Talk:Miller index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wrong Diagram[edit]

The plane [111] is wrong in the first diagram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcflet01 (talkcontribs) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lowest terms?[edit]

In the introduction is stated "The integers are usually written in lowest terms, i.e. their greatest common divisor should be 1.", but isn't that wrong? i.e., (111) isn't the same as (222). 137.122.14.20 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HKL / LMN[edit]

The notation "lmn" is new for me. What is the difference to "hkl"? SietskeEN 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, isn't that like asking the difference between "x" and "y"? They are just variable names, representing integers. The choice of letters is pretty irrelevant — Miller indices are a positional notation, so only the position of the letters and the surrounding brackets matter. —Steven G. Johnson 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! SietskeEN 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a certain relevance in that if one convention is widely dominant that one should prevail. This is the first time I have seen 'lmn' used. Obviously I am a fairly small sample, but you might want to look at other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 18:24, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Have just done a test on google, the entry: hkl miller indices returns 85 500 results, lmn miller indices returns 23 600 results.
First time I see lmn too, for the record. 137.122.14.20 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
lmn was also surprising to me (89.77.158.160 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
Yep same here hkl is what I have been taught at Uni, could it be changed to hkl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.193.168 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
...So if you don't know it it is not true? ... maybe you should read in the Encyclopedia of Physics, VII "Crystal Physics Part I". @Steven: hkl is NOT a positional measure. It is a measure of room frequency. hkl are "coordinates" (in a mathematical sense) with reference to the so called "reciprocal axes". If one means coordinates with reference to the "direct axes" (i.e. axes of the crystal elementary cell) then the symbolic notation is "uvw". The notation "lmn" refers to reciprokal axes, as "hkl" does, bur "lmn" apparently means another set of reciprocal coordinate values than "hkl" but with one coordinate value being identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.198 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Simplification[edit]

I am planning to restructure this article further. I think the reciprocal lattice should get less attention, certainly in the lead and in the beginning of the article. (I had a student who tried to understand Miller indices and looked it up here on wikipedia, and did not find it helpful at all.) /Pieter Kuiper 07:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous 3D Coordinate System[edit]

Given the ambiguity of left-handed vs right-handed 3D coordinate systems, I think image depicting miller planes should be altered to reflect which is the y and which is the x-axis. Anybody want to take this on? In my mineralogy class and textbook, only the right-handed system is used so the unlabeled left-hand coordinates on the illustration were really confusing at first. It's important to realize that people from multiple disciplines (not just engineering) could be looking at this article, so a little clarification could go a long way in making this article more accessible.

--ThinkGreen (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you looking at? As far as I can tell, all of them are right-handed, and all of them are labelled sufficiently to determine this fact. (However, one of them misspells "plane" as "plan", which should be fixed.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thinkgreen as a first year MSE student those planes nearly killed me. Also an effective discussion of how reciprocal infinity is used would be appreciated by many. The image i was looking at is the one in the upper right containing all of the 100 110 001 etc. indices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.107.174 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for four miller indices in hexagonal cell[edit]

can anyone tell me why four indices are used in hexagonal systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sry19206 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Way too complex[edit]

this article needs to be simplified...currently it is mystifying to anyone without a background in crystallography...im a 3rd year biochemistry student, and i found the page almost entirely useless in terms of building my understanding of the subject 24.141.7.36 (talk)

Typo[edit]

Figure 3 has a typo: "plan", which should be "plane". Also figures 2 and 3 are not neat. We should upload new and clear figures. It will be difficult for new students to learn anything from these figures. Drajput (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed typo. Please be more clear on "not neat". Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

wrong indices[edit]

The right diagram in third picture from top has the wrong plane indices: it's 112 and not 221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.91 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

They follow the definition given left to the figure, and thus can't be wrong :-). Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)