Experimentally Determining

the Molecular Separation

Distance in Sodium Chloride
via X-Ray Diffraction

Created By Brian Hallee

Partnered by Joseph Oxenham

Performed November 6, 2010

Historical Background
X-Rays officially entered into the realm of human understanding by

way of Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen’s discovery of them in 1895. As a professor

of Physics at the University of Wurzburg, he had previously performed

experiments on cathode rays to determine their photographic properties. In

his famous hour, a lonely Friday afternoon in a dark room in the physics

building, Rontgen was utilizing a “Crookes-tube”, (a vacuumed tube with a

positive and negative electrode at either end), to focus cathode rays towards

a florescent screen coated with barium platinocyanide.1 The Crookes tube

was known to give off a glow at the edges when in use. Thus, Rontgen

buffered the glow from the screen he was observing by wrapping the tube in

black cardboard. To his fascination, the screen continued to display a faint

glow of which, due to the relatively large distance from the tube, the source

could not possibly have been stray cathode rays. In reality, “hard” X-rays,

with their solid penetrating abilities, were being

created via Rontgen’s apparatus. Rontgen seemed to

quickly grasp the significance in application of these

rays, as he made popular his findings by performing

the first radiological X-Ray scan of his wife’s hand2

(See Figure 1). The discovery immediately thrust

Rontgen into the limelight of the physics world, won

him the first Nobel Prize in Physics ever bestowed3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/File:Anna_Berthe_Roentg
en.gif (1901), and paved the way for countless applications

Page | 1
of the x-rays wondrous abilities such as the topic of this paper. The notion

that X-rays could determine the spacing of atoms in salt came after a series

of quick “bursts” of findings over just a few short years. The ball began

rolling when the German physicists Max von Laue and Paul Ewald conversed

in the summer of 1912 over Ewald’s thesis experiment.4 The idea was to use

crystals as diffraction gratings for visible light. However, von Laue quickly

realized the model fell short due to the molecular spacing in the crystal

being of shorter distance than the wavelength of light. Thus, the spacing

becomes physically impossible to resolve using the visible spectrum of

electromagnetic radiation. Von Laue proposed the use of X-rays for this task,

as their wavelength falls below the range of molecular distances (10 – 0.01

nm)5. He went to work acquiring technicians and an X-ray source to aim a

beam of rays through a copper sulphate crystal, and observe the diffraction

on a specialized photographic surface. What he observed was a structured

order of interference patterns arranged in circles around the spot produced

by the direct beam. This made obvious two facts: X-rays are waves and the

atoms in a crystal are arranged in a regular pattern. Following this and

many other experiments, von Laue applied mathematical rigor to the

phenomenon and derived physical laws governing the deflection angles and

spacing of the patterns that result from X-ray diffraction. This work earned

him the 1914 Nobel Prize in physics. Continuing the breakneck-pace at which

the field was developing, and naturally inspired by von Laue’s genius and

success, the father and son team of W.H. and W.L. Bragg sought to apply

Page | 2
mathematics to the reflection of X-rays in the evenly-spaced planes of

crystals. While we will leave the actual derivation to the theory section, as it

directly applies to our sought-after results for this experiment, it is important

to note that their conclusion, (now bestowed the term Bragg’s Law), gives a

conscious experimenter the ability to measure the molecular spacing in any

crystal, so long as the wavelength of the X-ray is pre-determined as well as

the angle at which it arrives (relative to the face).6 The potential for

application of this law was huge. Immediately following the discovery, teams

of researchers began determining the structures and bonds present in the

simplest of inorganic materials, and eventually working up to large organic

chains. The first crystal to be attacked and solved was ordinary table salt,

(Sodium Chloride, the material used in our own experiment). Once thought to

be held by some form of covalent bond, the diffraction study effectively

predicted the presence of ionic bonds.7 Owing to its monumental

application, Bragg’s Law secured both W.L. and W.H. Bragg the Nobel Prize

in physics for 1915.

