Talk:Bragg's law

message: At 2007-01-18T01:22:20 (UTC),  suggested that this article be merged with Bragg diffraction. Brian Jason Drake 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, for the simple reason that it took me a long time to find Bragg diffraction and I instead spent my time milling around here, which is somewhat less useful. Sojourner001 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge with [[Bragg diffraction]] 

message: The derivation presented in the article is different from the widely-accepted derivation. Any reason for this? The widely accepted derivation uses AB + BC as the path difference. There is no mention of AC', AC, or any of those. To my eye, I cannot even see how a path difference of something less than AB + BC can resolve to the same as AB + BC.
: You are wrong. No derivation uses AB+BC (as defined here) as the path difference, or else you wouldnt arrive at Bragg's law. Some derivations define their triangles differently (they draw a right angle from the incident point of the first beam to the intersection with the second beam. So the lines AB and BC are already less than those defined here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.75.24 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation

message: "n is an integer determined by the order given" 
This is insufficiently described. Order of what? n does not appear in any of the images, so, is is always 1? Where does it come from, when is it used (should all be added to the text). Adacus12 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  n? and d? 

message: Yesterday (March 28 2011) a user (Franergy1) merged the content from Bragg diffraction into this article. The problem with this is that there was no prior discussion on such a merge (that I know of) and also Bragg's Law is not necessarily the same as Bragg diffraction. I therefore belatedly open the merge up for discussion.Polyamorph (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Bragg diffraction 

message: The whole paragraph on reciprocal space is one big non sequitur.  I don't know what kind of "Bragg Experiment" the author was doing, but when doing x-ray diffraction, you don't measure lambda or d; you measure *theta*.  Then you use the magical mathematic technique of division to get d.  Perhaps the author got a D on his lab report in Physics 101 for reporting n as the distance between the crystal planes??  A mistake that obvious doesn't really seem worthy of discussion.  So what is that paragraph about?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.106.136 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reciprocal Space 

message: I have a couple of comments on the article:
1. Regardless of what secondary sources may say, Bragg's law was originally published in the following reference:
Proceedings of Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol XVII, page 43-57. In that publication, W. L. Bragg appears as the
sole author, and the paper was introduced by Sir J. J. Thomson. In addition to secondary sources, I think that this
reference should be included in the section. I think that the fact that W. L. Bragg was the sole author of 
the manuscript should be mentioned as well, since
authorship is the base for attributing scientific merit in modern research. The paper does acknowledge other scientists,
but no other Bragg is mentioned there.
2. If you read the paper mentioned in 1 (there is a digitized copy
available online of the whole volume), it is clearly stated that the main source of inspiration of Bragg's work was
the earlier publication by von Laue. Bragg's aim is to offer a more straightforward interpretation of the X-ray
diffraction experimentally observed by von Laue. In von Laue's work the traditional derivation of diffraction based on
the scattering of an incident plane wave by an ordered collection of atoms is explained, showing that the authors already
understood the basics of XRD. In its current form, the
section gives the impression that Bragg (father and son) both discovered X-ray diffraction, while in reality
von Laue's Nobel prize was awarded for demonstrating the diffraction of X-rays in crystalline solids. Bragg's contribution
was extremely important, but precedents should be acknowledged. I suggest that this fact, together with the original
von Laue's work, are included as well (if not in the text, as a footnote).
Anglyan (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding correct references 

message: This whole entry assumes reflective diffraction; it would be very helpful to show how Bragg's Law applies to transmittive diffraction.
--PMH232 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In General 

message: I mildly rewrote the tail ends of the definition section and the heuristic derivation section to be smoother, I hope. 178.38.21.137 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heuristic derivation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bragg's law. 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/20110710191659/http://www.encalc.com/?expr=n%20lambda%20%2F%20(2*sin(theta))%20in%20nanometers&var1=n&val1=1&var2=lambda&val2=620%20nm&var3=theta&val3=45%20degrees&var4=&val4= to http://www.encalc.com/?expr=n%20lambda%20%2F%20(2*sin(theta))%20in%20nanometers&var1=n&val1=1&var2=lambda&val2=620%20nm&var3=theta&val3=45%20degrees&var4=&val4=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608141639/http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~detong/phys3510_4500/xray.pdf to http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~detong/phys3510_4500/xray.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Great figure Furiouslettuce. One suggestion is that it would be nice to have a screen that is shown to pick up the reflected light, with the screen angled such that the reflected light is incident to the normal of the screen. That way you can see that one path length is longer.
Quicknick5k (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bragg Condition Figure