PERRING LEAD CE-STATE "CONTROVERSY"
HIDDEN IN THE EU + UK NEUTRON SCATTERING MICROCOSM
A 8 YEAR DEFAMATION PROCESS BY ISIS Inelastic Neutron Scattering
OF an ILL DIFFRACTION EXPERTISE in TREATING TWINNED CRYSTALS
HIDDEN IN THE EU + UK NEUTRON SCATTERING MICROCOSM
A 8 YEAR DEFAMATION PROCESS BY ISIS Inelastic Neutron Scattering
OF an ILL DIFFRACTION EXPERTISE in TREATING TWINNED CRYSTALS
Mid 2005 - Mid 2008
ISIS HAD THE WORLD WIDE
BIG FLOATING ZONE GROWN
KEY UNIQUE TWINNED CRYSTAL
TO SORT OUT THE CE-STATE : PCMO50
ISIS HAD THE WORLD WIDE
BIG FLOATING ZONE GROWN
KEY UNIQUE TWINNED CRYSTAL
TO SORT OUT THE CE-STATE : PCMO50
THE MOST PRECIOUS GEM - MANAGED
BY LONG TERM BUT SADLY BLINDED
EXCELLENT ISIS-CRY MANAGERS...
BY LONG TERM BUT SADLY BLINDED
EXCELLENT ISIS-CRY MANAGERS...
To my knowledge, only one such true half-doped manganite crystal has ever been available in the world. It is a Pr0.5Ca0.5MnO3 and it was in possesion of Toby Perring in ISIS. It was made by Pr Tokura in Japan, in 1999. So my recruitement in ISIS in 2005 was greatly motivated by this coincidence. I therefore joined the ISIS Crystallography group lead by... Paolo Radaelli - who made the pionnering diffraction investigation of La0.5Ca0.5MnO3! until 2008, when he became Oxford Professor. This started of a long term 10 years PSEUDO-collaboration a priori combining Toby Perring expertise in Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS), with my expertise in Single crystal neutron diffraction on TWINNED crystals (we'll call : SND).
I am doubly indebt to Paolo Radaelli as he gave me TWO Chances. First, to give me a chance in the ISIS Crysdtallography group in 2005 despite the fact "I" contradict "him" which demonstrate his scientific MAGNANIMITY: together with Laurent Chapon, he opened me up to other fields by including a vibrant Multiferroic Reasearch program (eg: this is the work on a triclinic system I'm the most proud of), or by pushing me to build up my own collaborations on Quantum Magnets: I cite this work showing a transition fromp HT Haldane's Chain Physics to low Temperature orbital and magnetic order fitting the Gouddenough rules, beacause interestingly, it is the magnetic structure determination of TWINNED compounds : and the world wide unique capability of SINGLE CRYSTAL Neutron Diffraction to deal with TWINS quantitatively is the key of this story.
Paolo Radaelli is also aknowledged in August 2008 in this poorly cited exotic paper about 4MN-ZP formation and non-collinear magnetic ordering in A-site ordered YBaMn2O6 Mn perovskites. He has been the only one in ISIS, who followed the publication fight (again, after formal apeal & 4 years of re-writings) and recognised my determination in the area at the time I was struggling as an instrument scientist to deal with computing aspects of the the Time of Flight TOF-SND program opportunity to recognise here the great understanding of his successor Laurent Chapon, to have moved me on Powder diffraction, on the Amazing HRPD beamline operated by the not less Amazing K. Knight built by Prof Bill David, ex-post doc of Prof Goodenough, in the field of battery materials! Exciting place! Exciting people who...
Mid 2008 - 2012
(RETROSPECTIVELY) GOT LIKE ME BLINDED
BY DELEGATING TO ISIS-INS THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE NEUTRON STUDIES OF THE CE-STATE
AND ARE NOW ALL REDUCED TO SILENCE,
BECAUSE THIS SIMPLY BETRAYED THE ILL!
(RETROSPECTIVELY) GOT LIKE ME BLINDED
BY DELEGATING TO ISIS-INS THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE NEUTRON STUDIES OF THE CE-STATE
AND ARE NOW ALL REDUCED TO SILENCE,
BECAUSE THIS SIMPLY BETRAYED THE ILL!
