Szakmailag IS Hiteles / Professionally Authentic: ZGC Számadás

For Summary and Table of Content of the book,
motives and logic about Why the book had to be written,
or Correspondence,
one should scroll down until the English section.

ZGC: Számadás

Zóna Gázkromatográfia:

Kulcs és elrendezés
a teljes-elérésű multi-dimenzionalitáshoz

(nem) mellékesen:

Az Inkriminált Tudomány

egyben:

Krimi a Tudomány háza-tájáról

Információ a könyv kényszerű keletkezése körülményeiről, valamint a téma eddigi fogadtatásáról a kötet angol-nyelvű könyvleírása mögött lelhető (angol-nyelven). Mutatva ott az Analytical Chemistry szakfolyóirat főszerkesztőjével, majd Leon Blumberggel történt publikus levélváltásokat is.

Összefoglalás: (the English Summary can be seen below)

Ez a kötet az Multi-dimenzionális Gázkromatográfiát [MDGC] célul kitűző elrendezéseket mutatja be. Két megközelítést takar: a fősodort és egy olyant amely nagyrészt ismeretlen. Ez önmagában is kizárja az egészséges rivalizálást, amely lehetővé tenné a hivatalos összehasonlítást. Így ezúton kínálok egy nem-hivatalos egybevetést. A ZGC névre keresztelt ötlet deklarálta először a teljes két-dimenzionalitás színterét: a módszert 1982-86 között dolgozta ki egy a nemzetközi-porondon még ismeretlen személy, és extrém-nehézségek közepette jelentette meg 1989-ben, kényszerűen alaposan-lerövidített formában. Amit törekvésében hamarosan felváltott a GCxGC elrendezés, amely 1991-ben tűnt fel a porondon: számos kromatográfiás-műhely közös-erőfeszítése eredményeként illetve támogatásával. Ezt követően nagy számban keletkeztek a GCxGC sikeres alkalmazásairól beszámolót adó cikkek, és kétségkívül briliáns részlet-megoldások is napvilágot láttak a GCxGC koncepció merev kereteivel járó bosszantó-nehézségek leküzdésére; miközben a ZGC-t eszközzé-emelő kutatásokban a részvételem 1992 közepén megszűnt, ami miatt a megmaradt-csapat 1997-re visszavonult a projekttől – mindez sorozatos hozzá-nemértések miatt, ahogyan erről a Montreali affér kitérő is számot ad. A GCxGC körül felhalmozott kutatások azonban az utóbbi időben kétségeket ébresztettek a várható, de beváltatlan ígéretekkel kapcsolatban, ahogy ezt egyik kiemelkedő követője is 2008-ban megemlíteni kényszerült. Ami felkeltette a figyelmemet, és arra késztetett hogy utánagondoljak a kijelentéseinek, majd áttekintsem az eltelt-idő történéseit. Így a teljes GCxGC koncepció, beleértve annak eredményeit és fejleményeit is, alapos elemzést kapott, bőséges eredeti-publikáció vizsgálata bevonásával: és a helyzet még rosszabbnak találtatott. A GCxGC az eredményei megjelenítésekor olyan sok műterméket hoz létre, miközben kényszerűségből extra-korlátokat is állít, hogy ezek együttese kizárja a vele nyert GC-elemzések megbízhatóságát akár minőségi, akár mennyiségi szempontból – hacsak az eset nem túlzottan leegyszerűsített, puszta demonstráció céljára való. Nagy vonalakban az ok kettős. Először is, a GCxGC koncepció a kezdetektől fogva egy hatalmas-imázs mögé rejtett korlátolt ostobaság, amely egy gyerek-szintű tervre támaszkodik. Másodszor, megvalósíthatóságát tovább korlátozza a módszer szűk-keresztmetszete, a modulátor – az eszköz, amely ha megfeszül sem tudja elérni a tőle elvárt tökéletességet. Miután ez világossá vált, a ZGC újbóli áttekintést kapott, amely megszilárdította azt a meggyőződést, hogy az megfelelő és ígéretes út az MDGC felé, különösen akkor ha a minta összetettsége indokolja, valamint ha az elemzés ideje nem a fontosabb-összetevő az alkuban.

Tartalom

Ráhangolás 1

I.) Túllépni az 1D GC határain 4

1.) Heart cut 4

2.) Tandem GC 7

3.) Giddings-től Liu-ig 17

II.) ZGC: a semmiből a semmibe 23

1.) Az 1989-es cikk 23

2.) Előjáték: Az odavezető út (Történt ami történt) 32

A.) Ismerethalmozás 32

B.) A Pályakezdés végzete 36

C.) Függetlenség 40

3.) Magány: Megvalósítás, Kínlódás, Krach 43

4.) Fogadtatás 49

5.) A Montreáli intermezzo 53

III.) Eszmélés 67

1.) Az első impulzusok 67

A.) Váratlan megkeresés 67

B.) Szabadalmak 69

C.) A 2009-es Montreali próba-kűr 71

2.) Felderítés 72

A.) C. M. (meghatározó) dolgozata 73

B.) A Mallet Háttér 76

3.) Körbenézés 81

A.) Hivatkozások 81

B.) Fejlesztések 81

IV.) GCxGC: az alapok 86

1.) A felállás 86

2.) A debütálás 87

3.) A kétoldali limitáció 90

4.) Modulátorok 93

A.) A Phillips vonulat 93

B.) A kriogén ellenpólus 98

C.) Áramlás-szabályzás 105

D.) Számvetés 113

V.) A GCxGC Saga folytatódik:
Hajóparádé – a homokpadon 114

1.) Stopped-flow 114

2.) Dekonvolúció 115

3.) Extra 2D elrendezések 117

4.) A 3D irány 118

5.) A modulációs-idő növelése 122

6.) Ionic Liquid mint állófázis 125

VI.) A reflexió ideje (A Blumberg ketrec) 130

1.) Szembesülés 130

2.) Szembesítés 131

3.) Szembeköpés 142

A.) A lektori ítéletek elemzése 142

B.) A lektori „további észrevételek” elemzése 143

C.) A lektorok tudományos-tevékenységeit bemutató elemzés 147

D.) Kísérlet a revízióra 160

4.) Szembekötés 162

VII.) Régi tények és friss gondolatok
I.) Áttekintés & Elemzések 167

1.) Vágás-szélesség 167

A.) Kísérleti-adatok 167

B.) Elemzések 170

C.) Kilátások 173

2.) A szeletelés körül 173

A.) Szükséges-e? 173

B.) Mekkora legyen? 178

C.) Miként kontrollálhatjuk? 182

3 A felbontóképesség (alias „peak capacity”) számszerűsítése 182

II.) Összehasonlító vizsgálatok [a csúcskapacitás körül] 187

A.) Támaszok 187

B.) Irodalmi-példák vizsgálata 195

#1 (195p); #2 (202p); #3 (209p); #4 (213p); #5 (214p);
#6 (218p); #7 (222p); #8 (226p); #9 (228p); #10 (230p)

