Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Response to Fraser & Wark's comments on A new theory for X‐ray diffraction

Response to Fraser & Wark's comments on A new theory for X‐ray diffraction The criticisms of my theory, as given by Fraser & Wark [(2018), Acta Cryst. A74, 447–456], are built on a misunderstanding of the concept and the methodology I have used. The assumption they have made rules out my description from which they conclude that my theory is proved to be wrong. They assume that I have misunderstood the diffraction associated with the shape of a crystal and my calculation is only relevant to a parallelepiped and even that I have got wrong. It only appears wrong to Fraser & Wark because the effect I predict has nothing to do with the crystal shape. The effect though can be measured as well as the crystal shape effects. This response describes my reasoning behind the theory, how it can be related to the Ewald sphere construction, and the build‐up of the full diffraction pattern from all the scatterers in a stack of planes. It is the latter point that makes the Fraser & Wark analysis incomplete. The description given in this article describes my approach much more precisely with reference to the Ewald sphere construction. Several experiments are described that directly measure the predictions of the new theory, which are explained with reference to the Ewald sphere description. In its simplest terms the new theory can be considered as giving a thickness to the Ewald sphere surface, whereas in the conventional theory it has no thickness. Any thickness immediately informs us that the scattering from a peak at the Bragg angle does not have to be in the Bragg condition to be observed. I believe the conventional theory is a very good approximation, but as soon as it is tested with careful experiments it is shown to be incomplete. The new theory puts forward the idea that there is persistent intensity at the Bragg scattering angle outside the Bragg condition. This intensity is weak (∼10−5) but can be observed in careful laboratory experiments, despite being on the limit of observation, yet it has a profound impact on how we should interpret diffraction patterns. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances Wiley

Response to Fraser & Wark's comments on A new theory for X‐ray diffraction

9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/response-to-fraser-wark-s-comments-on-a-new-theory-for-x-ray-F0KAz8Z0g4

References (44)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0108-7673
eISSN
1600-5724
DOI
10.1107/S2053273318007489
pmid
30182933
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The criticisms of my theory, as given by Fraser & Wark [(2018), Acta Cryst. A74, 447–456], are built on a misunderstanding of the concept and the methodology I have used. The assumption they have made rules out my description from which they conclude that my theory is proved to be wrong. They assume that I have misunderstood the diffraction associated with the shape of a crystal and my calculation is only relevant to a parallelepiped and even that I have got wrong. It only appears wrong to Fraser & Wark because the effect I predict has nothing to do with the crystal shape. The effect though can be measured as well as the crystal shape effects. This response describes my reasoning behind the theory, how it can be related to the Ewald sphere construction, and the build‐up of the full diffraction pattern from all the scatterers in a stack of planes. It is the latter point that makes the Fraser & Wark analysis incomplete. The description given in this article describes my approach much more precisely with reference to the Ewald sphere construction. Several experiments are described that directly measure the predictions of the new theory, which are explained with reference to the Ewald sphere description. In its simplest terms the new theory can be considered as giving a thickness to the Ewald sphere surface, whereas in the conventional theory it has no thickness. Any thickness immediately informs us that the scattering from a peak at the Bragg angle does not have to be in the Bragg condition to be observed. I believe the conventional theory is a very good approximation, but as soon as it is tested with careful experiments it is shown to be incomplete. The new theory puts forward the idea that there is persistent intensity at the Bragg scattering angle outside the Bragg condition. This intensity is weak (∼10−5) but can be observed in careful laboratory experiments, despite being on the limit of observation, yet it has a profound impact on how we should interpret diffraction patterns.

Journal

Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and AdvancesWiley

Published: Sep 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ;

There are no references for this article.