Abstract

Microwaves with a frequency of

were used to analyzed the (1,0,0) and
(2,1,0) planes of a model crystal. The lattice constant of the crystal was determined to be
cm and
cm respectively, which are within 0.76 and 2.0 of their
accepted value (3.80
cm) respectively. Furthermore, the qualitative aspects of the
parameter on the intensity of the diffracted microwaves, were analyzed and were found
to be accordance with theory. This experiment shows that the methodology used in
determining the lattice constants of actual crystals (on the order of
) can be
translated to the macroscopic level.

Introduction
X-ray diffraction, a phenomenon in which the atoms of a crystal, by virtue of their uniform
spacing, cause an interference pattern of the waves present in an incident beam of x-rays. The
atomic planes of the crystal act on the x-rays in exactly the same manner as does a uniformly ruled
grating on a beam of light. When an x-ray beam enters a crystal, x-rays are scatteredthat is,
redirectedin all directions by the crystal structure. In some directions the scattered waves
undergo destructive interference, resulting in intensity minima; in other directions the interference
is constructive, resulting in intensify maxima. This process of scattering and interference is a form
of diffraction.
The criterion for intensity maxima for x-ray diffraction is
(1)
where is the angle of incidence, is the wavelength of incident light, and is in integer
representing the number of wavelengths required for constructive interference to occur. At the
smallest angle of incidence for a maxima
, at the next smallest angle
,etc. (1) is called
B agg law (up t
t de ) a te B t h phy c t W L B agg wh
t de ved t e a d h
father shared the 1915 Nobel Prize in physics for their use of x-rays to study the structures of
crystals [1]. Although Bragg's law was used to explain the interference pattern of x-ray scattered by
crystals, diffraction has been developed to study the structure of various kinds of matter with a
beam, as long as the wavelength used is comparable to the spacing of the molecules (or atoms)
within the object under investigation1.
In this experiment, microwaves were used in the same way x-rays are used to determine the
lattice constant of a macroscopic model of a crystal.

See Lab 5 Electron Diffraction, where diffracted electrons were used to determine the interplanar spacing of
polycrystalline graphite.

Theory

not to scale

Figure 1.1

Incident rays of light from a transmitter are reflected from the atoms of a crystal.
Constructive interference is observed at the reciever for certain angles of incidence.

From Figure 1.1 and the law of cosines we have

(
)

c (

(2)

where is the length of ray 1 (distance from the detector to an atom in the plane of the crystal), is
the difference between the length of ray 2 (distance from the detector to an atom directly below the
first atom) and the length of ray 1,
is the distance between atomic layers in the crystal
(interplanar spacing), and is the angle of incidence of ay .
(3)

(4)

( )

Expanding (4) in a Taylor series yields

{

[( )

[( )

(5)
(6)

{ ( )
Since it is assumed that

[( )

( )

( )

] }

, the higher order terms ( ) and ( ) are negligible and thus the

approximation in (6) is a valid one.

Further simplification results in

[ ( )

( )

( ) c

(7)
(8)

c
Note that for maxima to occur,

must and an integer multiple of the wavelength of light , that is

,
(9)

or simply
(10)
Sub t tut g ( )

t ( ) we bta

B agg law t

ec

d
c

de
(11)

or
c

(12)

Note that in (12) the first order term does not contain , hence unequal distances between the
scatterer and transmitter/receiver are irrelevant to the first order Bragg equation.
By the Alternating Series Estimation Theorem (see Appendix) the error in using the first order
Bragg equation is
(13)
elat ve e
the
t
c
|
| |
|
de B agg e uat
[2] For convenience the Miller indices (
) were used to describe the orientation of the crystal
planes of a periodic structure. For cubic crystals, the separations
can be expressed in terms of
the lattice constant as
(14)

which implies
(15)

and
(16)

(17)

Procedure
The distance from the transmitter to the first plane of atoms , was measured to be 49.2cm.
The microwave transmitter and receiver were aligned. The foam crystal was set so that the
angle of incidence for the (1,0,0) plane was zero. The transmitter was turned on. The emitted
microwaves (
or
cm) reflected off the metal balls (atoms) held in the foam
crystal and the intensity of light at the receiver was recorded. The arm of the transmitter was then
moved clockwise while the cube was moved 1 clockwise. The reading of the intensity at the
receiver was recorded. This process was continued by increasing the angle of the arm and the
angle of the cube by 2 and 1 respectively until the angle of the cube reached 70 . Corresponding
readings were taken at each increase.
The microwave transmitter and receiver were aligned. The foam crystal was adjusted so
that the angle of incidence for the (2,1,0) plane was zero. The same process as in the (1,0,0) plane
was continued for readings for cube angles of 5
.

Data and Calculation

Table 2.1.a.