THE PRISTINE PRECONCEPTION MADE BY
PERRING ABOUT THE CE-State WAS TO
THINK WITHOUT STATING IT EXPLICITELY
"Well, thanks Aziz for your ILL-D10 Results"
& NOT TELL IT'S TO ALLOS HIM THINKING
"If the colinear CE-type structure is confirmed
by ILL SND : ZPO is NECESSARILY wrong".
PERRING ABOUT THE CE-State WAS TO
THINK WITHOUT STATING IT EXPLICITELY
"Well, thanks Aziz for your ILL-D10 Results"
& NOT TELL IT'S TO ALLOS HIM THINKING
"If the colinear CE-type structure is confirmed
by ILL SND : ZPO is NECESSARILY wrong".
And all my recollected Discussion indeed confirm T. Perring in 2008 SECRETLY FALSIFIED the first UNCONCLUSIVE ANSWERS brought by the ILL diffraction studies I was doing in collaboration "for him" rather than "with him" & the ISIS INS group: because they confirm the colinear CE-type magnetic structure. For ISIS-INS the result CONCLUSIVELY rule out ZPO
ISIS-INS indeed kept to himslef and has not well enough comunicated to me at the time (so I do not break and continue the ILL diffraction studies in INTERNAL collaborationwithn ISIS, fooled!), that this meant for them that my work show a contradiction, and that my verification of the colinearity of the CE order constitutes a discard of diffraciton rooted ZPO predictions of non collinear ordering - corroborated by neutron powder diffraciton experiments on exotic A-site ordered manganites that the INS group considered irrelevant.
In fact, this PRISTINE HIDDEN PRECONCEPTION constitute the first refusal to discuss and to consider seriously what Perring will blank out after forever - the published ZPO exchange model is compatible with collinear CE-type order AS MUCH AS the original Goodenough model. Unfortunately we never published and clarified the point, the alternative model that we propose explains differently the defective nature of the CE-state, because unlike the Goodenough Model, we find that our model is inherently frustrated. What we published, is that from there, the magnetic structure itself is questionable, but even assumin the known colinear strucure, the true defective nature of the CE-type magnetic order is not adressable by powder diffraction as it may involve a complex combination of structural discomensuration AND magnetic anti-phase boundaries, that are far more complex than the single discommensuration model of Radaelli, based on ionic CO.
...none of my CRY manager realised the DISAGREEMENT was deep enough it required to break my OFFICIAL COLLABORATION WITH Toby Perring, because nobody realised he was secretly driven by a hidden intent to TAKE SECRERT TOTALITARIAN CONTROL on the SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT & NARRATIVE of the CE-state in ISIS by slowly INTIMIDATING ME & "SCIENTIFICALLY SHUTING ME UP"more and more until it all craks up... :
Nobody realised and I insist, even me, this PRECONCEPTION is what's ROOTING the start of a long term Scientific Misconduct process the whole difficulty being that the FALFISICATION PROCESS OF ALL MY ILL STUDIES require the recollection of Biased Discussions embed in an SCIENTIFICALLY OPPRESSING environement created by ISIS INS... whose sempiternal hammering narrative was "the Goodenough model RULES OUT ZP/dimer models"...
WHICH SCIENTIFICALLY
TRAUMATIZED ME!
THE WAY THAT IT AGRESSIVELY
OFFICIALLY ADVERTISED INS
IN THE ISIS ANUAL REPORT
"DIFFRACTION PROVEN
AMBIGUOUS"
early 2013
from the ISIS anual report 2013
the Scientific exclusion of the problematic (red) secretly doubled by
the Technical exclusion of the ILL-CRY (blue) secretly doubled by
mechanisms of PERSONAL exclusion by Abuse (green) BECAUSE...
What authors abuse, is Goodenough's Name ! As the "Venerable"
Adjective is being applied here to his "Model", not to him! A model
Is not venerable and a venerable Professor like Prof. Goodenough
can surely admit that, especially if modern Science, including
the Exchange Model advocated by the INS analysis, in fact discards it!
as PCMO will stress, the analysis is justifying a Double Exchange picture
Interestingly related to Goodenough's Modern Idea of Zener polaron!