VIII.) Régi tények és friss gondolatok
III.) A lehetőségek körbejárása 236

1.) Kiút-keresés: Darabolt és összefűzött Heart-cut sorozat 236

2.) ZGC-MDGC: Alaphelyzet 239

benne: PTGC-kitérő (247 – 274)

3.) ZGC-MDGC: További-dimenziók 276

A.) Párhuzamos-kolonnák 276

B.) 2nd-ZGC 277

C.) Az állófázisok (kereszt) szelektivitás problematikája 279

4.) A „strukturális-információ” 285

5.) Az információ-vesztés lehetősége és mértéke 296

6.) A ZGC-MDGC felállás gyakorlati-kérdései körül 300

Alapvetés 301

A ZGC-effektus kiteljesítése 307

A ZGC-kolonna 312

Átvitel 314

Idő-igény 315

IX.) Epilógus 316

Levélváltás 339

A kötet elérhető:
https://www.konyvmuhely.hu/konyvek/zgc_-szamadas

kattintással vissza a Tartalomra

English section

Zone Gas Chromatography (ZGC)
Key & method to access MDGC unlimited

a method from the past
with a scrutinous analysis to compare it with GCxGC

also to spotlight the hidden features of
Science Incriminated as well as Demerits in the house of Science

Summary

This volume is to narrate attempts on Multidimensional Gas Chromatography [MDGC]. It covers two approaches: the mainstream and one that is largely unknown. This alone excludes healthy rivalry that would allow official comparison. Thus, hereby an unofficial collation is offered. An idea named as ZGC had set the scene: it was elaborated during 1982-86 by a yet unknown individual, and it got published amid extreme difficulties in 1989 after trimmed down to its skeleton. Only to be superseded soon by the so-called GCxGC arrangement, which made its first appearance in 1991, grown out of combined efforts and backed by many chromatographic schools worldwide. While research papers that gave eulogistic accounts on GCxGC applications began thereafter to pour and undeniably brilliant details came to light to help overcome the annoying difficulties that furnish the GCxGC conception with rigid brackets, elaborations aiming at developing ZGC to become a scientific-instrument received in mid-1992 a shocking jolt, which caused the remaining team to retreat from the project by 1997, all due to a series of incompetence, as account of it is given of in the Montreal affair digression. Research amassed around GCxGC, however, has lately raised doubts as to its expected yet unfulfilled promise, as stated in 2008 reluctantly by one of its prominent followers, too. Which woke my dormant attention and made me to set forth to dissect and fathom the case. Thus, the full GCxGC conception, including its results and developments, was given a thorough analysis by putting items under the closest scrutiny via examining ample original papers, only to be found the case even worse. GCxGC is prone to produce so many artifacts (including ghost-features, shortcomings, side-effects, self-imposed limitations) that these rule out reliability of GC analyses gained by it, either in qualitative or quantitative respect – unless the case is an oversimplified one for mere demonstration. Broadly speaking the reason is twofold. First, the GCxGC conception right from its inception is a mighty-looking nonsense based on a child-level plan. Second, its achievability is further limited by what is called the method’s bottleneck, the modulator – a device that, work as it could, can never achieve the sought perfection. With this seen clear, ZGC got some reinvestigation, which consolidated the belief it to be a proper and promising route toward MDGC at large, especially if sample complexity justifies and time of analysis is not the weightiest ingredient in the bargain.

Table of Contents

Tuning on 1

I.) To pass the limits of 1D GC 4

1.) Heart cut 4

2.) Tandem GC 7

3.) From Giddings to Liu 17

II.) ZGC: Out of nothing to nowhere 23

1.) The 1989 article 23

2.) Prelude: The Road forward (Happened what happened) 32

A.) Accumulating knowledge 32

B.) Career start escorted by Fate 36

C.) Independency 40

3.) Loneliness: Realization, Suffering, Collapse 43

4.) Welcomes 49

5.) The Montreal Intermezzo 53

III.) Awakenings 67

1.) The first impulses 67

A.) Unexpected inquiry 67

B.) Patents 69

C.) Montreal's bequest, from 2009 71

2.) Scouting 72

A.) C.M.’s (decisive) Thesis 73

B.) The Mallet Background 76

3.) Look-around 81

A.) Citations 81

B.) Developments 81

IV.) GCxGC: the basics 86

1.) The setup 86

2.) The debut 87

3.) Limitations: Practical & Theoretical 90

4.) Modulators 93

A.) The Phillips line 93

B.) Cryogenity harnessed 98

C.) Flow modulation 105

D.) Summing up 113

V.) The GCxGC Saga continues:
Boat parade – on a sand dune 114

1.) Stopped-flow 114

2.) Deconvolution 115

3.) Extra 2D layouts 117

4.) 3D ventures 118

5.) Increasing the modulation time 122

6.) Ionic Liquid stationary phases 125

VI.) Time for reflection (The Blumberg Cage) 130

1.) Blunder emerges 130

2.) Blunder exposed 131

3.) Blundering 142

A.) Analysis of reviewers' judgment 142

B.) Analysis of reviewers' "further comments". 143

C.) Analysis of the scientific activities of the reviewers 147

D.) Attempt on revision 160

4.) Blindfolding 162

VII.) Old facts mixed with fresh thoughts 167

I.) Overview & Evaluation 167

1.) Cut-width 167

A.) Experimental data 167

B.) Analyses 170

C.) Outlook 173

2.) About slicing 173

A.) Is it inevitable?? 173

B.) How intensive it has to be? 178

C.) Which way to control it? 182

3.) Quantifying Peak-capacity 182

II.) Comparative analyses [focusing on peak-capacity] 187

A.) Pillars 187

B.) From published GCxGC achievements 195

#1 (195p); #2 (202p); #3 (209p); #4 (213p); #5 (214p);
#6 (218p); #7 (222p); #8 (226p); #9 (228p); #10 (230p)

