letters to the editor\(\def\hfill{\hskip 5em}\def\hfil{\hskip 3em}\def\eqno#1{\hfil {#1}}\)

Journal logoJOURNAL OF
APPLIED
CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
ISSN: 1600-5767
RESPONSE

A response to this article has been published. To view the response, click here.

Comments on Extinction-corrected mean thickness and integral width used in the program UMWEG98 by Rossmanith (2000)

aDepartment of Materials Science, Stavanger University College, Ullandhaug, N-4091 Stavanger, Norway, and bDepartment of Mathematics and Natural Science, Stavanger University College, Ullandhaug, N-4091 Stavanger, Norway
*Correspondence e-mail: gunnar.thorkildsen@tn.his.no

(Received 10 April 2000; accepted 7 August 2000)

Comments are made on a paper by E. Rossmanith[Rossmanith, E. (2000). J. Appl. Cryst. 33, 330-333.] [J. Appl. Cryst. (2000), 33, 330–333] concerning the use of asymptotic expressions for the extinction-corrected mean thickness.

In a recently published paper, Rossmanith (2000[Rossmanith, E. (2000). J. Appl. Cryst. 33, 330-333.]) accounts for expressions for the extinction-corrected mean thickness used in the program UMWEG98. A comparison with already existing models for the primary-extinction factor in perfect crystal spheres is also presented.

In particular, Rossmanith's kinematical formula for the extinction-corrected mean thickness as a function of the mean crystal thickness is compared with results based on asymptotic expressions for the primary-extinction factor, yp, found by the present authors (Larsen & Thorkildsen, 1998[Larsen, H. B. & Thorkildsen, G. (1998). Acta Cryst. A54, 511-512.]) for the limiting cases θoh → 0 (pure Laue case) and θohπ/2 (pure Bragg case). Here θoh denotes the Bragg angle. Rossmanith questions the result for the Laue case because it `does not agree with the Al Haddad & Becker (1990[Al Haddad, M. & Becker, P. (1990). Acta Cryst. A46, 112-123.]) primary-extinction correction'. This is owing to a printing error in the expression for the asymptotic primary-extinction factor, equation (8), of Larsen & Thorkildsen (1998[Larsen, H. B. & Thorkildsen, G. (1998). Acta Cryst. A54, 511-512.]). The correct expression is

[\eqalignno{y_p(x,\theta_{oh}\rightarrow 0) \simeq\hskip.2em& (3/8x)\{1+[\pi / (2\pi x)^{3/2}]\cos(4x - 5\pi / 4)\cr&\! +1/16x^2\},&\hfill\llap{(1)}}]

where x = R/Λoh, the ratio between the radius of the sphere and the extinction distance. The sign error in the oscillating term of the erroneous version of equation (1)[link] is equivalent to a phase shift of π, as is evident from Fig. 1 of Rossmanith (2000[Rossmanith, E. (2000). J. Appl. Cryst. 33, 330-333.]). We acknowledge Rossmanith for drawing this to attention.

When it comes to the Bragg case, Rossmanith seems to question the result [equation (7) of Larsen & Thorkildsen (1998[Larsen, H. B. & Thorkildsen, G. (1998). Acta Cryst. A54, 511-512.])] because it `exceeds the kinematical upper limit'. This statement is somewhat confusing owing to the fact that our results are based on dynamical theory as formulated by Takagi (1962[Takagi, S. (1962). Acta Cryst. 15, 1311-1312.], 1969[Takagi, S. (1969). J. Phys. Soc. Jpn, 26, 1239-1253.]). The equivalence between the Takagi theory and the fundamental theory of dynamical diffraction has been established and demonstrated (Thorkildsen & Larsen, 1999[Thorkildsen, G. & Larsen, H. B. (1999). Acta Cryst. A55, 840-854.]). In the limits θoh → {0, π/2}, the diffraction geometry is quasi one-dimensional. For these two cases, the expression for the primary-extinction factor for a finite convex crystal of general shape, bathed in the incident beam, becomes

[\eqalign{y_p^{(i)} = (1/V_{\rm cry}) \textstyle\int\limits_{A_\perp}\, {\rm d}u\,{\rm d}v\,t_{||}(u,v)\,y_p^{({\rm plate},i)} (x = t_{||}/\Lambda_{oh})&\cr (i = {\rm Laue,\, Bragg})& }\eqno(2)]

where A denotes the cross section of the crystal projected onto a plane (u, v) normal to the direction of the incident/diffracted beam. The function t||(u, v) represents the crystal dimension along the incident beam. Vcry is the volume of the crystal. Applying equation (2)[link] to a spherical crystal in the Bragg case gives equation (4) from (3) in the paper by Larsen & Thorkildsen (1998[Larsen, H. B. & Thorkildsen, G. (1998). Acta Cryst. A54, 511-512.]).

In our opinion, corrections for primary extinction, which is a dynamical feature, should be formally handled by a dynamical diffraction theory, rather than a kinematical approach.

References

First citationAl Haddad, M. & Becker, P. (1990). Acta Cryst. A46, 112–123. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals
First citationLarsen, H. B. & Thorkildsen, G. (1998). Acta Cryst. A54, 511–512. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals
First citationRossmanith, E. (2000). J. Appl. Cryst. 33, 330–333. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals
First citationTakagi, S. (1962). Acta Cryst. 15, 1311–1312. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Web of Science
First citationTakagi, S. (1969). J. Phys. Soc. Jpn, 26, 1239–1253. CrossRef CAS Web of Science
First citationThorkildsen, G. & Larsen, H. B. (1999). Acta Cryst. A55, 840–854. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals

© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.

Journal logoJOURNAL OF
APPLIED
CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
ISSN: 1600-5767
Follow J. Appl. Cryst.
Sign up for e-alerts
Follow J. Appl. Cryst. on Twitter
Follow us on facebook
Sign up for RSS feeds