Theoretical Basis

Considering this entire experiment is closely coupled to the act of X-

ray generation, it is only fitting to briefly describe how this is acquired. In

very simple terms, the “X-ray tube” we will utilize acts similarly to a cathode

ray tube in that an electron is accelerated in some way. However, residing in

the tube is a copper leaf that is in charge of actually generating the X-rays.

Page | 3
Figure
Figure 4:3: X-Ray scattering
A model of the occurring on two
Figure
separate
Sodium and2: Depicting
planes, X-Rays
and the
Chloride ions being geometry
associated
scattered
in table saltfrom two planes of a crystal.
Deriv.gif
Source: See8
Copper is chosen for the reason that it is known to behave in a certain way

when injected with a high-speed electron. When the electron enters the

copper nucleus, the atom emits a wide array of electromagnetic waves

coined “Bremsstrahlung Radiation”. Immediately following this, a valence

electron is emitted leaving the atom

in an unstable state. At this point, a

higher-energy electron will make a

quantum jump to quell this issue

while simultaneously emitting an X-

ray. When this phenomenon is

compounded by a stream of steady high-speed electrons, a relatively steady

stream of X-rays is also produced. As we mentioned earlier, in order to

diffract, reflect, or resolve at such infinitesimally small distances such as the

spacing of a molecule, the wavelength of the ray doing the job must be of

similar order. Considering this experiment has been performed many times

over, it was pre-determined that the accepted value for Sodium-Chloride

crystal spacing is roughly 0.282nm.8 Thus, “hard” X-rays are required for this

task as their wavelengths span from .1nm to 0.01nm. It is also known that

when an atom accepts an X-ray at some angle relative to its plane (Grazing

angle) that it will reflect it back at the same Grazing angle in the same

direction it was moving prior to acceptance. This is called X-ray scattering,

and it is depicted in figure 2. The figure denotes the accepting grazing angle

as θa and the reflection angle as θr. As we will see later, we want all the rays

Page | 2
scattered off of the same plane to be in phase. Thus, θa will equal θr. Also, in

our experiment, Sodium Chloride exhibits equal spacing between atoms in a

grid-like fashion (Figure 3). Thus, in reference to figure 2, both variable-less

dimensions shown are actually equal to each other. This will aid us in

determining the phase-

difference of rays that scatter

off planes directly above or

below each other. One

remaining important fact that

applies to our following

derivation is that our X-ray

tube configuration emits two specific X-range wavelengths of 0.154nm and

0.138nm. We will denote the wavelengths as λα and λβ respectively, and λα is

of greater intensity than that of λβ. Now, unlike a diffraction grating where

all the emitted waves are in phase, X-rays scattered

from crystals do not exhibit this uniformity. As you

can plainly see from figure 2, the X-rays that are

scattered from the 2nd layer of molecules travel a

certain distance farther than those scattered from

the first layer. Depending on this added distance, the lower waves may

constructively or destructively interfere with the higher ones. We can

determine exactly what distances would contribute to these phenomena by

applying a bit of trigonometry to figure 2, as shown in figure 4. We can infer

Page | 3
from figure 4 that the second ray must travel an added distance of AB + BC

in order to remain parallel to the top ray once scattered. For to waves to be

in phase, the “phase difference”, (distance from peak-to-peak or trough-to-

trough), must be an integer number times the wavelength of the waves in

question. Thus, if we wish to assume our two waves in figure 4 are in phase,

the added distance for the bottom ray must be equal to n*λ, or:

nλ=AB+BC (eqn. 1)

We may also infer from figure 4 that either AB or BC forms a mini triangle

with hypotenuse d. Thus,

sinθ= oppositehypotenuse = ABd → AB=d*sinθ (eqn. 2)

Because Sodium Chloride exhibits equal spacing in both the vertical and

horizontal directions, AB = BC, and we can rewrite equation 1 as follows:

nλ=2AB (eqn. 3)

All that is left is to substitute equation 2 into equation 3 and we achieve:

