Working out Plane Structure via Powder X-ray Diffraction Multiplicand

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on analyzing Debye ring measurements to determine crystal structure through Powder X-ray Diffraction. The measured ratios do not align with expected patterns for cubic, body-centered, or face-centered structures, raising questions about the calculations. Participants emphasize the importance of considering the angles related to the Debye-Scherrer rings and the significance of maintaining consistent multiplicands for accurate ratios. It is noted that the results can correspond to a face-centered cubic (FCC) structure, particularly for specific planes. Clarification on the role of integer multiplicands in representing ratios is also provided, enhancing understanding of the analysis.
PandaKitten
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
I need to work out the structure of NaCl using its Debye rings diameter and the equation below by working out its multiplicand and then assigning the appropriate plane structure to it.
Relevant Equations
(h^2+k^2+l^2)_min * (sin^2(theta_n))/(sin^2(theta_min)) = integer
Below is the measured values for the Debye rings I obtained. I have to multiply the ratio (which is (sin^2(theta_n))/(sin^2(theta_min))) by a multiplicand until I get an integer. However for the multiplicand and the values I measured I get 1, 3, 13, ??, 4, 8, ??. These should either correspond to a cubic structure (1,2,3,4,5...) a body centric structure (2,4,8,10..) or a face centric structure (3,4,8,11,12,16) but they don't correspond to any of them and also they should be in ascending size.
XRD.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know what the distance to the screen is, so we can check your calculations?

It's important to be careful to note that the radius of the Debye-Scherrer ring corresponds to an angle of ##2\theta## (and likewise the diameter of the Debye-Scherrer ring corresponds to an angle of ##4 \theta##), if ##\theta## is the scattering angle. Did you take that into account?

Assuming you didn't make a mistake, the first four results at least are approximately in the ratio ##3:4:8:11## which is indeed what you'd expect from FCC, for the ##(111)##, ##(200)##, ##(220)## and ##(311)## planes respectively.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
etotheipi said:
Do you know what the distance to the screen is, so we can check your calculations?

It's important to be careful to note that the radius of the Debye-Scherrer ring corresponds to an angle of ##2\theta## (and likewise the diameter of the Debye-Scherrer ring corresponds to an angle of ##4 \theta##), if ##\theta## is the scattering angle. Did you take that into account?

Assuming you didn't make a mistake, the first four results at least are approximately in the ratio ##3:4:8:11## which is indeed what you'd expect from FCC, for the ##(111)##, ##(200)##, ##(220)## and ##(311)## planes respectively.
32.5mm
XRD2.png
 
Your work so far looks correct in that case. Here's what I think, denoting ##N:= h^2 + k^2 + l^2##:

1618683882871.png


It's quite possible that the (311) & (222) peaks, and similarly the (311) & (420) peaks, were so close together that they just appear as a single ring each.

Nonetheless, your results can definitely be matched onto the FCC structure!
 
Oh I see! I was given this equation that wasn't very well explained. So I assumed that the integer wasn't important and I should multiply them all by different multiplicands. But now I understand. Thank you so much.
XRD3.png
 
Yeah, the key is that ##\sin^2{(\theta)} / N## is a constant, so the ratio of the ##\sin^2{\theta}##'s of any two rows is the same as the ratio of the ##N = h^2 + k^2 + l^2##'s of those two rows.

So in that sense, your table is a little misleading, because all the multiplicands are of course the same - in this case ##3## - and this multiplication only serves to display the ratios as nice whole numbers. :smile:
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...