VIII.) Old facts spiced with fresh thoughts
III.) Touring the options 236

1.) Groping for a way: Heart-cut series stitched together 236

2.) ZGC-MDGC: The basic layout 239

including: a tour around PTGC (247–274)

3.) ZGC-MDGC: additional dimensions 276

A.) Parallel (analyzer) columns 276

B.) 2nd-ZGC 277

C.) Headache regarding cross-selectivity of stationary phases. 279

4.) The "structural-information" 285

5.) The possibility and extent of losing information 296

6.) On the practical aspects of ZGC-MDGC methodology 300

Fundamentals 301

Ways to increase the ZGC effect 307

The ZGC column 312

Ensuring the low input-width 314

On time-requirement 315

IX.) Epilogue 316

Exchange of letters 339

The volume is available:

https://www.konyvmuhely.hu/konyvek/zgc_-szamadas

Why the book had to be written

The ZGC book came to life by way of necessity, forced by two ingredients that needed acute scientific supervision. I would sum up the events that pushed me towards writing it as follows:

1.) The weightiest ingredient was the demonstrable shortage concerning the efficiency of GCxGC, of the method that kept asserting its capability of fulfilling multidimensionality in gas chromatography [MDGC] – as was stated by one of the field’s prominent practitioner, Leon Blumberg, in 2008.

However, there seemed to be no one around to treat the matter in depth, thus GCxGC continued to churn out papers, suggesting itself as a winning technique, an easy task without a competitor being around.

2.) Few if any beyond the author had a memory that a potential competitor existed – hidden though by 30+ years of neglect. This alone would have cried for an imminent scientific debate, but how can such be started if the voice/argument of the opposing parties are to be escorted and biased by a handicap that measures the weight of the arguments alone by the number of papers each party produced? [This lesson I must have learnt in 1986. Details of it in Chapter II.4]

Thus, I judged the situation at that time as not yet ripe for such a venture.

3.) The other ingredient was embedded in the basic theory of GC, which was accompanied by a hot search after the most-efficient arrangement. Common feature of such efforts was applying temperature-variability along the column with a change in time, resulting in papers that had their claims for the sought supremacy nowhere but in thin air – until Blumberg stepped in to show in 1994 [via a highly mathematized proof] that “focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing.” for the cases represented by negative v-gradient.

In the introductory part of each his papers that were destined to deal with the question Blumberg made reference to my old 1989 paper as well, despite it stated its aspiration distinctively elsewhere: on being the key element that allows to open MDGC unlimited. This [somewhere in 2018, at the time these papers came to my sight on the byside of following the course of tide and ebb of GCxGC] filled me with some uneasiness, because no attentive mind would enlist it among the aforementioned, on reason of ZGC’s temperature/time variance is a lot more complex; moreover, it is marked predominantly by positive v-gradient.

4) This side-effect of Blumberg, made presumably inadvertently in pursuit of his aim, may unhappily contributed at that time for the chromatographic community to regard ZGC as a method undeserving further investigation. My approach on discovering his proof was, however, of a more circumspect in its nature. Since his proof stands only for GC arrangements that work with negative v-gradient, there seems to be a room left for a yet unseen improvement in the realm of positive v-gradient – unless he puts forward a healthy proof to supplement his previous. At this point I bent to scrutinize ZGC in this respect, which brought up at first an incredible conundrum, but which by further thoughts got converted to a common-sense final conclusion, wider in its domain than Blumberg’s yet in a way in harmony with his conception.

This finding, formulated on a few pages, I forwarded in my native tongue to the Hungarian Journal of Chemistry [the manuscript is readable in Chapter VI.2], where it got rejection (the process consumed more than a year), with a reasoning given to the article’s central element from the reviewer of the highest esteem that “it is difficult to follow”. [Details of the criticism (vice versa) are in Chapter VI.3]

5.) To avoid such difficulty to rehappen, I felt myself compelled to turn back to the English media. Yet I hesitated a bit; so, to probe the field and to orient myself I have made an enquiry addressing the Editor-in-chief of Analytical Chemistry, in order to save time and energy, as well as to avoid a foreseeable pitfall. Thus it happened, that a contemplation over the would-be item in regard of how it can be adjusted to fulfill the set requirements of the existing Authors’ Guidelines brought up a no way answer in the end. [Details of how this conclusion has been wriggling out can be read from the start of Correspondence below. And it is part of the book in Chapter VI.4]

6.) The stage thereby was set: either to leave the whole matter unturned, that is, to abandon both aspects uncommunicated despite their weight & import, or to undertake the complete task in the hope it finds sooner or later somehow its readership.

Uncertainty that is felt to linger about this hope lurks from two corners. The one is the tongue in which the book was written, the other is that the edition is a privately financed one.

i) An excuse regarding the first may come from the fact, that to compose a book that covers via convincing analyses every ramification of all aspects that emerge en route I felt better to rely on my vernacular, being long detached from communication in English [as was hinted in the CV]. Nevertheless, translation as an option is renowned for long as a working vehicle, which nowadays are made easier accessible for any individual under the tiding crescent of AI.

ii) As to the second, instead of an excuse I recall two existing examples marked by fame [both have a Hungarian tinge] – without any explicit intent of putting the present work in parallel.

· Bolyai’s work known as Appendix would never have become known to the World unless his father takes steps to include it in his general mathematical compendium.

· Semmelweis’s achievement would also have been forgotten after the inglorious death he suffered in the asylum, had not he undertaken to fix his thoughts and deeds, perceiving the rationality of his few friends who asked him to do so.

Strange could be, I admit, with the up to dateness in the foremost, for those who checks everything against to the newest, a reiteration of an idea from the Past, but it is not unprecedented. Just the other day finished I an article on Terra Preta, a phenomenon discovered by Katzer in the turn of the XIX. century, but which was buried forgotten for over 50 years, except for his 1903 book, yet sprung up from oblivion to become a topic of intensive research today, on account of holding extreme benefit for soil productivity.