2d*sinθ = nλ (eqn. 4 - Bragg’s Law)

N = An integer number (1, 2, 3, 4, …)

d = The distance from atom-to-atom inside the molecule
λ = The wavelength of the X-Ray used during the scattering
θ = The Grazing Angle of the X-ray (Relative to the face of the crystal)

This is the original Bragg’s law. While the law is mathematically easy to

derive, recall from before how this law single-handedly has allowed for any

crystal’s structure to be determined if so desired. Notice that the location of

Page | 4
the crystal does not come into play determining how the X-rays are

scattered. So long as the crystal lies in the beam of rays, the phenomenon

can be observed. Obviously, we started with an, at this point, seemingly

reckless assumption that lengths AB + BC should place the 2nd ray in phase

with the first. This is not always the case, and the entirety of this experiment

is a rigorous attempt at finding exactly when equation 4 does apply in a real

scattering scenario. Naturally, equation 4 is only relevant when X-rays are

experimentally determined to be reflecting in phase from the crystal’s

planes. Thus, a full sweep of angles needs to be done to observe the “key”

angle (or angles) at which Bragg’s law applies. If equation 4 is applicable at

a certain angle, only then we are able to solve for the spacing between

molecules in the crystal.

Apparatus

The centerpiece of this experiment was the Tel-X-Ometer Tel 580

machine. This device came equipped with the X-ray tube and a cord to

power the tube. The tube was situated at the edge of a stage facing the

center. A knurled clutch plate resided at the center that interlocks both the

crystal post, (Where the sodium chloride is mounted), and the carriage arm.

The carriage arm extends outward and off of the stage so the user may

adjust the angle at which the crystal receives the X-rays. The spectrometer

drive mechanism driving the carriage is 2:1. Thus, for every degree change

of the carriage the grazing angle changes by ½ degree. Containing all

Page | 2
devices on the stage and shielding the user from stray X-rays is a large

lead/glass shield. The shield deactivates crucial switches when lifted up that

effectively bar the X-ray tube from galvanizing in any fashion. Located

directly opposite of the X-ray tube, attached to the shield, was a

lead/aluminum plate placed for added protection against stray X-rays. Once

the shield is down and in place, the machine is activated via the turning of a

key and setting of a timer. A specified X-ray generation time must be set in

order for the X-rays to begin emanating.

In order to determine when we have arrived at a “Bragg-applicable”

angle, we need some way at numerically observing the scattering of the

rays. Thus, a Geiger Muller Tube is attached to the carriage for this purpose.

An X-ray travels at the speed of light. Thus, as it enters the Geiger tube it

will literally rip the electrons from the air molecules inside. A positively

charged Tungsten wire resides inside to attract these electrons which

acquire huge velocities of their own. More electrons will subsequently be

freed thus creating a short surge in the wire allowing the Geiger tube to

transmit data on the X-ray intensity.

In order to achieve clean results, (and minimize stray X-rays), a series

of collimators are used to narrow the beam of X-rays after leaving the X-ray

tube, and before entering the Geiger tube. The collimators are lead disks

that are slide mounted and come equipped with specified diameter slots

(1mm – 3mm) for narrowing the beam. The primary collimator makes use of

Page | 2
an O-ring to ensure that movement will not occur as the collimator heats up.

Also positioned on the carriage arm was a thin slide of nickel film to filter out

much of the λβ X-rays.

We made use of two devices in order to gain inclination as to where

the peaks, or “Bragg-applicable” angles, were. First, we made use of a

speaker-equipped Geiger counter that connected directly to the Geiger

Muller tube. This can be thought of as the “coarse” measurement tool, as it

did not come equipped with any precise measuring tools to quantitatively

handle the X-ray intensity. Its usefulness came in performing an initial run to

determine roughly where the peaks occurred. The other, and more precise,

device at our disposal was the ratemeter. This meter, when connected to

the Geiger tube, was able to give us a numerical value to the number of X-

ray occurrences over a user-specified interval. While the occurrences were,

inherently, not of any importance, the angle at which they were greatest

signified the angle at which we could safely apply Bragg’s Law.