Cube
Angle
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0

Arm
Angle
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
54.0
56.0
58.0
60.0
62.0
64.0
66.0
68.0
70.0

Measured values of the cube angle (0.5), arm angle (0.5), and intensity
(0.01mA unless otherwise stated); calculated values of the angle of incidence
(=cube angle arm angle (1)) for the (1,0,0) plane. The highlighted correspond
to the relative maxima.
(1,0,0) Plane.
Column 1
Angle of
Incidence
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Intensity
0.09 mA
0.15 mA
0.15 mA
0.26 mA
0.42 mA
0.33 mA
0.18 mA
0.04 mA
0.10 mA
0.10 mA
0.03 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.01 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.12 mA
0.75 mA
0.82 mA
0.24 mA
0.06 mA
0.40 mA
1.320.03 mA
1.380.03 mA
0.840.03 mA
0.570.03 mA
0.450.03 mA
0.570.03 mA
0.540.03 mA
0.180.03 mA
0.060.03 mA
0.02 mA
0.03 mA
0.02 mA
0.02 mA
0.00 mA

Cube
Angle
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
49.0
50.0
51.0
52.0
53.0
54.0
55.0
56.0
57.0
58.0
59.0
60.0
61.0
62.0
63.0
64.0
65.0
66.0
67.0
68.0
69.0
70.0

Arm
Angle
72.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
94.0
96.0
98.0
100.0
102.0
104.0
106.0
108.0
110.0
112.0
114.0
116.0
118.0
120.0
122.0
124.0
126.0
128.0
130.0
132.0
134.0
136.0
138.0
140.0

Column 2
Angle of
Incidence
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

Intensity
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.02 mA
0.01 mA
0.01 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.01 mA
0.04 mA
0.14 mA
0.28 mA
0.54 mA
0.58 mA
0.32 mA
0.22 mA
0.10 mA
0.02 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA
0.00 mA

Figure 2.1.

The resulting plot of intensity versus the angle of incidence for the (1,0,0) plane.

From (1) we can write

(18)
The error in (

) is given by
(

| c t c c

|c t |

(19)

The results that follow from the relative intensity maxima outlined in Table 8.1.a, and equations
(13), (15), (18), and (19), are summarized in the following table.
Table 2.1.b.

The relative intensity maxima and their corresponding angle of incidence from
which the interplanar spacings
and the lattice constant were calculated.
(1,0,0) Plane
Order of the Maxima
Angle of Incidence
(
)
1
23 1
c
2
49 1
c
2.2%

The mean of the calculated value of is

cm and the measured value of is
cm.
Thus, a simple calculation shows that calculated value of is within 0.76 of the measured value.

Table 2.2.a.

Measured values of the cube angle (0.5), arm angle (0.5), and intensity
(0.01mA); calculated values of the angle of incidence (1) for the (2,1,0) plane.
The highlighted correspond to the relative maxima.
(2,1,0) Plane

Cube
Angle
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
49.0
50.0
51.0

Arm
Angle
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
94.0
96.0
98.0
100.0
102.0

Column 1
Angle of
Incidence
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Intensity
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03

Cube
Angle
52.0
53.0
54.0
55.0
56.0
57.0
58.0
59.0
60.0
61.0
62.0
63.0
64.0
65.0
66.0
67.0
68.0
69.0
70.0

Arm
Angle
104.0
106.0
108.0
110.0
112.0
114.0
116.0
118.0
120.0
122.0
124.0
126.0
128.0
130.0
132.0
134.0
136.0
138.0
140.0

Note that the only detectable intensity maxima (central maximum,

incidence is 57.

Figure 2.2.

Column 2
Angle of
Incidence
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

Intensity
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.22
0.24
0.2
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

) occurs when the angle of

The resulting plot of intensity versus the angle of incidence for the (2,1,0) plane.
7

Table 2.2.b.

The relative intensity maxima and their corresponding angle of incidence from
which the interplanar spacings
and the lattice constant were calculated.
(2,1,0) Plane
Order of the Maxima
Angle of Incidence
%Err
1
57 1
c
c
0.61%

A simple calculation shows that calculated value of

is within 2.0

of the measured value.

From Tables 2.2.a. and 2.2.b. we see that the percent error in using the first order Bragg equation is
]. This means that the second order terms of the Bragg equation are
between [
negligible.
corresponds to the central peak where intensity is the maximum. As increases the height
of the
peak decreases, indicating an inverse relationship between and intensity. The halfwidth of an intensity peak at a given location is given by the following formula [3]
(20)
c
where
are the same as before and is the total number of slits. (20) shows that there is an
inverse relationship between ; the further away from the central maxima a peak is (the greater
is), the smaller its width. Both of these qualitative assessments of the behavior of the intensity
peaks with respect to the parameter agree with Figures 8.1 and 8.2.

Conclusion
By means of analysis of the (1,0,0) and (2,1,0) planes, the lattice constant , of the model
crystal was determined to be
cm and
cm respectively, which are within 0.76
and 2.0 of their accepted value (3.80
cm) respectively. Furthermore, the qualitative
aspects of the parameter on the intensity of the diffracted microwaves, were analyzed and were
found to be accordance with theory. This experiment shows that the methodology used in
determining the lattice constants of actual crystals can be translated to the macroscopic level.

Acknowledgements
The data was obtained with the help of Daniel Inafuku.

Appendix
[4] Alternating Series Estimation Theorem:
(

ac

ve ge t alte at g e e the the e a de

| | |
|
the
pa t al u
That is, the error in using the
partial sum

, is at most the size of the first neglected term

g
.

References
[1] Bragg Diffraction. Retrieved December 25, 2012, from Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/76969/Bragg-diffraction-peak
[2] P YS
[3]

L Ma ual Bragg Diffraction p

all day D Re ck R Walke J Fu da e tal

Inc., 2011, pg. 1007

Phy c

th

d J h W ley a d S

[4] Alternating Series Estimation Theorem. Retrieved December 27, 2012, from MHF
http://mathhelpforum.com/calculus/174445-alternating-series-estimation-theorem.html