Agreement? |
Agreement?
The formula previously given, relating the measured intensity to the structure
factor,
j111 | = 8 |
P111 | = 0.894 |
L111 | = 9.20 |
F1112 | = 398 |
Multiplying these (and ignoring absorption) gives:
where c is the constant mentioned previously.
The units are not important since the usual approach in Crystallography is to compare two values by measuring them under, as far as possible, identical conditions. In other words, our interest is usually in relative intensities rather than absolute ones. When forming ratios, the constant c will cancel, as will the absorption factor, but only for Bragg-Brentano data.
A similar calculation for the 200 reflection gives:
from which the ratio I111/I200 can be calculated as 0.0958. If these "correction" factors had not been used, the simple ratio of F1112/F2002 would have been 0.052.
So basically the three factors have "corrected" the predicted ratio from an initial value of around 5% to a final value of 9.6%. A value measured in our laboratory using a capillary sample in transmission geometry (so as to avoid preferred orientation) was 9.5%, which is in amazingly good agreement with the calculated value! You might wonder why. The answer is that there are two competing effects that effectively cancel each other out with the sample as measured: absorption and temperature factors. The effect of temperature on the structure factor will be discussed next.
© Copyright 1997-2006.
Birkbeck College, University of London.
|
Author(s):
Paul Barnes Martin Vickers |