Procedure

Fortunately, before we even began the experiment most of the finer

details of the apparatus were already in place. The Sodium Chloride crystal

was pre-mounted into the crystal plate. The collimators and filters were

already slide-mounted in their proper place. The Geiger Muller tube was

properly mounted onto the carriage arm, and its signal was sent through

wire to the Geiger counter and ratemeter. Specifically, the ratemeter was

Page | 2
set to a potential of 420 Volts and the X-ray counting duration was set to 10

seconds. Therefore, our intensity for the experiment would be in units of

occurrences per 10 seconds. To begin the lab, our job was to simply ensure

the devices were calibrated correctly, and to perform an initial test run. The

final steps taken before activating the X-rays were included ensuring the Tel-

X-Ometer Tel 580 machine was set to 30kV, turning the key to activate the

machine, and setting the timer to 50 minutes. At this point, with the shield

down and locked in place, we were able to begin the scattering process. As

mentioned, we performed a quick run-through of all the allowable angles on

the machine (roughly 12 to 120 degrees) with the Geiger tube connected to

the Geiger counter. In listening carefully to the intensity of the sound

emanating from the Geiger counter, we were able to roughly decide where

the peaks occurred to a certainty of about one degree. This gave us an idea

as to where we should “home in” on a peak when using the more

quantitative ratemeter. However, we were only able to determine roughly

where the first four peaks occurred (28, 31, 56, and 59 carriage degrees

respectively). Consequently, the others had to be found with the ratemeter.

Thus, following our initial run, we connected the Geiger Muller tube to the

ratemeter and set the carriage back to 12 degrees. This time, we moved the

carriage in increments of one degree on the machine (1/2 a degree of

Grazing angle!) and stopped to take a 10 second measurement at each

angle. The ratemeter was extremely user-friendly, and only required the

push of a button at each angle to perform a ten second measurement of the

Page | 2
amount of X-rays present in the tube. At the end of the measurement, the

display on the ratemeter would read the exact number of occurrences in

similar fashion to that of a digital alarm clock. We took intensity

measurements in this fashion until reaching 120 degrees on the machine. At

this point, we utilized the approximate-peak angles we found in our test run

and traveled back to them performing intensity measurements at every 1/6th

of a degree. At the very least, we attempted to perform these fine

measurements up to a degree before and after the aforementioned peaks.

All of the angles and their associated intensities were simultaneously being

plotted in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Thus, acquiring a large amount of

data points around the peaks enabled us to construct a very vivid and

defined peak in our graph. As mentioned in the theory section of this report,

the particular X-ray tube used in our experiment generated two distinct

wavelengths in the X-ray range. Due to the already defined value of

molecular spacing in our sample, we expect both of these wavelengths to

exhibit three different peaks each in the interval of angles we are working

with. Thus, we expected to find a total of six peaks in our graph at the

conclusion of the experiment. The final two peaks, (corresponding to n = 3

for λα and λβ), are extremely small and undefined. Therefore, it was not

expected that we necessarily determine (even roughly) where these peaks

occurred during the course of our initial test run. Instead, we determined the

whereabouts of these peaks by looking at our graph after performing a

quantitative measurement at every 1 degree. Due to certain inexplicable

Page | 3
scatterings and background radiation, both the Gieger counter and the rate

meter always picked up some amount of X-rays at virtually every angle. This

further demonstrates the importance of having numerical values to look at in

determining when most of those X-rays measured were due to the pertinent

effect of scattering. After we determined to some acceptable degree of

precision where our peaks occurred, the X-ray machine was keyed off, and

both the Geiger counter and ratemeter were powered down. In order to find

the separation distances in our sample of Sodium Chloride, the calculation

could be performed at home after gathering our Bragg-applicable angles

from the lab experiment.

Sample Calculations

While this lab remains relatively void of any rigorous mathematical

work to achieve a solution, there are a few calculations that are pertinent to

achieving the final value for separation distance and understanding its error.

