems with collaboration on the institutional level in your memo from June 1, 1992 (enclosed). Needless to say, your honest appeal to the CHiPR community went unanswered, and the situation reflected in your memo persisted to the very end of CHiPR. Because of that, the unprecedented opportunity that CHiPR represented for the scientific community and the geosciences in the United States was mostly wasted (see my cartoon from 1995, updated in January 2002).

The efforts by Liebermann and Weidner to marginalize me during the CHiPR years and later were joined by other members of the scientific community in what I see as still ongoing campaign to downplay, minimize and discredit my contributions to science. Unfortunately, I must view your failed attempt to rename some of the hydrous phases that I discovered and named as part of this effort (enclosed). Many scientists stopped referencing my papers; I no longer receive proposals or articles to review, not to mention my inability to obtain research funding or even a salary. This cannot be a coincidence; this must be the result of a sustained long-term effort involving many members of the scientific community to stop me from being active in research. The reasons are obvious, as this happened many times in the past. This is the result of the sometimes deadly combination of envy and ideology. There is no doubt in my mind that had I lived in the Stalinist Soviet Union, I would be wasting away in a gulag or, most likely, already dead. What many scientists would not do simply out of jealousy, they may do if they have an ideology to justify their actions on the moral grounds of a higher cause, in this case, liberalism, or, in the case of the Stalinist Russia, communism. I left Czechoslovakia to avoid exactly this kind of persecution, only to suffer a similar fate 30 years later in this country.

Dear Charlie, I appeal to your sense of decency and integrity that you demonstrated so many times in the past, as is also evident in your courageous memo from June 1, 1992. Please, talk to your “friends” and try to convince them to stop this crusade against me. I made important and lasting contributions to science; it is simply not good for science if I cannot continue to make such contributions, or pass on the experience gained in 20 years of hands-on research, to the next generation of scientists. You may try to tell your friends that you will break the wall of silence and testify on my behalf if they refuse to find a way to make it possible for me to continue to be a productive member of the scientific community. That should be enough to bring this house of cards down. Alternatively, I would appreciate if you could provide a written testimony in support of my case.

I hope you will rise to this occasion and thank you for your attention on this matter.


Sincerely yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Research Associate Professor
____________________________________________________________________________________

Prewitt et al.: Re-examination of Hydrous Mg-Silicate, Phase F
(Review for “Physics and Chemistry of Minerals”, editor D. L. Kohlstedt, June 1997)

Until the end of the last year, the nomenclature of the dense hydrous magnesium silicate phases was surprisingly clear: 1. We had phase A, stoichiometric and well defined structurally. 2. The homologous series of phases B, with 5 phases B: anhydrous, hydrous, superhydrous, fluorous, and superfluorous, all stoichiometric and with well defined structural relationship. 3. Phase E, unique by its nonstoichiometry and “fuzzy” structure. 4. Phase F, unique by its high silica content (Si greater than Mg). In addition, phase C and phase D were proposed in the past but their composition, structure and stability were unclear, primarily due to the limited information provided in the original papers. Despite no definitive guidelines for naming such phases, the use of these unofficial names was unambiguous and surprisingly consistent in a large number of papers by many scientists. This all ended this year in a horrendous mess caused by the “naming war” between the Geophysical Lab, as exemplified also by the manuscript under review, and the Japanese group headed by Kudoh and Ohtani.

It started when both groups determined the structure of the silica-rich hydrous phase, until then known as phase F, and found that it was different from the original structure of phase F by Kudoh et al. (1995). The Japanese group decided to name it phase G, and the Geophysical Lab phase D. This despite the fact that there has never been any evidence for the existence of more than one silica-rich hydrous phase and that the new structure was fully consistent with the composition and X-ray pattern reported in the original paper on phase F by Kanzaki (1991). Hence, we now have 3 different names for the same phase and no mechanism for selecting and imposing the use of only one name. Even if such an authority is created, it will take years for it to be able to decide and impose its decision. None of the sides is willing to compromise, so we are heading for years of confusion.

