There are some rather nice pictures here - thanks Wikityke. I have made a small start in adding a formal discussion of the terms Burgers vector, dislocation line, slip plane etc. but as yet have not converted my pictures used to define them to a form suitable for uploading. The basic approach I propose to follow goes something like:
- You can describe a edge dislocation as the termination of an extra half plane.
- This is not a useful description because many planes could terminate to form identical dislocations.
- Then it is possible to construct a loop around the end of the plane - this has one side that is not the same length as that found in a perfect crystal. The missmach is called the Burgers vector.
- We call the thing we go round a dislocation line - the two vectors are perpendicular in an edge dislocation.
- The plane containing both vectors is termed the slip plane.
- If the two vectors are parallel we have a screw dislocation, or we could have a mixed dislocation.
- The Burgers vector has to be coincident with a lattice vector or the crystal wont match up.
Or thats the plan - I have the pictures but will not be able to upload them until next week... Andreww 19:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This didn't seem to have been done, so I reworked the description myself. I feel that starting off by talking about edge dislocations in terms of inserting planes is unhelpful, since the analogy doesn't extend to other types. That said, I'm not completely happy with my changes, and would welcome improvements. I'll try to do more with them, especially to add something on partial dislocations (my dissertation was mostly about the 90-degree partial in silicon).Bennetto 18:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
regarding the new (dislocations in silicon) photo's: Would it be more correct to say that the photo' shows etch pits in silicon, resulting from the preferential attack of the highly strained lattice regions around the dislocation core? A magnification of 500x seems extremely low to be showing the dislocations themselves. Wikityke 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I am astonished
Dear Pablo Florens, Dear JHMM13,
Many thanks for yor messages. I have some queries. Why MathTex is recommended for Wikipedia, but it turned out not to be right? Is Wikipedia open for editing? Is it properly to delete new contrubutions half-way in a free and easy manner? "Wikipedia is not a clasroom" (JHMM13) - is polite? Indeed, can students and linguists correct a professor physicist?
- I'll only say this: if you insert some content, and someone removes it citing a reason, then you shouldn't put the content back. Rather come here to the talk page and discuss with the one(s) who took your content out. You can even post the content here in the talk page, as a proposal. Wikipedia articles should read like encyclopedic entries, not as a professor talking to students. Check the Manual of Style, What Wikipedia is not, etc. I'm not trying to correct your content but its format, anyway (not being a physicist, I barely understand what it's being talked about, really). Work with the experts here and try to get a suitable encyclopedic version to put into the article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought of another way to explain a screw dislocation: the structure is similar to the graph of the imaginary part of the multivalued complex logarithm function. I would add this except that it might be frowned upon as original research. Hashproduct 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the Burgers vector link that pointed back to this page, redundant. --Nick Kamm 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have found a better way of illustrating a screw dislocation: http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/kap_5/illustr/511burg1.gif Main page: http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/index.html
- Some of the things imagined to be original research are actually, often as not, a matter of prior art, or poorly disseminated common knowledge. That is, they could already have been discovered by others. While the Main page might be the wrong place to put original research, the Talk page would be the most appropriate place to ask if it is original or not. If the general consensus is that it is original, you should wait until a citation can be found before posting it in the main page. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Dislocated rectangular grids?
Should "dislocated rectangular grids" have its own article in Wikipedia? How about dislocated hexagonal grids?
I am not sure if I should add a new section to this article's main page, or if I should just go and create a new article altogether. If I do the latter, should it be called "dislocation (topology)" ? I don't want to publish original research, nor do I want to toot my own horn by citing 20 year old reference works that happen to have my real name. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Direction of Burgers vectors
I think the upper right drawing in File:Vector de Burgers.PNG has the incorrect direction for the Burgers vector. My textbook has a similar figure (http://books.google.com/books?id=NlljnnE3JckC&pg=PA143e) which has the vector in the opposite direction, so it would close the loop. Is this correct for this type of dislocation? --Mjgardes (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right; I hadn't noticed that before. I think we could do a lot better than that particular picture anyway, but it's a pretty good start. For example, what are the atoms in that picture? The blocks, or the crossing points of the lines? Thudso (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, this page has evolved slowly into what is now a bit of a mess - the introductory section is confusing, and it's not that well formatted in general. I am hoping to spend some time on the page over the next month or so. If you have any comments about content, format or anything else, I'd be happy to hear them. Thudso (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English, and my higher education has nothing to do with the topic covered in this article. But I do read a lot, and nonetheless experience a huge difficulty in understanding the written here, especially the passages that are meant as explanations. For me it was usually necessary to pass to the next paragraph to start to understand the explanations given in the previous. Probably great for a manual for technical specialists, but close to disastrous for the general audience. My hobby is photography, so I sort of wanted to get deeper insight into how image is formed on traditional photo film. MrDerrik (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)