1 a) Calculated intensity from the structure factor equation, for the 200 reflection:
dhkl = a/Ö(h2 + k2 + l2 ); a = 5.638 Å
d200 = 5.638/Ö(22 + 02 + 02) = 5.638/Ö4 = 2.819 Å
From Bragg´s Law:
sin q/l = 1/2d = 1/(2 * 2.819Å) = 0.1774
Finally from ICT by interpolation, assuming that there is a linear decrease, the calculated factors are:
D (fNa+) = 0.645 and D (fCl-) = 1.92 for sin q/l between 0.15 and 0.20.
fNa+ = 9.035 - [D (fNa+)*(0.1774-0.15)/0.05] = 8.682
fCl- = 14.12 - [D (fCl-)*(0.1774-0.15)/0.05] = 13.068
S fn cos{360 (hx + ky + lz)}=
= 8.682 cos{360(2*0
+ 0*0 + 0*0)} + 8.682 cos{360(2*0
+ 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)}+
+ 8.682 cos{360(2*0.5
+ 0*0 + 0*0.5)}+ 8.682 cos{360(2*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}+
+ 13.068 cos{360(2*0.5 +
0*0 + 0*0)} + 13.068 cos{360(2*0 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}
+
+ 13.068 cos{360(2*0 + 0*0
+ 0*0.5)} + 13.068 cos{360(2*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)} =
= 8.682 (cos 0 + cos 0 +
cos 360 + cos 360) + 13.068 (cos 360 + cos 0 + cos 0 + cos 360) = 4 * 8.682
+ 4 * 13.068 =
= 87
sine part of F200:
S fn sin{360 (hx + ky + lz)}=
= 8.682
sin{360(2*0 + 0*0 + 0*0)} + 8.682 sin{360(2*0
+ 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)}+
+ 8.682 sin{360(2*0.5
+ 0*0 + 0*0.5)}+ 8.682 sin{360(2*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}+
+ 13.068 sin{360(2*0.5 +
0*0 + 0*0)} + 13.068 sin{360(2*0 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}
+
+ 13.068 sin{360(2*0 + 0*0
+ 0*0.5)} + 13.068 sin{360(2*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)} =
= 8.682 (sin 0 + sin 0 +
sin 360 + sin 360) + 13.068 (sin 360 + sin 0 + sin 0 + sin 360) = 8.682
* 0 + 13.068 * 0 =
= 0
After combining the two parts one gets:
F200 = 87 + i * 0, with F2002 = I200 = 872 + 02 = 7569 units
1 b) Calculated intensity from the structure factor equation, for the 100 reflection:
dhkl = a/Ö(h2 + k2 + l2 ); a = 5.638 Å
d100 = 5.638/Ö(12 + 02 + 02) = 5.638/Ö1 = 5.638 Å
From Bragg´s Law:
sin q/l = 1/2d = 1/(2 * 5.638Å) = 0.0886
As in 1 a) one would have
to search the values above and below sin
q/l
for
the 100 reflection and calculate the correct value by linear interpolation.
Knowing that there is something strange about this "reflection" I did the
calculation for the structure factor equation first with the result that
it is 0!
Hence I didn´t look up the scattering factors for Na+
and Cl-.