As is evident from this manuscript, the situation is likely to get even worse. Kanzaki (1993) calculated the powder X-ray patterns for 3 phases B and concluded that superhydrous phase B is identical to phase C, reported by Ringwood and Major (1966). Although, Kanzaki did not suggest changing the name, the authors of the manuscript under review decided to use the name phase C instead of superhydrous phase B despite the fact that the name superhydrous phase B has been used extensively in all publications since 1990 and its composition and structure were determine under that name. In contrast, phase C, as reported by Ringwood and Major (1966), is poorly defined and most likely not identical to superhydrous phase B, despite the claim to the contrary. In addition, it is now suggested in the paper under review, that the original structure of phase F, as reported by Kudoh et al. (1995), “is misindexed phase C, i. e. misindexed superhydrous phase B” (p. 2). Again, we have two different names for the same phase (not counting Kudoh’s mistake) and no authority to impose the use of the one or the other. It is bad enough that the nomenclature of the dense hydrous phases is alphabetical and thus by its nature confusing. Introducing new names for the phases already well known in publications under different names, using as a pretense some idealistic and highly subjective standards of “original” and “correct” is a misguided crusade, motivated more by the ego of the participants than the underlying science, and is likely to make the nomenclature useless for all practical purposes. It is simply not possible to change retroactively the names of the hydrous phases in the papers already published, hence, years from now, nobody would have a clue what they were about. Following are some arguments suggesting why are the newly proposed names of phases G, D and C flawed.

Phase G: The main argument against is that the name “Phase G” has already been used for a different hydrous phase (Gasparik, PCM 23, 476, 1996). Ohtani is already aware of this, and is considering to propose the name “phase H” instead. We are heading for 4 different names describing the same phase, and counting.

Phase D: If the authors are serious and uncompromising about their standards for “original,” this name is not suitable for a silica-rich hydrous phase, since it was originally proposed for chondrodite. Liu (1987) recycled this name to describe a phase observed at 210-280 kbar, which he defined as follows (p. 145): “This phase is characterized by a low-angle reflection with interplanar d-spacing of about 9.5 A and two strong reflections at d = 3.00 and 1.61 A.” The new structure of the silica-rich hydrous phase does not have a reflection at 9.5 A. The explanation offered at the Spring AGU Meeting, that the low angle reflection belongs to the unreacted starting material, is not likely to be correct because Liu (1986) carried out 19 experiments with the same starting material and would have had this reflection in several or all of them. Hence, the definition of phase D based on X-rays does not fit. The suggested composition of MgSiO4H2 does not fit either. In contrast, the original definition of phase F by Kanzaki (1991) fits fully in terms of both the composition and structure. The potential mistake by Kudoh et al. (1995) in the structure determination of phase F, as argued in the submitted manuscript, cannot invalidate the original paper. Thus the name “phase F” is the only correct name for the silica-rich hydrous phase, and the names “phase D” or “phase G” should not be used for this phase.

Phase C: The main argument against phase C being identical to superhydrous phase B is that Ringwood was most likely not able to reach pressures high enough to reach the stability of superhydrous phase B, which is limited to pressures greater than 150 kbar. Ringwood could not make pure Mg2SiO4 ringwoodite nor MgSiO3 majorite. The most Mg-rich ringwoodite he made had 20 % fayalite (Ringwood 1969), and the most majorite-rich garnet had 30 % pyrope (Ringwood and Major, 1971). Thus, the highest pressures, reported by Ringwood as 200-300 kbar, were most likely limited to 160 kbar. The hydrous phases were synthesized at the alleged pressures of 100-180 kbar (Ringwood and Major 1967). The pressure of synthesis for phase C is not given, as it would have been if it required extreme pressures. Thus, the stability of phase C is likely to be similar to chondrodite, clinohumite or phase E at most (see also Ringwood 1975, p. 467). Gasparik (1993) reported a phase in this pressure range with the Mg/Si ratio between 2.7 and 3.5, but lower in H2O content than phase A. This phase could be phase C. Another phase, interpreted as quenched vapor, had Mg/Si ratio of 4-5 and could also be phase C. Thus, it is very likely that phase C will still be found in future studies. The problem with the analysis by Kanzaki (1993) is that it is limited to 3 hydrous phases. Many hydrous phases share similar structural elements, which give rise to similar reflections. A definitive proof for identity of phase C with superhydrous phase B would require a demonstration that the shared reflections are unique for these two phases and cannot be found in any other hydrous phases including those that are still unknown. Thus, the suggestion to rename superhydrous phase B as phase C is premature. Even if these two phases can be proven unambiguously to be identical in the future, which is doubtful, considering the limited information available for phase C, it is not clear that the superhydrous phase B should be renamed, since it is already widely accepted in the scientific community and used in all publications since 1990. The standards for “original” are irrelevant since the names phase B and phase C were both introduced in the same paper by Ringwood and Major (1967). Renaming one of the 5 phases in the homologous series of phases B as phase C would create the type of irregularity that would be excellent as a trick question in some future tests for students, but is one that the scientific community can live without.