This section will give a brief overview of all the calculations used to generate

the raw data and graph (See Appendix and Discussion sections), and how we

will determine such properties such as relative error and standard deviation

to be discussed in the following section. First, we have mentioned that all

the angles marked on the Tel-X-Ometer stage are actually twice the grazing

angle pertinent to our calculations. Thus, to generate the grazing angles

found in our raw data, we used the following formula:

Page | 4
 Grazing Angle= Stage Angle2 (1)

Therefore, using (1), if we are measuring the X-ray intensity at an angle of

65 degrees on the stage, the actual grazing angle can be found as follows:

Grazing Angle= 65°2= 32.5°

This is truly the only mathematical operation needed to generate the graph

(see Appendix – Disc Contents or Figure 5) we did. After forming a 2-column

list of Grazing angle vs. our intensity measurements we generated the graph

in Excel using the following formula:

Graph Data =Sheet1!$B$4:$C$159

After forming the graph and determining exactly where our peak lies, we can

finally apply Bragg’s law (equation 4) to our data and determine and

experimental value for molecular separation:

nλ = 2d*sin⁡(θpeak) (2)

We are ready to apply (2) to a peak to demonstrate a sample calculation.

Looking at figure 5 we will take the first λα peak into account and apply

Bragg’s law to it as follows:

1*1.54x10-10m=2*d*sin15.583° → d= 1.54x10-10m2*sin15.583°

dα1=2.866x10-10m ≈ 0.286nm

Figure 5: X-ray Intensity graph generated during the lab procedure. (All angles
are actual grazing angles) Page | 2
We mentioned previously that the actual separation distance for NaCl is

2.82nm, so this is very close. We will quickly use the same method (2) to

find the d-value for the first λβ peak, and then average the two d-values.

dβ1= 1.38x10-10m2*sin13.998° = 2.853x10-10 = 0.285nm

In the following discussion section, we will take a careful look at all of our d-

values and their associated errors and deviations. Thus, we will present here

a brief summary as to how these calculations are performed. As we will see,

the average of our values will come in hand for certain calculations, so we

quickly determine this using the following formula:

Average= d = 0ndnn (3)

In (3), n represents the total number of data points. Continuing with our

sample calculations, we will use the determined values of dα1and dβ1 and

find their average as follows:

d1 = 0.285nm+0.286nm2 = 0.2855 nm

This value is of importance in solving for a statistical term known as the

standard deviation. The standard deviation, denoted by σ, is found via the

following formula:

σ= 0n(dn- d)2n (4)

This is important in observing how our data varies, and we achieve a sample

deviation using the two previous values and their average below:

Page | 2
σ = (0.286nm-0.2855nm)2+ (0.285nm-0.2855nm)22 = 0.0005

There are a few other important calculations relevant to finding the error of

our values, and we will run through them quickly. First, the absolute error of

a value relative to its accepted value is found via:

Abs. Error=| dreal - dexperiment | (5)

Therefore, using (5), the absolute error of our first alpha peak is as follows:

.282nm- .286nm = .004nm

We can, and will, use this notion of absolute error to find to important error

values: Relative and percent-Relative error. They are respectively calculated

as follows:

Rel. Error= Abs. Errordreal (6)

% Rel. Error = Rel. Error*100% (7)

Using our previous values, we will quickly find some sample errors below:

Page | 2
 Rel. Error = 0.004nm0.282nm = 0.0142

% Rel. Error = (0.0142) * 100% = 1.42% error

This is not too shabby for a quick look at two peaks, and we can now feel

content that both our data and calculations are accurate and can be

discussed and applied to theory.

