Talk:Bravais lattice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Deleted redirect 2 Errors in diagrams 3 Is anyone planning to DEFINE Bravais lattices??? 4 Monoclinic lattice images 5 The Figure of HEXAGONAL

[edit] Deleted redirect

I've removed the redirect and started a new article. This needs a bit of more work, please feel free to edit (although I think the mathematical formalism should be kept to a minimum).O. Prytz 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in diagrams

Unfortunately all of the diagrams showing three angles here are wrong. The angle gamma as shown can be calculated from the angle alpha since they are both part of the same quadrilateral, whose angles must sum to 180 degrees. New diagrams with the angles in the correct places are needed. --Chymicus 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another error of note: in the pictures representing the 5 different 2-d lattices the lattice vectors shown for the "centered rectangular" lattice appear to be in error.--adam 02:40ish, May 26, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.52.100 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone planning to DEFINE Bravais lattices???

This article has one of the most deficient definitions among all mathematics articles. There are 14 Bravais lattices in what sense? In other words, what makes two Bravais lattices equivalent? Without this information, the article may as well be chicken scratchings.Daqu 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the description of the different kinds of Bravais lattices makes great use of the word cell without once mentioning what cell is being discussed.

Lastly, please note the the expression "a ≠ b ≠ c", used repeatedly in describing various diagrams, does not exclude the possibility a = c.Daqu 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia articles are by definition "works in progress". If you are knowledgeable in this area, perhaps you can pitch in and do the necessary? --Rifleman 82 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monoclinic lattice images

I've replaced images for Monoclinic lattices from Monoclinic.svg to Monoclinic.png / Monoclinic-base-centered.svg to Monoclinic-base-centered.png. Maybe the png version of these are more correct in the description of their angles. -- Anonymous

I'm an idiot. Images have now been corrected, and will go back to the SVG versions. Thanks for pointing this out. Stannered 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Figure of HEXAGONAL

I think the figure shown for hexagonal is incomplete( and even wrong) as there are 3 lattice positions which are not shown. They are actually at the midway joining the centres of triangles formed by the base diagonals. There are only 3 such positions at 120^o to each other. --Swagat konchada 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The hexagonal lattice shown is correct. If i understand you correcty, you are thinking of a Hexagonally Close packed lattice is not a bravais lattice (see Glaser, Group theory for Solid State Scientists) 129.78.220.7 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)