Specific Comments:

P. 1, Abstract: “Therefore, phase F as described in the literature does not exist.” I synthesized phase F, I saw it, analyzed it, published the results. It exists!

P. 1, last paragraph: The chemistry and structure of phase C is not known.

P. 2, top: “… in order to begin the process of using the original and correct label for each of these phases.” “Original and correct” by whose standards? Sounds like a crusade to me.

P. 2, top: Kanzaki (1991) was the first to report the correct composition for the silica-rich hydrous phase, whether it is called F, D or G. How could he do that if phase F does not exist?

P. 4. I find it puzzling that an experienced crystallographer, like Kudoh, would publish two different structures of the same phase under two different names. Simple misindexing does not explain the differences, since reindexing did not improve the R-factors. This makes the argument that the structures of his superhydrous phase B and phase F are the same rather weak. Perhaps, the authors should also consider the possibility that the crystal of phase F used by Kudoh was partially transformed. Since this crystal was from an experiment by Kanzaki (1991), its structure was apparently determined several years after the synthesis. This is in general a bad idea. It is known that some high pressure phases are not quenchable. Others are, but could break down later in minutes, days, weeks or months. It is possible that, before breakdown, these structures might undergo partial transformation affecting only some structural elements (for example octahedral Si). We now have several examples of such partial transformations during quenching, such as in CaSi2O5 or wadsleyite II. As a rule, structure determination should be done as soon as possible following synthesis. The authors cold verify this possibility by checking periodically the structure of their phase D and document the possible effect of “aging.”

P. 5, Conclusions: I simply cannot see the logic of some of the statements in this section. The authors apparently fully confirmed the original synthesis by Kanzaki (1991) indicating that the product of the synthesis was a mix of two phases: superhydrous phase B and phase F. Kudoh apparently made a mistake by analyzing phase F but carrying out the structure determination on a crystal of superhydrous phase B. How can Kudoh’s mistake make “the previous report of the synthesis of phase F by Kanzaki (1991) incorrect?”

Fig. 1: Liu (1987) reported 8 reflections for phase D, while the pattern at the bottom of Fig. 1 has 11 lines.

Summary

The manuscript reports potentially useful information, identifying a mistake by Kudoh et al. (1995) in their structure determination of phase F. Ironically, this provides a strong argument in favor of retaining the original name of phase F for the silica-rich hydrous phase, and an opportunity to compromise and achieve a truce in the “naming war” between the Geophysical Lab and Japan. Unfortunately, the manuscript is incomprehensible because the authors insist on using a terminology unfamiliar to the scientific community. Therefore, I find the manuscript unacceptable for publication. If the authors feel that their evidence is solid and decide to resubmit this paper, I would advise them to concentrate on science and use the terminology currently in use and comprehensible to the scientific community. If they still believe that the current terminology needs to be changed, they should find a different venue to achieve this, preferable one based on consensus.
____________________________________________________________________________________

November 15, 1991

Dr. Charles T. Prewitt, Director
Geophysical Laboratory
Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015-1305

Dear Charlie:

I am responding to your request for more information about my design of a Triaxial Multianvil Apparatus. The CHiPR Advisory Committee Meeting at the Geophysical Lab clearly showed that the outside scientific community expects us to develop a new generation multianvil apparatus. In other words, if we do not come up with a major developmental initiative as the direct result of the existence of the Center, we will not be able to live up to the expectations, no matter how much science we produce. Such project has to be advanced far enough at the end of the three-year evaluation period that the committee can be convinced about its success. As pointed out by Raymond Jeanloz, the time to start is now. The future of the Center may well depend on it.