Details, enlightening the difficulties at the start as well as those that may lie ahead,
are to be found in the Correspondence below between the parties:

Correspondence

starting between me and the Editor-in-Chief of Analytical Chemistry,
around a preliminary question

[Letters are marked: JS.1=Jonathan Sweedler’s 1st letter]

EF.1

Jonathan V. Sweedler,
Editor-in-Chief, Analytical Chemistry

Sir,

I am writing to you in order to know:

Shall I bother myself with composing an article if:

1.) It is not in any regard an “Article (original research)”; instead, it deals with a hidden loophole in the fundamentals of gas chromatography, pointing out a striking behavior of a 30 year old method, which, together, might make a turn in what nowadays are called Multidimensional Gaschromatography.

2.) Its closest form could be “Comment”, except:

i) It does not match your fundamental criteria of “Analytical Chemistry will not accept comments concerning research published elsewhere.” The original researches compared therein gained publication scattered in Analytical Chemistry, Chromatographia, J. Chromat. Science, J. Chromatogr. A.

ii) Its content is far beyond a dispute between the authors; rather, it touches upon the very principle of GC.

3.) As a consequence of 1.) and 2.) its structure would be unique, dissimilar of the fixed buildup.

4.) The would-be author can not declare any affiliation (and thus a basic field in your template would remain empty):

i) Because he is retired,

ii) Because his previous workplace ceased amid turbulent changes.

[The same applies to Acknowledgement.]

Sincerely November 11, 2022 Endre Fuggerth

JS.1

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

A comment is meant to discuss issues related to a single manuscript.
It comments on the results presented in that specific article.

If one is writing an article that discusses many articles and focuses on a specific measurement approach such as multidimensional GC, the appropriate manuscript type would be a standard manuscript. I am not sure what you mean that your article is “not in any regard an article”.
It will be reviewed by experts in the appropriate field, etc. I guess the only other possibility would be a Perspective, but I would need to know more about what you are planning to determine if a Perspective is appropriate.

As far as a lack of official affiliation, many authors write articles after retirements and this is not an issue.

Regards, Jonathan

Jonathan Sweedler, Editor in Chief, Analytical Chemistry [November 11, 2022]

EF.2

Thanks for your response.

I mean the paper I consider to expound is not the archetype of “original research”, which is known to have sections like Introduction/Experimental Section/Results and Discussion/Conclusions.

In fact it lacks lab-experiments* (in retirement the lack of a lab is a grim reality – I wonder how other retired scientist cope with the same, and thus what type of papers they produce); the topic I wish to present is about a mental dissection of a fundamental statement (pertaining to GC), confronting it with results of neglected earlier findings, which – biding their time – seem to have now a weightier say in a matter that is admitted to have come to a standstill.

According to this, the buildup may follow this line: A questionable statement, A contradictory experiment, Conundrum emerges, Resolution of the conundrum, Consequences & Aftermaths – either bearing such subtitles or running the text without them.

From this it must be clear that your category of “Perspective” does not fit – despite that the “aftermath” may point toward a promising one.

* Many an earlier article belongs here. Science is far more than to churn out experiments by the thousands, it is a place where order is to be kept, too.

So, the question: Is there a place for such a “story” in present Analytical Chemistry?

Sincerely, 11 November 2022 Endre Fuggerth

JS.2

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

I asked the separations Associate Editors and their response was that this could fit as a perspective and they were surprised at the immediate rejection of this idea. More importantly, you have not defined the nature of the controversy you want to address which is a critical aspect of determining how the work should be published. The vague nature of your request makes it difficult / impossible to determine the correct format.

Without more details, it is difficult to be more precise in a path forward.

Jonathan

Jonathan Sweedler Editor-in-Chief, Analytical Chemistry [November 20, 2022]

EF.3

Thanks for your response.

Will you pass then, please, the following to the separations Associate Editors:

To show the points of my previous outline (without elaboration):

1.) A questionable statement: Blumberg took the weighty task to prove that there cannot exist a GC arrangement that offers better separation in term of selectivity than the isotherm arrangement (IGC) The proof he gave, however, is limping, cannot be held of general validity: for it does not cover each conceivable GC arrangement.

He states: “focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing.” (Chromatographia 1994, 39, pp719-728 (Erratum: 1995, 40, p218), https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02274589 );

and repeated quite recently: “The simulation of ideal basic separation (IBS) combined with a negative v-gradient confirms the conclusion of the previous work [6,7] that adding negative v-gradients to an IBS deteriorates the separation of closely spaced solutes.” (Journal of Chromatography A 1640 (2021) 461943 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2021.461943 )].

2.) A contradictory experiment: Among the uncovered cases is an arrangement called Zone GC (ZGC), which – testing now against his statement (via a thought-experiment backed by earlier experimental ZGC findings) – upsets expectations.

3.) Conundrum emerges: The question thus is, can the fundamentality of IGC be really in question, or is there exist somewhere a loophole, and if so, what nature it has?

4.) Resolution of the conundrum: Successfully given. The clue is in α’s inherent T dependence, combined with the limit of achievable IGC (in terms of band-broadening beyond reason).

5.) Consequences & Aftermaths: ZGC’s exploitable superiority against achievable IGC thus remains (whether it is needed or not), though the real gain it offers is elsewhere. It had been stated as early as in its 1989 publication, but MDGC has developed since 1991 distinctly in other direction. However, with 30+ years lapsed since, the inherent and unsurpassable limits of the key element of any existing MDGC, a stifling bottleneck nature of the necessary modulator, became clear and lead to confining statements, boiling down at times mentioning MDGC achieves no better than a professional 1D-GC.

Stating: “the peak capacity of currently practiced GC×GC does not generally exceed the peak capacity attainable from 1D-GC” (J.Chromatogr. A, 2008, 1188, 2–16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.02.044 ),

detailed in a vicious circle as: [to attain real superiority of MDGC over 1D-GC] “significantly narrower injection pulses [are needed, which] will push the requirement to the second-dimension data rates to 1 kHz and beyond – well above the currently practiced data rates. Similarly, the use of more powerful peak identification techniques along the first-dimension might require an increase in the density of modulation. That might require one to speed-up the second-dimension at some expense of its efficiency. That can also further increase the requirement to the sharpness of the second-dimension injection pulses and the data rate. This suggests that the road to realization of full potential of GC×GC can be challenging.”

Whereby a junction emerges: The potential of ZGC seems worth probing deeper, for it is an alternative route toward MDGC but without any kind of limiting factor.

Part 5.) might have bigger interest (having perspective enough), but in lack of new/live lab experiments no more than a cautious contemplation can be carried out based on experiments already done. Therefore my plan is to center on the IGC-ZGC conflict, with only a touch upon MDGC-ZGC rivalry.