Discussion

Looking at our graph (Figure 5), we feel as though we were able to

acquire reasonably defined peaks acceptable for the application of Bragg’s

Law. Even if we did not, the notion that the Tel-X-Ometer carriage would be

almost impossible to rotate at angles smaller than 1/6th of a degree means

that our data is likely as good as we could possible achieve with such

equipment at our disposal. Using the Grazing angles associated with the

highest peaks in our data (See Appendix – Raw Data) we can achieve our six

values for d by applying equation 4 to the angles. (Remember that the β

peaks are smaller and come before the α’s. Likewise, keep in mind that

every peak we increasingly come across that corresponds to the same

wavelength (λα or λβ) will require an integer jump in n for Bragg’s Law to

apply).

dα1 = 1*0.154x10-9m2*sin15.583° = 2.86635x10-10m = 0.2867nm

dβ1 = 1*0.138x10-9m2*sin13.998° = 2.85256x10-10m = 0.2853nm

dα2 = 2*0.154x10-9m2*sin33° = 2.82756x10-10m = 0.2828nm

Page | 2
 dβ2 = 2*0.138x10-9m2*sin29.32° = 2.81813x10-10m = 0.2818nm

dα3 = 3*0.154x10-9m2*sin(54.391°) = 2.8413x10-10m = 0.2841nm

dβ3 = 3*0.138x10-9m2*sin(47.5°) = 2.80763x10-10m = 0.2808nm

The six values for d are relatively stable throughout the peaks. We can

numerically derive the “jitter” in our values by calculating the standard

deviation of our values using (4). Omitting the units,

σ = 0.2867-0.2822+ 0.2853-0.2822+ 0.2828-0.2822+ 0.2818-0.2822+ 0.2841-

0.2822+ 0.2808-0.28226*10-9

= 2.566 x10-12

Therefore, we had a mean error or variance of about 0.003 nm which, in our

case, is lightly significant but not detrimental. In order to find a solid value

for d, we will average the six values together using (3) shown below:

Avg= d = 0.2867nm+0.2853nm+0.2828nm+0.2818nm+0.2841nm+0.2808nm6 =

0.2836nm

Next, we wish to achieve the percent relative error against the accepted

value for d and express what might have caused such error in our

experiment. We start by calculating the absolute error relative to the

accepted value of 0.282nm for NaCl using (5):

Abs. Error=0.282nm- 0.2836nm= 0.00158nm

We are now in position to find the % error relative to the accepted value

using (6) and (7):

Page | 2
 % Rel. Error = 0.00158nm0.282nm*100 % = 0.5615% error

While, holistically, this is not a decent amount of error in any calculation,

there are a few factors that may have inevitably led to it. As you can infer

from our graph (Figure 5), the peaks at the n=3 range were barely even

noticeable (especially the final λβ peak). We also lightly mentioned that the

Tel-X-ometer only enabled us to measure to a precision of 1/6th of a degree.

Consequently, it was not possible to fully home in on where the peak lied

when n=3 due to the limitations of the carriage and the barely noticeable

peaks at this range. This may have contributed to some of the error garnered

via our last two measurements. A carriage with a higher degree of accuracy

would have enabled us to further home-in on a more accurate peak. Another

possible source of error was the relatively large amount of “noise” or

background radiation in all of our measurements. The Tel-X-Ometer is, at

the least, decades old and may exhibit X-ray leakage of some-sort

throughout the stage. Nonetheless, every single measurement we took

exhibited intensity (X-rays per 10 seconds) in the high-100’s or low-200’s.

Some of this variable background noise may have contributed to a possible

skewing of a peak, thereby introducing some error in our values.

Nevertheless, an experimental value with a relative error below one percent

is a very successful run by any standards. This is especially true considering

the distances at which we are measuring, and the way in which we are

indirectly measuring them. As we have mentioned many times, physics

textbooks8 state that the accepted value of d is less than one nanometer.
Page | 2
This distance is much smaller than the smallest semi-conductor that can be

manufactured today by the most precise and sophisticated manufacturing

equipment. Therefore, to exhibit an absolute error of less than a hundredth

of a nanometer by observing peaks of X-rays is simply extraordinary.

