Talk:X-ray scattering techniques

Untitled

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)

"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)

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)

This page is structured strangely. In physical terms, the main categories should really be elastic and inelastic scattering. X-ray diffraction should then be a subcategory of elastic scattering. The implication here is that elastic scattering is a separate technique for probing materials that lack long-range order, and that is not correct. Scattering just means the photons interact with something, and elastic means they do not transfer energy. Diffraction is a phenomenon people can observe in elastically scattered x-rays. 129.42.208.187 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-destructive?

I'm a little surprised that X-ray scattering is called "non-destructive". For many samples it is, but if you're doing proteins or similar stuff on a synchrotron I don't think it holds. Shouldn't that assertion be modified a bit? Nvj (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not destructive in the sense that, say, Atomic flame spectroscopy is, but certainly you are correct that exposure times can be limited by x-ray induced sample degradation (TATP, anyone?). Even just taking an absorption image for a medical x-ray is damaging, but generally considered "safe". I guess what I am saying is that I am not sure if "non-destructive" should be read literally or if it is a term-of-art with a more specific meaning. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

XRD redirect

XRD redirects to here, but on this very page it specifically mentions that "X-ray scattering is different from X-ray diffraction, which is widely used for X-ray crystallography". It doesn't seem to make sense that XRD redirects to X-ray scattering techniques if that statement holds true. 158.12.34.79 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X-ray scattering techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405181230/http://www.iucr.org/cww-top/crystal.index.html to http://www.iucr.org/cww-top/crystal.index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

IXS is Raman

I'm not exactly an expert in this field, but IXS techniques seem to actually be a type of Raman spectroscopy. This source backs me up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelirojopajaro (talk • contribs) 12 June 2019, 19:36 (UTC)

Sort of, X-ray Raman scattering is an example of an inelastic x-ray scattering process. Other inelastic x-ray scattering processes include Compton scattering. In more general terms, IXS involves measuring the dynamic structure factor. Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References