N.B.: Adhering to the outlined plan, the article is guessed to spread to no more than 4 pages.

Regards, November 21, 2022 Endre Fuggerth

JS.3

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

I did get feedback from our separations associate editors and I have done a quick read of your manuscript "Zone Gas Chromatography" in Analytical Chemistry. A quick read suggests that it is interesting. This paper has been cited 6 times, the majority of them by Blumberg. So, Blumberg is aware of the paper.

Our take is that you are stating that your ZGC paper has been overlooked and it would (possibly) be of significance in 2D GC. We are not sure without delving more into the ZGC paper and modulators in GC how true or significant this is to the separations field. However, making this type of statement really involves a research paper more than a unique manuscript style as you suggest below. I don’t think a Perspective nor a Comment fit.

A few options:

1) You could write a review for another journal since we don't accept that sort of review, that covers focusing and how it relates to MDGC. You could then highlight this issue.

2) If you have enough theoretical backing and details, you could write a theory paper for submission.

3) You could contact someone in the 2D GC field and see if they would be willing to collaborate.

[Jonathan Sweedler, December 5, 2022]

EF.4

Thanks for the considerations you have made.

Note, however, that a cursory glimpse is seldom efficient to fathom the depth of an object that is largely hidden by whatever effect.

As I stated earlier in this correspondence, a seemingly small deficiency in Blumberg’s work led me to discover that his very basic statement about the fundamentality of ultimate achievable selectivity regarding GC arrangements is devoid of full support due to the lack of including many possible arrangements, amongst them a nearly forgotten one.

This finding, however small, alone should be enough to revisit papers involved to make the necessary corrections. Pondering over the matter led me to arrive at curious conclusions that were capable of putting the question right – via a byproduct that shed new light to the “out of date” ZGC.

This, connected with Blumberg’s already cited statement regarding the limitations of present-day’ 2D-GC capability, makes clear that a turn toward a matter laid hidden aside for over 30 years is more than a nostalgic visit, especially because the 1989 paper had declared the conception clearly to be a key toward 2D/MD-GC at that early time: indeed, two years earlier than the ancestor of present-days’ “MDGC” stepped to the scene. [There has aroused quite an upheaval among those worked strong on putting their version of 2D-GC under roof.]

Arguments to leave ZGC forlorn anew, which can gather their strength and momentum from nothing more than the multitude of papers that toiled with this technically precarious route that now prevails, are sure to lose ground if bumped against Blumberg’s barrier.

Strange would be to Science itself if thoughts around a 30 years’ march toward an unseen yet definite wall could not have a place to state. And if you stick rigidly to “Categories”, there would be no way indeed. In your latest response the possibility of a theoretical paper emerges, however without any clue as to its (prescribed) buildup. And, indeed, this is the form and route I wished to set sail upon had there been no laid-down guidance requiring authors to keep adjusted and be within its borders.

Your other suggestion regarding a collaborative work with authors who tied their names to “MDGC” as it is now is logically excluded. To present in detail the causes why “MDGC” is within a permanent wall (in terms of its aim for ultimate limits) as well as to unearth promising potentials of ZGC cannot be expected from a partner who has worked assiduously but blind on the previous and is completely innocent of the latter.

And though I had collected matter more than enough to let see by what peculiarities “MDGC” has become trapped, any statement regarding ZGC’s future is handicapped by reliance on old experiments only. Intelligent extrapolations can however be made, but a dance in thin air is worth performing only if its difficulty is appreciated by attentive minds. Wherefore, though not shying away from taking the complete task, at present I would rather be glad to be engaged in the smaller segment – at least for the start.

Tell me then, please,

a) Can I go on with my own conception as to the composition?

b) Is the topic judged to hold interest enough to hope for it being published?

Sincerely, December 6, 2022 Endre Fuggerth

The letter above [EF.4] was addressed so that Blumberg could read it, too.
I thought proper to let him be informed on matters that touch his previous results, as well as might be of interest to him.
Since no answers came from JS, I regarded the issue closed.
Efforts were thus spared in order to reorganize my thoughts around the bigger issue.
The writing consumed two years.
As soon as the book came out of the print I sent info of it, addressing Blumberg as well.

EF.5

Jonathan V. Sweedler,
Editor-in-Chief, Analytical Chemistry

Sir,

In reference to our correspondence between November 11 and December 6, 2022, regarding an article planned to deal with inconsistencies asserted by Blumberg in a pivotal point of GC, which by way of intricate connections pointed back to my old 1989 article (appeared in Analytical Chemistry) that offered unlimited access to MDGC before GCxGC’s advent, which planned article were contemplated/judged by you as one not to fit Analytical Chemistry’s publishing policy on ground of its unique structure being in disharmony with points fixed in your Author Guideline, I hereby inform you that instead of the originally relatively small issue the complete context has got an in-depth coverage in a book entitled:

ZGC: Számadás (written in my vernacular)

available from: https://www.konyvmuhely.hu/konyvek/zgc_-szamadas

in English:

Zone Gas Chromatography (ZGC)
Key & method to access MDGC unlimited

a method from the past
with a scrutinous analysis to compare it with GCxGC

Its Summary and Table of Content in English can be seen here.

Regards, December 1, 2024 Endre Fuggerth [attachment: book cover]

Leonid Blumberg begins to show interest:

LB.1

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

I do not understand what the communication is about. My name is mentioned several times including the statement of “a seemingly small deficiency in Blumberg’s work”. I would be glad to discuss the substance of the deficiency. If you would like to do so, please let me know what is that deficiency and in which of my article(s) it appeared.

Sincerely, Leon Blumberg [December 4, 2024]

EF.6

Dear Dr. Blumberg,

You are correct in that it is not unambiguous to unravel from the last letter of a longer correspondence between Analytical Chemistry’s Editor and me how you are concerned, for we were already deep in the exchanges when I thought proper to add tentatively your name to the addressed.

To clear at least part of the mist I am therefore inserting here the previous two letters.

(Inserted here are EF.3 and JS.3.)

In a broader context, recently I wished to inform the chromatographic community about a curious aspect found on contemplating scattered statements in several of your 1990’s articles in the light of my 1989 paper [E. Fuggerth: Zone Gas Chromatography, Anal. Chem. 1989, 61, 1478-1485, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00189a003], which meditation resulted something unexpected I thought was worth communicating. Rigidity of Author’s Guidelines however hamstrung it in the infancy – was the outcome of the exchanges you have read.