Although we previously mentioned that d was the distance separating the

molecules in NaCl both vertically and horizontally, this paper has, thus far,

assumed that you have simply treated that fact as an axiom. However, we

are now in position to prove that this, in fact, must be the case. Introductory

electromagnetism suggests that if all of the atoms in a substance were not

evenly spaced and ordered, then a beam of X-rays aimed at the substance

would scatter in every direction constructively and destructively interfering

in a seemingly random fashion. However, we have proved through our graph

(Figure 5) that at certain angles all of the X-rays will scatter and

constructively interfere, suggesting that Sodium and Chloride atoms are

arranged in a cubic fashion in the substance. This is the very definition of a

crystal. Therefore, we have proved, (likely for the 100-millionth time), that

table salt is a crystal.

In conclusion, we have effectively predicted through this experiment (using

Bragg’s Law) that table salt forms a crystal lattice and that lattice is

measured in nanometers (Or Angstroms, if you prefer). Because of these

infinitesimally small distances, we are required to measure the atomic-

separation indirectly by use of electromagnetic radiation. This is due to the

Page | 3
fact that visible light has wavelengths in the hundreds of nanometers,

effectively barring us from visually resolving the separation. This also bars

us from using visible or even ultraviolet light to scatter off the crystal, as

they will not be effectively absorbed and re-emitted. Therefore, X-rays are

the tool of choice and their scattering off the crystal at certain angles gives

us the ability to apply Bragg’s law and solve for the distance. Miraculously,

as we saw via the derivation of Bragg’s Law (see Theoretical Basis),

mathematical proof of this lies only in simple algebra and light trigonometry.

Therefore, through this experiment, X-ray diffraction has shown to be

perhaps the most simple and powerful tool available in cracking the code

behind crystal structures.

Page | 2
Works Cited

Hugh D. Young, R. A. (2007). University Physics. Pearson Addison-Wesley.

Laue, M. v. (1915, November 12). Concerning the Detection of X-Ray Interferences.

Retrieved November 10, 2010, from NobelPrize.org:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1914/laue-lecture.pdf

Peters, P. (n.d.). W.C Roentgen and the discovery of X-rays. Retrieved November 10,
2010, from MedCyclopaedia:
http://www.medcyclopaedia.com/library/radiology/chapter01.aspx

Schields, P. J. (2010, January 29). Bragg's Law and Diffraction: How waves reveal
the atomic structure of crystals. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from SUNY:
StonyBrook: http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/ProjectJava/Bragg/

Endnotes

Page | 3
Appendix - Raw Data

Grazing Angle (2 * Intensity

Θ (Deg)
Deg) (Occurances/10s)