FORCING ME TO READ IN SILENCE, WHAT I CONSIDER AS AN ABUSE OF LANGUAGE (of the GOODENOUGH MODEL) IN THE OFFICIAL ISIS COMMUNICATION... realise after publiction, that the "dimer" exchange model had boycotted ours at the same time that the BLANKED OUT ZPO SYMETRY is getting all confirmed at the ILL here! TRAUMATIZED ME!
THE WAY THAT IT AGRESSIVELY
OFFICIALLY ADVERTISED INS
IN THE ISIS ANUAL REPORT
"DIFFRACTION PROVEN
AMBIGUOUS"
early 2013
from the ISIS anual report 2013
the Scientific exclusion of the problematic (red) secretly doubled by
the Technical exclusion of the ILL-CRY (blue) secretly doubled by
mechanisms of PERSONAL exclusion by Abuse (green) BECAUSE...
What authors abuse, is Goodenough's Name ! As the "Venerable"
Adjective is being applied here to his "Model", not to him! A model
Is not venerable and a venerable Professor like Prof. Goodenough
can surely admit that, especially if modern Science, including
the Exchange Model advocated by the INS analysis, in fact discards it!
as PCMO will stress, the analysis is justifying a Double Exchange picture
Interestingly related to Goodenough's Modern Idea of Zener polaron!
"Fig 2" : The calculation Fcal vs observed Fobs superlaticce peak intensities in PCMO50 using the PCMO40 published superstructure as a fixed models. This check (T=190K) shows the published structure of Pr0.6Ca0.4MnO3 fits the data on Pr1/2Ca1/2MnO3 at "first approximation"
ALL IS NOW RETROSPECTIVELY CRYSTAL CLEAR! THE "DETOUR" ON DISPUTABLE LAYERED SYSTEM TO ADRESS THE ZPO PROBLEMATIC WAS MADE BEACUSE IT HAS MUCH SIMPLER TWINNING!! - IT WAS MASKING HOW UNSPEAKABLE IS THE DIFFICULTY IF NOT IMPOSSIBILITY - TO TREAT THEM IN OUR PARALLEL INS PCMO50 STUDIES!....
FLASH BACK 2 :
OCTOBER 2014
OCTOBER 2014
TWINNING! WAS THE KEY ISSUE... WELL HIDDEN IN THE SECOND BETRAYAL SMASHING INTO PIECES THE "pseudo ISIS-ILL COLLABORATION" end of 2014... with the writing up of a paper that ended up with this TOF-INS publication on PCMO50 in 2016 -
AKNOWLEDGING ME THERE (?) for 7 years of ILL crystallographic work ON THE SAME CRYSTAL using my TWINNIG EXPERTISE done all alone, confirming the colinear CE-type structure, ending up with the KEY experiment in 2013 confirming the ZPO symmetry in the x=0.5 PCMO crystal down to T=10K... the whole COMPLETELY FALSIFIED OR PUT TO THE BIN...
... by an INS narrative that BESIDES DOES ALL TO TURN AROUND THE BUSH (THE PROBLEMATIC), AND AVOID WHAT....
ILL DIFFRACTION RESULT MAKES MANDATORY:
A NECESSARY CONSIDERATION OF THE ONLY
A NECESSARY CONSIDERATION OF THE ONLY
Existing ZPO model HAVING THE RIGHT SYMETRY...
COMPLETELY BLANKED OUT IN PCSMO (2008-2012)
& THEN IN SECRET FALSIFIED AFTER I COMPLAINED
IT MUST BE TESTED IN OUR ISIS-ILL COLABORATION
ON PCMO50 - DURING 4 MORE YEARS (2012-2016)
A MODEL, CITED IN OUR COLLABORATION REPORTS
STRICTLY NO EXCUSES FOR NOT HAVING TRIED IT!
COMPLETELY BLANKED OUT IN PCSMO (2008-2012)
& THEN IN SECRET FALSIFIED AFTER I COMPLAINED
IT MUST BE TESTED IN OUR ISIS-ILL COLABORATION
ON PCMO50 - DURING 4 MORE YEARS (2012-2016)
A MODEL, CITED IN OUR COLLABORATION REPORTS
STRICTLY NO EXCUSES FOR NOT HAVING TRIED IT!