In the nineties you were deeply engaged in proving a very basic statement pertaining to chromatography (like the theorem of unambiguous prime factorization in number theory), an issue that seems evident yet no one has made an effort to touch it. One of your wordings is “focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing”. In these papers’ introductory part you cited my 1989 article too, which thus made it seem as if it was ever to state the opposite. On scrutinizing this aspect I found a loophole at the setup of your proof, namely: the “negative v-gradient” does apply to every other GC arrangement you cited except ZGC. In a ZGC scan variance of T at t is so complex that it escapes your treatment. This is the “small deficiency” about.

Without questioning your final statement I pondered what I could, and it resulted in a surprising contradiction, showing that ZGC could indeed be superior to IGC. The conundrum was however resolvable to a more general statement (leaving your statement basically valid), by pointing to a vital difference between achievable IGC [which gives observable peaks as regard to its height/width ratio] and unpractical IGC [in which the peak’s height/width ratio excludes observation]. And this comes from the special feature of ZGC: its curious descending heat-profile enables in later scans refocusing components that were moving at significantly lower T, where a is known to be bigger and thus serves separation better. In short: ZGC is able to elute components as observable peaks despite that they were moving during the greater/longer part of the process at lower temperatures – in contrast to unpractical IGC.

This would have been the story that found no place in Analytical Chemistry.

But, the mentioning of a 30+ year old article merely in a context mentioned resulted not once in remarks as to it being obsolete, out of interest. And here it comes a bigger issue, where your name & activity inevitably appears again: this is MDGC’s GCxGC form, where you have also a not unworthy contribution. Since the 1989 paper’s primary claim was to call attention and offer the key to a real-access 2D-GC, but research about it was unhappily abandoned, the title (and content) of your 2008 paper was electrifying. Thus, I kept an eye on the issue, began to follow up GCxGC from the start, and after the previously indicated small communication met an unsurpassable obstacle, at the pace I could afford I ventured to expose the bigger issue, covering both aspects. The result of this is the book “ZGC: Számadás”, on which I was bold to inform both of you.

However, after the events that accompanied my efforts through my scientific career, I opted this time for a less trying route by putting the story in my vernacular. [Nonetheless, Summary & Table of Content is available in English, as can be discovered under the link of my previous letter, and a good AI translator probably can do part of the job.]

Regards, December 5, 2024 Endre Fuggerth

LB.2

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

I have some time to discuss what you suggested were the “deficiencies” in my papers. In your message below, you write about two different topics in my different papers. Let’s first to deal with only one and postpone the discussion of the other. My comments within your text below are in red type.

Respectfully, Leon Blumberg

This is your interpretation of my conclusions. I do not understand it. Let’s not discuss the interpretation for now. Let’s discuss my conclusion as you quoted it below and its “deficiency”. We can discuss your interpretation later.

In my view, the above mention quotation from my Chromatographia 1994 paper has been rigorously proven and more recently (Journal of Chromatography A, 2021) verified by computer simulation. What are the “deficiencies” there?

(a) Is there an error in my proof?

(b) or, maybe, something is wrong with the simulation?

(d) something else?

Please be specific. [from Blumberg, December 6, 2024]

JS.4

All,

As Editor, my take on this is that Endre Fuggerth wanted us to consider a comment / manuscript from him. After looking at it, I declined to consider it and he appealed. I consulted two expert separations scientists / Associate Editors, and they both thought the work would be better published elsewhere and so we again declined. The work was published elsewhere which is what is typical in such cases. At this point, I do not see any actions is required of me / Analytical Chemistry. I take the last emails about the work to be information only.

Regards, Jonathan

Jonathan Sweedler Editor-in-Chief, Analytical Chemistry [December 6, 2024]

EF.7

No action is expected and no responsibility whatsoever is pondered, as regards the periodical Analytical Chemistry, Dr. Sweedler.

All I wished to inform you was about the “other way” I must under the circumstances have chosen, and of the fulfillment of the venture.

From now, it is up to you whether you are interested in what Golay Awarded Dr. Blumberg is to say & think on matters of fundamental import or choose otherwise.

Regards, December 6, 2024 Endre Fuggerth

EF.8

Dear Dr. Blumberg,

I appreciate both your answer and the intent to see clear.

Let me be clear on the point that I have no animus to search deliberately for fallacy where or if there is not any.

And though in the later part of my previous answer I hoped to express myself clear on summing up a rather complex issue, I give (in some respect a repetitive) brief blue-colored answers now to your questions in red, hoping that the content of “deficiency” gets clarified thereby.

Mind you, please, too: Points 1.) to 5.) written in my previous letter to the Editor are not “interpretations”, rather sketches about the buildup of the would-be article.

(a) Is there an error in my proof?

By keeping the Russian Mathematical School in high esteem, there could be very little chance that your proof’s mathematical part in the 1994 paper has gone somewhere astray.

(b) or, maybe, something is wrong with the simulation?

The same may hold for the simulation (its bigger part is, however, in your 2020 paper [doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2020.460985]), which for the task assigned seems adequate.

As to the asked experimental result I am sorry to inform you not being able to present any [research have not been done in the field (by anyone so far) probing this direction], moreover, I am even unable to produce it due to out of lab on account of being a pensioner. Nevertheless, an experiment to attest the question is realizable if one follows the route I outlined in the thought-experiment described in my book [Chapter VI.)2.), see Fig.3 in 136p as well], but it needs rebuilding and putting to work a proper ZGC environment.

(d) something else?

Here comes the element that makes in formal regard unnecessary all three previous answers to a)–c). Each and every approach where you scrutinize the question of ultimate supremacy of IBS covers “only” those GC arrangements that are characterized by “negative v-gradients” [which implies a unidirectional monotone change of the variable]. It requires not too much from the reader to perceive that ZGC, with its unique T profile, is out of the bunch. With this facet realized it is clear [that is: needs no other argument] that the case is not covered by your proof. (Wording otherwise: Your proof is deficient in regard that it does not cover every [in sense of “complete system of events”] conceivable GC-like setups [one of the missing ones is ZGC], whereby it cannot hold general truth.) This is not a blemish hidden between the lines of your papers; the fact that there may exist something else beyond the proved is the consequence of sheer logic, since every theorem to be proved needs prior fixing a boundary condition, which thus (usually) sets the limit of validity.