Enclosed, please find a copy of a memorandum submitted to the Director of the Center on February 26, 1991, in which I proposed to design a new generation multianvil apparatus and outlined the desired properties of such a press. I believe that my design of the Triaxial Multianvil Apparatus satisfies all requirements.

The apparatus should combine the capabilities of the split-sphere anvil apparatus and the DIA-type apparatus, thus allowing in situ observations at the highest pressures and temperatures currently accessible in a multianvil apparatus, which is 3000oC and 27 GPa. Parallel advances with sintered diamonds could increase this range to even higher pressures. Such development is possible only by decreasing the size of the press, so it would fit in a hutch and can be handled with a positioning table.

The developments by Dave Walker in miniaturizing the multianvil design attracted wide attention. His design is now used in several labs, including yours. However, this design is not helpful in developing a new generation press. Dave Walker miniaturized the guideblocks, so they would fit in a piston and cylinder apparatus. While this made the capabilities of a multianvil apparatus accessible to any lab with a piston and cylinder apparatus, very few of these devices can reach the 1000-ton force required to take advantage of the full potential of the multianvil design. On the other hand, a 1000-ton press is usually large enough so that small guideblocks are not necessary. Most of the labs, including Walker’s, are now using his design in a large press, thus defeating the purpose for miniaturization. Clearly, it is not enough to decrease the size of the guideblocks; it is also necessary to decrease the size of the press.

The smallest uniaxial 1000-ton press I have seen is the Kennedy-type piston and cylinder that we have in the lab. The decrease in size is achieved by stacking two jacks in vertical direction and combining their force. Smaller jacks allow to decrease the separation of the posts, resulting in a more compact design. However, the oil pressure needed to reach 1000 tons is too high, as is the vertical dimension of the press.

Further decrease in size can only be achieved by noting that we do not need 1000-ton force all in one direction. The purpose of the quideblocks is to divide the total force into 3 directions; thus, we need only 330 tons in any direction. A triaxial press can be a 330-ton press, thus, much smaller.

Triaxial presses have been built before, usually as a system of six jacks. My design uses only three jacks, which push against the frame. A major disadvantage of the previous designs was the difficulty in synchronizing the advancement of the pistons. My design uses a synchronizer, which eliminates this problem.

Enclosed, please find the description and the drawing of the press. By eliminating 3 jacks, the second-stage anvil system of 8 cubes is located in one corner of the frame, and accessible to x-rays through the gap between the upper and lower frame. The largest dimension is slightly over 4 feet, thus, the press is extremely compact. Even without the in situ capability, this could be the small and cheap design affordable by any lab that Walker tried to build. I proposed to build first a prototype without the in situ capability, which would demonstrate the feasibility of the design. The next step would be to optimize the design in terms of weight and build the next press for in situ work.

I hope you will like the design and find a way to build it. Also enclosed is a copy of my latest manuscript.

Sincerely yours,


Tibor Gasparik
____________________________________________________________________________________

Description of the Triaxial Multianvil Apparatus

Tibor Gasparik (CHiPR and Department of Earth and Space Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794)

The Triaxial Multianvil Apparatus consists of the following parts: upper frame, lower frame, upper plate, lower plate, 2 posts, 3 jacks, guideblock, synchronizer, synchronizer guide, spacer.

The two frames provide support for two horizontal jacks, which compress the second stage anvil assembly of 8 tungsten carbide cubes against the guideblock mounted on the frames. A gap between the two frames allows access for x-rays to the sample. The plates and posts provide support for the third vertical jack, which compresses the second stage anvil assembly in the downward direction. A removable space suspended from a track mounted on the piston of the vertical jack allows to create working space necessary for placement and removal of the second stage anvil assembly and the synchronizer. With the spacer in place, all parts fit tightly, which minimizes the free travel on compression and thus the displacement of the pistons. This eliminates the need for a fast-advance hydraulic system. The jacks have 10” diameter pistons, which allow to reach 1000-ton force with the oil pressure of 660 kg/cm2. This is low enough for potential automation of the hydraulic system using solenoid valves.