What follows are analyses of the numerous PROCESS OF COVERING UP OF THE SCIENTIFIC EXCLUSION OF ALL ZPO & STRUCTURAL INFORMATION that can be read in between the lines of the numerous corrections that happenned between v1 (submitted jan 2015) and v2/published (July 2016) on arixv of the paper (IMPORTANTLY : BEFORE AND AFTER MY DISMISSAL FROM ISIS)
the number of references between the 1st version
and second/published version of the paper almost
double from 33 to 60 (!!!) to muddy the water,
and COVER UP the SYTEMATIC falsification
of Real Experimental Crystallographic Information:
e.g : the SYMETRY implicit in our boycotted paper
in order to achieve:
and second/published version of the paper almost
double from 33 to 60 (!!!) to muddy the water,
and COVER UP the SYTEMATIC falsification
of Real Experimental Crystallographic Information:
e.g : the SYMETRY implicit in our boycotted paper
in order to achieve:
Overrating ONE double exchange theory
in ways that implicitely consider irrelevant
Z. Jirak studies of the Real PCMO
magnetic structures
2) "Goodenough Model" victim of an abuse of language
an INS analysis lie, that hides it in fact discard it!
subtly making an abuse of the itinerant electron picture
of the advocated DDEX theory of D. Khomskii
3) Falsification by failed plagiarism of proven ZPO symetry
blanking out our Symetry adapted ZPO model
by building the wrong exchange models instead
falsifying my PhD thesis and the Problematic it DEFINEs
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ZPO VALIDITY...
AUTHOR ADD UP ALL THESE MICRO-FRAUDS
TO FALSIFY THE MAIN CONCLUSION IN WAYS
IT DOES NOT RENDER JUSTICE TO D. Khomskii!
They use point 2) to achieve their unjustified Goal:
an overated PSEUDO Instrument Discrimination
of PSEUDO-models to rule out ZPO, with results in fact
supporting ZPO/DDEX better than the Goodenough Model!
FROM THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE...
The whole is indeed done to reach
a FABRICATRED conclusion, stating that INS solve the Crystallography
cotroversy and that "The Goodenough Model rules out ZPO". This conclusion is the ULTIMATE
FALSIFICATION of the article's own narrative, based on the DDEX model.
The conclusion of the author by calling their preferred model, a "Goodenough Model"
(within DDEX) is not only completely unjustified but fraudulous (the
intent of doing that is not scientifically fair) and hides the fact
that the wording is doubly
wrong: that intent is to make the ZP model unecessary more controversial, and blur
constructive discussions about the nature of magnetic exchange in the CE-state,
in contrary to what the title of the article advertise:
It is contradictarily suggesting magnetic exchange is of SE-type (Goodenough) when the author in fact advocate an effective model analysed within the DDEX picture ASSUMING magnetic exchange is of DE-type (modern version of de Gennes)! The confusion is made all along the article, by using sometimes the simplified wording 'Goodenough Model' and sometimes the confusing wording 'Goodenough Model within DDEX'. It is a very subtly disguised fraud, because the intent of doing/blurring that has no other motivation but to use the name "Goodenough" to arbitrary exclude "ZPO" CONCEPTS from the debate, and this is done by HIDDING the most important PHENOMENOLOGICAL results , which in fact corroborates the ZPO if they are discussed fairly and seriously.
In fact by relying on the
DDEX model &It is contradictarily suggesting magnetic exchange is of SE-type (Goodenough) when the author in fact advocate an effective model analysed within the DDEX picture ASSUMING magnetic exchange is of DE-type (modern version of de Gennes)! The confusion is made all along the article, by using sometimes the simplified wording 'Goodenough Model' and sometimes the confusing wording 'Goodenough Model within DDEX'. It is a very subtly disguised fraud, because the intent of doing/blurring that has no other motivation but to use the name "Goodenough" to arbitrary exclude "ZPO" CONCEPTS from the debate, and this is done by HIDDING the most important PHENOMENOLOGICAL results , which in fact corroborates the ZPO if they are discussed fairly and seriously.
by excluding all CRY in CONTROVERSY
the whole INS analysis do not "rule out"
but in contrary, corroborate important aspects
of the ZPO proposal for the CE-ground state :
But the ISIS-INS narrative REFUSE agreement
because it is in fact ABusing the "Goodenough Model",
THIS! IS FAR MORE CONTROVERSIAL THAN CRY!
& THIS IS DRIVEN BY OVERRATED INSTRUMENT
ADVERTISMENT TRYING TO STEAL THE CRY FAME!