Try please to fathom the explanation I offered in my previous answer. Finding this “deficiency” was not a result of a reckless search to exclaim it loud, it pushed me to reinvestigate ZGC’s performance in the light of your proof because ZGC has not been covered by it. But, as I already said, this is to be treated only en passant however interesting it could be theoretically; the main issue is about replacing GCxGC, which by now became clear can show effectiveness only within its prison wall.

Please be specific.

I tried to be as specific as such an exchange would allow, indeed, for this is the only approach I regard a scientist must adhere to. And to add, this was kept in the foremost when the indicated book was written: throughout its 342 pages.

Sincerely, December 6, 2024 Endre Fuggerth

LB.3

Endre Fuggerth,

In your reply, you mentioned a book on ZGC. I am not familiar with this separation technique and could not find about it online. Could you please send me the bibliography of the book (author, title, publisher, year, …). [from Blumberg, December 7, 2024]

EF.9

Sure, Dr. Blumberg.

The cursory note I was bold to send [on December 7, 2024 13:23 GMT+1] to you and the Editor as well contained a link, which informs the reader beyond the Summary and Table of Contents on the availability of the book via a webshop, too.

I mentioned there in brackets that the tongue of the book is my vernacular, which might cause difficulties in getting accurate translation – yet not as big as if the item were in Japanese. I opted to do so because this tedious task was for me easier to undertake this way, after interest was declared to be stopped on behalf of rigidity in Author’s Guidelines, and I declined to receive similar notices without making headway.

Other details can be devised from the attachment.

I may add to raise your curiosity, that though the topic is by and large irrelevant to the main task, part of your fresh treatment of PTGC has also got surveyed [in “a tour around PTGC” (247–274pp)], wherein a natural restriction that chemistry offers your q_char can be made constant (making thus many of your equation/conclusion simpler – as well as this enables to change the equidistant dg scale to one that helps allocating n-alkane markers’ places by their a_T values), via approaching the errand from two ends: i) by analyzing your data after being filtered, ii) on reliance of your equation [dT/dg=q_char , proved in doi:10.1016/s0021-9673(01)01276-6 Appendix B] with applying the indicated restriction.

Sincerely, December 7, 2024 Endre Fuggerth

[attached: Summary& Table of Content (in English]

LB.4

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

I do not have access to your book, and, as it is not in English, I would not be able to read it anyway. Please, do not reference the material of the book in our future discussions.

Let’s go back to the reason for our communications which is your claim of the “deficiency” of the conclusion in my paper that “focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing.”

Could we PLEASE discuss nothing else for now.

And could you PLEASE be more specific. Your claim of “deficiency” is unclear. Is, in your opinion, my above quoted conclusion correct or not? Do you claim that the focusing CAN provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing?

Could you please be clear about that. Otherwise, I am not sure what are we discussing.

Sincerely, Leon Blumberg [December 12, 2024]

EF.10

Dear Dr. Blumberg,

It is always interesting to see a body dissected, for its smaller parts thus prepared can be closely scrutinized, though seeing and understanding the body as a working unit may for some hold a lot more interest.

Such is the case with your statement regarding the final efficiency of focusing in the light of possible ways for approaching MDGC. But turning toward the smaller issue in accord with your wish, that is, to explain what kind of deficiency I detected, I try to rephrase what has already been said, with small additions given in the hope that they will suffice.

1.) A proof is valid within the boundary conditions that were fixed at the setup.

Amongst your setup is the negative v-gradient as a fixed attribute of the chromatographic arrangements that were to be covered.

I hope these hold the requirements of being specific.

2.) Your claim pertaining to the case you aimed at is (highly probably) correct – I myself am seeing the issue true; although I arrived at it not via the meticulous way you represented in that 1994 article.

Speaking thus strictly on the content of your conclusion cited earlier several times the word deficiency is a mismatch, I admit. And if you are not interested in anything that is a natural continuation of the question the matter is closed.

3.) The reason I have chosen to address you with the news of my book was because I, after discovering your papers around the topic (as well as opposing views, together with your apt rebuttal – somewhere after 2010) I was happy to see that someone began at long last the toil of dealing with this basic point, have discovered a loophole that invited to investigate the case further in a broader sense, and on following the thread I came upon surprising things, which I thought naively that may be of interest to the scientific community through the periodical of Analytical Chemistry, counting you among the firsts, but events took such turns that the only means remained to give account of it was to be written in my vernacular.

4.) I have no inducement to repeat amid a correspondence the whole story laid down clearly in a book, merely I mention a few points that open up horizons, intimately close to the topic yet uninvestigated.

· What would be the case with GC arrangements working under positive v-gradient?

· What if the operation mode is a mixed one (regarding v-gradient)? – which is the case with ZGC.

· Since all accepted & practiced GC methods so far apply either zero or negative v-gradient, your proven conclusion (although explicitly not stated so) may be regarded as equivalent with the following: There cannot be any GC arrangement superseding IGC’s efficiency.

Which latter statement, however, cannot be held valid unless the case gets proved but with a preliminary setup wider than yours. It was in regard to this tacit equivalence that I was bold to state that your proof has a shortage (that calls for mending), using its synonym: deficiency.

And indeed, such an equivalence, in a form of thought, suspect, or confusion, can be traced even in your early papers:

1992 doi:10.1021/ac00044a028:

After classifying [by way of reference] ZGC in the first statement into a category represented by much simpler arrangements (as regards to variance of T with time and place) you jump to the question: „Can such nonuniform (coordinate dependent) time-varying separation achieve better resolution than the separation in the equivalent uniform time-invariant separation?” If one discovers the hidden entanglement in your introductory sentence [wherein performing a T program of any kind and effecting focusing are taken as an inseparable cause and effect], then the question just cited is practically equivalent with the one I tentatively formulated above. Then you put forward a conjecture in the form of a statement (“Apparently, for any linear (independent of a solute concentration) separation, such improvement is not possible.”), on which you were working until it got proved for the cases of negative v-gradients only. Whereby it can state nothing about ZGC’s performance, despite it has been enrolled into the camp.

1993 doi:10.1016/0021-9673(93)83204-6 :

Here you repeatedly enlist ZGC amongst the GC techniques that apply “many types of temporal and spatial variations”, yet its investigation is left out again, which is clear from both Table 1 and statement connected with it: “its main focus has been the most complicated case of the time-varying non-uniform media.”

