:Talk:X-ray scattering techniques

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 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)

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)

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 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)

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.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

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

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.{{Cite journal|last=Miedema|first=Piter Sybren|date=2017-02-15|title=Raman Spectroscopy with X-Rays|url=https://www.intechopen.com/books/raman-spectroscopy-and-applications/raman-spectroscopy-with-x-rays|journal=Raman Spectroscopy and Applications|language=en|doi=10.5772/65427}}

— 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)

{{reflist-talk}}

X-ray diffraction is very different from X-ray crystallography, it should never have been merged. I am reviving it (as stated on the crystallography page for discussion some time ago), moving selected material from X-ray crystallography, where contributors can be found. More work is needed, this is just the first pass. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)