Without changing a word to the experimental INS analysis, the good conclusion is to make the following conceptual correction:forgetting
what is said about its "ressemblance" with the Goodenough model -
BECAUSE the chosen problematic, the clarificaiton of magnetic
exchange, requires to go beyond that - and focusing on its fundamental difference, regarding the nature of the magnetic interactions, admit that the advocated SC-CO model of the DDEX theory agrees with the
two main experimental INS results that actually strongly challenge the Original Goodenough Model :
the abscence of charge disproponation (corroborated in INS by the
abscence of different moments on different Mn sites) and the CONFIRMATION that the F interaction along the zigzag must contain some form of Double Exchange interaction (Zener mechanism in the ZPO picture, De Gennes type DDEX for INS).
That conclusion, is replaced by an
ABSURD CONCLUSION WHERE THE ADVOCATED "HYBRID" "Goodenough"/DDEX MODEL DO NOT ANSWER TO THE PROBLEMATIC (the nature
of exchange/associated here absurdly simultaneously to localised electron and SE, AND itinerant electron and DE) WHERE IN ADDITION the "ruling out of ZPO" FALSIFY the ZPO symetry and appears unfair and unjustified :
AN ABSURD
SELF-FALSIFICATION!
OF THE INS NARRATIVE BY
ITS OWN UNCONSTRUCTIVE
CONCLUSION!
SELF-FALSIFICATION!
OF THE INS NARRATIVE BY
ITS OWN UNCONSTRUCTIVE
CONCLUSION!
it is a misconduct against fair
Reasearch on the CE-state
in general and against ZPs
in particular
Q. E. D.
PROVEN BY
THIS ABSURD
AFTERMATH
Feb. 2021
Another 4 year later after the PCMO in 2021, data on PCSMO are revisited using machine learning techniques. I quote from this advertisement:
[Test 1] “The simulated images were labelled as either model A or B and they were used to train the network. When the network was fed the actual experimental data, it correctly picked up that the magnetic material structure was model A," said Toby, who went on to add, “What was interesting is that when I did the original experiment it took me three years to find the correct answer by combing through the data by hand. The machine learning model did it in a couple of weeks."
[Test 2] This was an astonishing result, and raised the question of how reliable the machine learning technique was. Keith explains, “Often with these ML models you train them to say A or B, that's all they know. What we wanted to know is how confident the model was that it was A or B." To test this, they fed the model fake inelastic neutron experimental results, which had very similar characteristics to the real data. The result of which, when the model was deciding its classification, it concluded, “I'm not confident it belongs to any of the classes that you've shown me."
[Test 3] Toby says, “This is important as there may be a classification we haven't yet seen, such as C."
Reasearch on the CE-state
in general and against ZPs
in particular
Q. E. D.
PROVEN BY
THIS ABSURD
AFTERMATH
Feb. 2021
Another 4 year later after the PCMO in 2021, data on PCSMO are revisited using machine learning techniques. I quote from this advertisement:
[Test 1] “The simulated images were labelled as either model A or B and they were used to train the network. When the network was fed the actual experimental data, it correctly picked up that the magnetic material structure was model A," said Toby, who went on to add, “What was interesting is that when I did the original experiment it took me three years to find the correct answer by combing through the data by hand. The machine learning model did it in a couple of weeks."
[Test 2] This was an astonishing result, and raised the question of how reliable the machine learning technique was. Keith explains, “Often with these ML models you train them to say A or B, that's all they know. What we wanted to know is how confident the model was that it was A or B." To test this, they fed the model fake inelastic neutron experimental results, which had very similar characteristics to the real data. The result of which, when the model was deciding its classification, it concluded, “I'm not confident it belongs to any of the classes that you've shown me."
[Test 3] Toby says, “This is important as there may be a classification we haven't yet seen, such as C."
SUCH AS... The CORRECTED ZP model, hey?!?
WE ARE STILL WAITING THIS TRUE ZP MODEL
TO BE PROPERLY CITED & TESTED IN (ISIS) INS...
||
V
TO FINISH : MY GRIEF
WE ARE STILL WAITING THIS TRUE ZP MODEL
TO BE PROPERLY CITED & TESTED IN (ISIS) INS...
||
V
TO FINISH : MY GRIEF