1994 doi:10.1007/bf02274589 :

In order to achieve the task of proving the conjecture to be valid, you went further to solidify mis-presenting ZGC via the statement “Proponents of moving focusing suggest [1, 2, 4-10] that it can improve resolution and/or speed of analysis.”, because no trace of such aspiration has ever been mentioned in the 1989 article [doi: 10.1021/ac00189a003], instead it claimed its applicability articulately elsewhere, naming clearly MDGC.

It was only in retrospect, well after 2010, when I discerned that these covert/unintentional misinterpretations of ZGC might have turned attention away from the method, providing thus a biassed/empty terrain for the GCxGC, being at that time in its infancy, too.

Now, that partly your 2008 paper [doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2008.02.044] and my assiduous coverage [Chapters IV., V. and VII.II of ZGC’s book] made clear that GCxGC is destined to be trapped forever within the walls set for itself, and after a period of 30+ years elapsed in vain to witness MDGC flourish, it is high time to see what ZGC really is, even if the analysis of the intertwining topic is given on account of embarrassing confinements in a language different from English.

5.) As I have already stated in my previous letter: I am not searching for fault where there is not any. I may have used a word in a tongue foreign to me that has a connotation inconvenient to have got. Yet I am bent on the belief that no one who takes the burden to follow the argumentation as exposed in the book will not misunderstand the conveyed meaning, be it named by whatever variant of the above mentioned.

6.) As to the approach of your refraining from taking the read of my book centered on ZGC I have two things to call attention to:

· Seeing the many symptoms of standstill around GCxGC with the outcome of no real headway despite 30+ years of intensive research, it is rather curious that a prominent in the field shows no interest to fathom the alternative.

· I admit as well as agree that to get the sense out of a story/argument/etc. written in a foreign tongue needs effort, but this cannot be a reason to disregard them, be the work of Russian, Japanese, or Hungarian origin. For there exists the class of learned translators (if we keep away from the questionable capabilities of AI) – just as was the case when Willstatter wished to be intimate with Tswett’s work writ in Russian [though he failed with its interpretation*].

* See in Ettre, L. S., & Sakodynskii, K. I. (1993). M. S. Tswett and the discovery of chromatography II: Completion of the development of chromatography (1903–1910). Chromatographia, 35(5-6), 329–338pp. doi:10.1007/bf02277520
[The complete coverage of Tswett’s case from my pen is available, too (https://utazasokavizgazdakorul.blogspot.com/p/mihail-cvet.html ), as part of the ZGC book; Google-translation affords decipherable transcript.]

Sincerely, December 13, 2024 Endre Fuggerth

LB.5

Dear Endre Fuggerth,

The main reason for my involvement in these communications was your claim that that the conclusion:

(a) “focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing.”

in my paper about the chromatographic focusing (the use of negative gradients in solute velocity) was “deficient”. After several requests for clarification, I still don’t understand what does your claim of “deficiency” mean. Do you claim that statement (a) is incorrect. Specifically, do you claim that

(b) the focusing CAN provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing?

If you do not confirm that you have the evidence that (b) is correct and (a) is not then I will decide that (a) remains undisputed. I would be glad to discuss other issues of interest for you if you like. [from Blumberg, December 15, 2024]

EF.11

Dear, Dr. Blumberg,

To overcome the deficiency that may emerge from loose interpretation of the meaning of the word under dispute I opted to clarify it relying on several English sources:

Deficiency: lack (of/in sg), shortage, shortcomings, hiatus, imperfection

After I have been carefully specific on more points than required throughout the correspondence between us, I ask you in return to be more attentive when reading my lines, for this far a certain deficiency seems to mark its understanding.

Thus, do not ask me repeatedly to confirm whether your statement (a) is right, for I have already done it several times. Instead, try to discern what I stated, and not to attribute what I have not claimed.

Concretely:

I never stated that the conclusion phrased under (a) in your 1994 paper is deficient.

I wished to call attention to the fact that the 1994 paper has an inherent deficiency. Which was detailed in depth in my previous answers.

But let us get through it briefly again:

1. The 1994 paper lists several articles, including my 1989 paper [as a cited one],
as ones that opine statements contradictory to (a).

2. You set sail on clearing the issue via proving (a) to be valid on exact ground, to refute thereby aspirations (supposed to have been claimed) in the cited papers.
[This is – in a general sense – a venture to be praised.]

3. For this you set up a scenario, which is limited by a negative v-gradient.

4. You prove the issue for those GC arrangements that are covered by 3..

5. The 1989 paper is devoid of claiming the second clause of 1. [which, in this respect, is a false statement]; has a feature of focusing; the v-gradient acting throughout the scan, however, is clearly not in accord with 3. inside the ZGC column.

6. Thus, the proof of statement (a) gained via 4. [regardless whether it is valid or not] does not cover case 5. (because the binding circumstance of 3. does not stand for it) although on account of its focusing feature it was counted in statement 1.; thereby the aimed refutation under 2. is incomplete (and/or biased against ZGC).

THIS is [minimum] a deficiency. Deficiency of the venture, not of the proof [of limited validity].

About your offer of “I would be glad to discuss other issues of interest for you if you like” in the light of our correspondence have proceeded so far I am on the opinion that it could be fruitful only after mindful perusal of my ZGC book – just the way as I spent time and thought uncounted over many of your articles covering the milieu regarding statement (a), new approaches touching PTGC, and attempts made around GCxGC. (In order to shed more light on each topic, in the ZGC-book, which has [amongst others] for this reason been written.)

December 16, 2024 Endre Fuggerth

EF.12

Few who runs concerns:
Time helps thoughts ripen and smooth.

The answer for your sole question you have shown interest so far (in connection with a theme that is about to treat MDGC aspirant GCxGC’s diagnosed incompetence) is thus in ONE sentence:

The statement of focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing for cases with negative v-gradient is TRUE, while the statement of focusing cannot provide a genuine enhancement of chromatographic performance beyond theoretical limits available without focusing is unproven (as yet); wherefore the latter falls into one of the two categories: FALSE or INCOMPLETE (=deficient); whichever you like better.

January 22, 2025 Endre Fuggerth

click back to CONTENTS

Szakmailag IS Hiteles / Professionally Authentic

ZGC Számadás

Nincsenek megjegyzések:

Megjegyzés küldése