12 6 802

13 6.5 803

14 7 896

15 7.5 886

16 8 969

17 8.5 936

18 9 905

19 9.5 875

20 10 742

21 10.5 730

22 11 688

23 11.5 623

24 12 603

25 12.5 511

26 13 507

27 13.5 450

27.166 13.583 415

27.332 13.666 478

27.498 13.749 779

27.664 13.832 1663

27.83 13.915 2173

27.996 13.998 2335

28 14 2378

Page | 1
28.162 14.081 2049

28.328 14.164 1855

28.494 14.247 1229

28.66 14.33 958

29 14.5 678

30 15 415

30.17 15.085 437

30.336 15.168 442

30.502 15.251 501

30.668 15.334 1010

30.834 15.417 4578

31 15.5 7073

31.166 15.583 7366

31.332 15.666 6965

31.498 15.749 6055

31.664 15.832 4220

31.83 15.915 2670

32 16 1536

33 16.5 305

34 17 304

35 17.5 266

36 18 256

37 18.5 237

38 19 232

39 19.5 216

40 20 240

41 20.5 197

Page | 2
 42 21 199

43 21.5 196

44 22 181

45 22.5 168

46 23 175

47 23.5 159

48 24 147

49 24.5 147

50 25 154

51 25.5 157

52 26 150

53 26.5 152

54 27 132

55 27.5 140

56 28 148

57 28.5 133

58 29 149

58.16 29.08 372

58.32 29.16 523

58.48 29.24 490

58.64 29.32 524

58.8 29.4 466

58.96 29.48 350

59 29.5 493

60 30 158

61 30.5 132

62 31 141

63 31.5 152

Page | 3
 64 32 143

65 32.5 182

65.1666 32.5833 178

65.3332 32.6666 256

65.4998 32.7499 322

65.6664 32.8332 490

65.833 32.9165 954

66 33 1360

66.166 33.083 1201

66.332 33.166 773

66.498 33.249 568

66.664 33.332 334

66.83 33.415 221

67 33.5 158

68 34 108

69 34.5 145

70 35 113

71 35.5 117

72 36 126

73 36.5 106

74 37 118

75 37.5 108

76 38 137

77 38.5 106

78 39 134

79 39.5 156

80 40 116

81 40.5 137

Page | 4
 82 41 118

83 41.5 132

84 42 145

85 42.5 120

86 43 151

87 43.5 123

88 44 140

89 44.5 133

90 45 115

91 45.5 122

92 46 126

93 46.5 130

94 47 138

95 47.5 229

96 48 141

97 48.5 142

98 49 115

99 49.5 113

100 50 131

101 50.5 150

102 51 170

103 51.5 156

104 52 137

105 52.5 156

106 53 127

107 53.5 138

108 54 139

108.166 54.083 146

Page | 5
 108.32 54.16 151

108.474 54.237 243

108.628 54.314 369

108.782 54.391 454

108.936 54.468 464

109.09 54.545 517

109.244 54.622 458

109.398 54.699 428

109.552 54.776 358

109.706 54.853 301

109.86 54.93 253

110 55 383

111 55.5 155

112 56 167

113 56.5 149

114 57 158

115 57.5 175

116 58 147

117 58.5 159

118 59 148

119 59.5 177

120 60 152

dα1 dα2 dα3 dβ1 dβ2 dβ3 Avg. d

2.86635E- 2.82756E- 2.85216E- 2.83222E- 2.80763E-
2.84E-10 2.84E-10
10 10 10 10 10

** Values in the table directly above are in units of meters

Page | 6
Appendix – Disc Contents

Root Directory

○ Lab 5 – Xray Diffraction Report.doc

 The official Lab Report in Microsoft Word format

concerning the X-ray diffraction lab

○ Bragg Diffraction Lab.xls

 The Excel Spreadsheet used to take data points while

performing the experiment. The spreadsheet also
contains calculated values of d, and the graph visually
depicting Intensity vs. Grazing angle

○ Fig2.gif

 Figure 2: Scanned from University Physics (12th Ed.) See

8

○ Fig3.gif

 Figure 3: Scanned from University Physics (12th Ed.) See

8

Page | 7
1 Peters, P. (n.d.). W.C Roentgen and the discovery of X-rays. Retrieved November
10, 2010, from MedCyclopaedia:
http://www.medcyclopaedia.com/library/radiology/chapter01.aspx

2 Kevles, Bettyann Holtzmann (1996). Naked to the Bone Medical Imaging in the
Twentieth Century. Camden, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 19–
22. ISBN 0813523583.

3 "The Nobel Prize in Physics 1901". Nobelprize.org. 11 Nov 2010

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1901/

4 Laue, M. v. (1915, November 12). Concerning the Detection of X-Ray

Interferences. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from NobelPrize.org:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1914/laue-lecture.pdf

5 David R. Lide, ed (1994). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 75th edition.
CRC Press. pp. 10–227. ISBN 0-8493-0475-X.

6 Schields, P. J. (2010, January 29). Bragg's Law and Diffraction: How waves reveal
the atomic structure of crystals. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from SUNY:
StonyBrook: http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/ProjectJava/Bragg/

7 W. L. Bragg, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing

Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, Vol. 89, No. 610 (Sep. 22, 1913),
pp. 248-277

8 Hugh D. Young, R. A. (2007). University Physics. Pearson Addison-Wesley.