How Do Bragg Peak Intensity Ratios Differ in Ca and CaF2 X-Ray Diffraction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ichimaru
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bases Bragg
Ichimaru
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Question statement: We are given that Ca and CaF2 are both Ca face-centred cubic lattices, and that in the case of CaF2 there is a basis of F ions at +/-(1/4, 1/4, 1/4). Then explain qualitatively how the ratio of the (2 0 0) and (4 0 0) Bragg peak intensities in the X-ray diffraction patterns of Ca and CaF2 would differ.

Attempt at Solution: The main difference I can think of is that the planes defined by (4 0 0) would go through the F ions as well as Ca ions in the CaF2 lattice whereas the (2 0 0) planes would not intersect any F ions. In contrast the (4 0 0) planes and (2 0 0) planes in Ca would intersect the same atoms, and there would be empty planes in the (4 0 0) case.

However when I try to compute the ratios I get that they are the same, as the extra structure factor in the case of CaF2 just cancels itself out when comparing the (4 0 0) and (2 0 0) structure factors.

Any input would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you put all the terms in the structure factor formula? How many fluorine atoms have you considered in the conventional cell?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top