Talk:X-ray scattering techniques
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
I think X-ray diffaction should have its own article and not be redirected to crystallography. X-ray diffraction can be applied to amorphous materials and therefore is not the same as X-ray Crystallography. --129.12.200.49 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have started a stub. The crystallography article has nothing to do with the rich field of x-ray analysis which includes XRD imaging, thin film XRD, grazing angle XRD, high-resolution x-ray diffraction and (in some books) x-ray reflectivity. Irene Ringworm 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- X-ray diffraction is a physical phenomenon not just a method. Whether the use of diffraction in the context of amorphous materials is correct is a mystery to me. I would use "scattering", but these things don't always go the way you think. Anyway, I find it odd that this article on diffraction includes scattering and not vice versa. I would consider scattering as the general term and diffraction as one of the subfields. Uvainio 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eldereft and I have been having this same discussion on our respective talk pages. There are a few techniques such as SAXS and x-ray reflectivity which might be more correctly described as "scattering" than "diffraction". But popular usage is sloppy - XRR is sometimes called "low-angle x-ray diffraction" and SAXS is grouped in the "diffraction" family, too. I think that the usage is driven by the diffractometer manufacturers, who tend to have add-ons for SAXS and XRR built onto their "diffractometers". I think the plan is to make a section called "related techniques" and add SAXS and XRR there.
- As for your other point, it would make sense to change the name of the page to "x-ray diffraction techniques" to be more precise. I'll make this change during my next round of edits if there are no complaints. The only question, then, is does "x-ray diffraction" redirect to "x-ray diffraction techniques" or to diffraction? Irene Ringworm 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still find it odd to put WAXS under diffraction because WAXS is a more general term than XRD. A small survey at the X-ray lab showed that other physicisits feel the same. Maybe the page should be titled "x-ray scattering techniques"? X-ray diffraction by itself deserves it's own article because the phenomenon is theoretically described differently (with different nomenclature mostly I guess) than diffraction at the optical region. For example it would be good to explain about the inverse space, Miller indices, Ewald sphere etc. Or maybe they would fit better to x-ray crystallography. It's difficult to say because all these fields and terms overlap. -Uvainio 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- WAXS - my experience with the technique extends to reading the Wiki, which made it sound diffraction-based.
- XRD - Or should "x-ray diffraction" redirect to Bragg diffraction?
- Manufacturers - we cannot possibly have a comprehensive list, and I doubt that anyone has the breadth of experience to say which are the "major" manufacturers considering the number and diversity of subfields. If there is no argument, I would like to delete this section.
- Also, we should probably coordinate with X-ray spectroscopy.
- I can speak directly to major manufacturers for materials science diffraction equipment as I have been involved in multiple equipment purchases for such equipment. Given the new scope of the article, however, it certainly doesn't fit. Go ahead and delete it. I have this information captured in the x-ray reflectivity stub and will also have it in the "thin-film diffraction" article. Okay to delete it from this main article.14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still find it odd to put WAXS under diffraction because WAXS is a more general term than XRD. A small survey at the X-ray lab showed that other physicisits feel the same. Maybe the page should be titled "x-ray scattering techniques"? X-ray diffraction by itself deserves it's own article because the phenomenon is theoretically described differently (with different nomenclature mostly I guess) than diffraction at the optical region. For example it would be good to explain about the inverse space, Miller indices, Ewald sphere etc. Or maybe they would fit better to x-ray crystallography. It's difficult to say because all these fields and terms overlap. -Uvainio 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- X-ray diffraction is a physical phenomenon not just a method. Whether the use of diffraction in the context of amorphous materials is correct is a mystery to me. I would use "scattering", but these things don't always go the way you think. Anyway, I find it odd that this article on diffraction includes scattering and not vice versa. I would consider scattering as the general term and diffraction as one of the subfields. Uvainio 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "XRD"
XRD redirects here. Where I am, XRD referes exclusively to powder diffraction. Should the target of the redirect be changed? --Rifleman 82 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, because XRD does not refer exclusively to powder diffraction. . . .LinguisticDemographer 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Diffraction
The section on diffraction should NOT suggest as it does that its use is limited to structures exhibiting long-range order. Amorphous structures can also be probed with this technique. Jdrewitt 16:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