S fn cos{360 (hx + ky + lz)}=
= 8.682 cos{360(1*0
+ 0*0 + 0*0)} + 8.682 cos{360(1*0
+ 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)}+
+ 8.682 cos{360(1*0.5
+ 0*0 + 0*0.5)}+ 8.682 cos{360(1*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}+
+ 13.068 cos{360(1*0.5 +
0*0 + 0*0)} + 13.068 cos{360(1*0 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}
+
+ 13.068 cos{360(1*0 + 0*0
+ 0*0.5)} + 13.068 cos{360(1*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)} =
= 8.682 (cos 0 + cos 0 +
cos 180 + cos 180) + 13.068 (cos 180 + cos 0 + cos 0 + cos 180) = 8.682
* (1+1-1-1) + XXX * (-1+1+1-1) =
= 0
sine part of F200:
S fn sin{360 (hx + ky + lz)}=
= 8.682
sin{360(1*0 + 0*0 + 0*0)} + 8.682 sin{360(1*0
+ 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)}+
+ 8.682 sin{360(1*0.5
+ 0*0 + 0*0.5)}+ 8.682 sin{360(1*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}+
+ 13.068 sin{360(1*0.5 +
0*0 + 0*0)} + 13.068 sin{360(1*0 + 0*0.5 + 0*0)}
+
+ 13.068 sin{360(1*0 + 0*0
+ 0*0.5)} + 13.068 sin{360(1*0.5 + 0*0.5 + 0*0.5)} =
= 8.682 (sin 0 + sin 0 +
sin 180 + sin 180) + 13.068 (sin 180 + sin 0 + sin 0 + sin 180) = 8.682
* 0 + 13.068 * 0 =
= 0
After combining the two parts one gets:
F100 = 0 + i * 0, with F1002 = I100 = 02 + 02 = 0 units
This result is not astonishing, because in cubic systems there is high
symmetry which leads to certain (symmetry-specific) exclusions. 100 is
such an exclusion in cubic systems. Also 010 and 001 would give no reflection.
The unit cell defines all atom places which are introduced later into the
structure factor equation. Due to the fact that the sine and cosine part
are made up of sums it is possible under certain circumstances that both
parts of the structure factor equation can become zero. Result of this
is that such a specific reflection shows no intensity and hence cannot
be measured..
In opposite of this an elongation of one axis would allow to observe
I100. In a triclinic or orthorhombic unit cell all three possible
reflections 100, 010 and 001 could be measured. Each of them then belongs
to one of the three axises.
2 ) Multiplicity for 200 reflection:
Knowing that -0 and +0 are
the same there remain only two senseful and logical permutations: 200 and
-200!
Hence j = 2 (in opposite
of j = 8 for the 111 reflection).
For 100 j would be the same as for 200, j = 2
3 ) Polarisation for 200 reflection:
q = 15.85 °; sin q = 0.273; sin2 q = 0.0746 and cos q = 0.962.
L = 1/sin2 q cos q = 13.936
5 ) Intensity ratio I111/I200:
I = j * P * L * A * F2, with a neglible value for A if it is a flat sample and Bragg Brentano geometry
I111 = 8 * 0.894 * 18.39 * 398 = 52347 c units
I200 = 2 * 0.862 * 13.936 * 7563 = 181706 c units
I111 /I200 = 0.288; I200 is approximately 3,5 times stronger than I111
6 ) Reasons for a different intensity ratio in comparison to the experiment:
Sample treatment:
How is the sample prepared? Is it sieved, or is it just ground in a
mortar or mill?
The preparation might lead to preferred orientation or texture effects
in the sample. If one of the two cases occurs the intensity information
can be seriously influenced! A comparison of different samples of the same
material might give different intensities!
Spinning or not?
If the sample is measured without spinning it it migh lead to a preferred
orientation, which increases the intensity for reflections of the preferred
orientation.
Absorption correction:
Depending on how the sample is measured a specific absorption correction
for transmission or reflection geometry has to be made!
Temperature effects:
Temperature has an influence on the excursions of atoms in a crystal.
Hence intensity information can be altered by measurements at different
temperatures. A cooled sample would have other intensities as a heated
one.
Badly stabilised power supply for the X-ray tube:
This might lead to a change in intensity of the original emitted radiation
of the X-ray tube.
Badly stabilised power supply for the detector:
If the high voltage supply of a scintillation detector is not stable,
the multiplication of an incoming signal would change and lead to different
measured intensities for the same signal! A PSD detector loses the linearity
with high count rates. Therefore high intensities might not be as exact
as low ones.
Polarisation of the monochromator:
A monochromator polarises the X-ray beam and hence the intensity of
the diffraction pattern. The absorption correction should be small and
mostly neglible, but two different monochromators (same type) might give
slighlty different intensity informations in the same measurement setup.
Scattering factors:
It is assumed that there is a linear change in the scattering factor
in the ICT. How good is this assumption? High intensities are more influenced
by a slight change in the scattering factors due to the product which is
formed for the intensity.