Cargando…

Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction

The criticisms of my theory, as given by Fraser & Wark [(2018), Acta Cryst. A74, 447–456], are built on a misunderstanding of the concept and the methodology I have used. The assumption they have made rules out my description from which they conclude that my theory is proved to be wrong. They as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Fewster, Paul F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Union of Crystallography 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30182933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2053273318007489
_version_ 1783352934057115648
author Fewster, Paul F.
author_facet Fewster, Paul F.
author_sort Fewster, Paul F.
collection PubMed
description The criticisms of my theory, as given by Fraser & Wark [(2018), Acta Cryst. A74, 447–456], are built on a misunderstanding of the concept and the methodology I have used. The assumption they have made rules out my description from which they conclude that my theory is proved to be wrong. They assume that I have misunderstood the diffraction associated with the shape of a crystal and my calculation is only relevant to a parallelepiped and even that I have got wrong. It only appears wrong to Fraser & Wark because the effect I predict has nothing to do with the crystal shape. The effect though can be measured as well as the crystal shape effects. This response describes my reasoning behind the theory, how it can be related to the Ewald sphere construction, and the build-up of the full diffraction pattern from all the scatterers in a stack of planes. It is the latter point that makes the Fraser & Wark analysis incomplete. The description given in this article describes my approach much more precisely with reference to the Ewald sphere construction. Several experiments are described that directly measure the predictions of the new theory, which are explained with reference to the Ewald sphere description. In its simplest terms the new theory can be considered as giving a thickness to the Ewald sphere surface, whereas in the conventional theory it has no thickness. Any thickness immediately informs us that the scattering from a peak at the Bragg angle does not have to be in the Bragg condition to be observed. I believe the conventional theory is a very good approximation, but as soon as it is tested with careful experiments it is shown to be incomplete. The new theory puts forward the idea that there is persistent intensity at the Bragg scattering angle outside the Bragg condition. This intensity is weak (∼10(−5)) but can be observed in careful laboratory experiments, despite being on the limit of observation, yet it has a profound impact on how we should interpret diffraction patterns.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6123939
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher International Union of Crystallography
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61239392018-09-17 Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction Fewster, Paul F. Acta Crystallogr A Found Adv Research Papers The criticisms of my theory, as given by Fraser & Wark [(2018), Acta Cryst. A74, 447–456], are built on a misunderstanding of the concept and the methodology I have used. The assumption they have made rules out my description from which they conclude that my theory is proved to be wrong. They assume that I have misunderstood the diffraction associated with the shape of a crystal and my calculation is only relevant to a parallelepiped and even that I have got wrong. It only appears wrong to Fraser & Wark because the effect I predict has nothing to do with the crystal shape. The effect though can be measured as well as the crystal shape effects. This response describes my reasoning behind the theory, how it can be related to the Ewald sphere construction, and the build-up of the full diffraction pattern from all the scatterers in a stack of planes. It is the latter point that makes the Fraser & Wark analysis incomplete. The description given in this article describes my approach much more precisely with reference to the Ewald sphere construction. Several experiments are described that directly measure the predictions of the new theory, which are explained with reference to the Ewald sphere description. In its simplest terms the new theory can be considered as giving a thickness to the Ewald sphere surface, whereas in the conventional theory it has no thickness. Any thickness immediately informs us that the scattering from a peak at the Bragg angle does not have to be in the Bragg condition to be observed. I believe the conventional theory is a very good approximation, but as soon as it is tested with careful experiments it is shown to be incomplete. The new theory puts forward the idea that there is persistent intensity at the Bragg scattering angle outside the Bragg condition. This intensity is weak (∼10(−5)) but can be observed in careful laboratory experiments, despite being on the limit of observation, yet it has a profound impact on how we should interpret diffraction patterns. International Union of Crystallography 2018-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6123939/ /pubmed/30182933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2053273318007489 Text en © Paul F. Fewster 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/
spellingShingle Research Papers
Fewster, Paul F.
Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction
title Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction
title_full Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction
title_fullStr Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction
title_full_unstemmed Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction
title_short Response to Fraser & Wark’s comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction
title_sort response to fraser & wark’s comments on a new theory for x-ray diffraction
topic Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30182933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2053273318007489
work_keys_str_mv AT fewsterpaulf responsetofraserwarkscommentsonanewtheoryforxraydiffraction