The synchronizer forces the pistons to advance at the same rate. This removable piece has a cubic cavity and a rod in the 111 direction of the cubic cavity. The synchronizer guide is a mount with a cylindrical cavity, which guides the rod of the synchronizer and allows its movement only in the 111 direction. The synchronizer thus compresses 3 sides of the second stage anvil assembly, while the other 3 sides are supported by the guideblock. Hence, the configuration is the same as in the split-sphere anvil apparatus. After decompression, the synchronizer is removed by unscrewing a plate from the guide, which opens the cylindrical cavity.

The live electrical cable for heating is attached to the synchronizer, while the guideblock is the ground. The ends of the pistons and the synchronizer guide are electrically insulated from the frame by phenolic plates. The air pump, hydraulic system, heating system and the front panel could be mounted on the frame between the two horizontal jacks. Thus, the whole system can be contained in a single unit.
____________________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM

TO: D. J. Weidner, Director, Mineral Physics Institute
FROM: T. Gasparik, Manager, High Pressure Lab
SUBJECT: Plans for 1991-93 Phase of Center for High Pressure Research
DATE: February 26, 1991

Following on the memoranda by Weidner and Liebermann, I would like to highlight those objectives for the High Pressure Lab that I expect to pursue.

1. I consider it crucial for the 3rd year evaluation of the Center that we identify and bring to an advance stage of completion a technological development project that would represent a unique contribution of this Center to the high-pressure research. After discussions with Weidner, Liebermann and Vaughan, the most suitable project appears to be the development of a press that would combine the capabilities of our two main research tools, USSA-2000 and SAM-85. I am proposing to design such a press. This press would allow to conduct in situ research using synchrotron radiation at pressures at least 226 kbar and up to 2500oC temperatures. Any further developments with USSA-2000 that would allow to extent the current range to higher pressures, temperatures and volumes, would be fully applicable to the new press. The press would be ½ the height of SAM-85, and would fit within the outline of the positioning table (including the hydraulic system), although it is likely to be twice as heavy as SAM-85. The maximum operating oil pressure would be 750 bar, which would allow the use of remotely operated solenoid valves. If we decide to build the press, we cold start immediately a search for the company that could build it. An important requirement for selecting the manufacturer would be his ability to optimize the design in terms of weight. An American manufacturer is politically preferred; a Long Island manufacturer would be ideal.

2. In order to demonstrate that the three geographically separated sites comprising the Center can function as a center, despite the separation, and, more importantly, that something unique will have been produced as a direct result of uniting these institutions in one center, we should identify a scientific project that would represent a glaring example of cooperation among the three institutions and, clearly, would not have been possible without the existence of the Center. I propose for such a project a multi-approach study of volatile-bearing high-pressure compounds, which include H2O, CO2, Cl, and F (see the enclosed abstract). During the last visit, Charlie Prewitt showed an eminent interest in pursuing such study, Rich Reeder would like to study the carbonates, I am starting a study of chlorine-bearing compounds, and, according to Kurt, Navrotsky has just developed a technique for calorimetric study of hydrous phase. These phases may turn out to be extremely important for understanding the transition zone and the structure of the whole mantle.

3. In the near future, I will try to extend the current pressure range of the 10/4 assembly (226 kbar) to higher pressures using sintered diamond inserts as a third anvil stage. I will also try to develop an 18 mm assembly for ultrahigh temperatures to 3000oC, at pressure up to 100 kbar.

4. Personal Goals: I am starting work on two projects: Phase relations of chlorine and fluorine bearing phases in the transition zone, and phase relations on the diopside-jadeite join at 155-220 kbar. In the future, I would like to extend my phase equilibrium studies to iron-bearing systems, most likely by using a double-capsule method, by which an alumina capsule within a rhenium capsule would prevent the loss of iron from the starting material. By the end of the third year, I will have published a book on phase relations involving pyroxenes, which will include all work conducted with USSA-2000.

Distribution: Leinenweber, Liebermann, Lindsley, Parise, Nekvasil, Reeder, Vaughan, Weidner.