Thank you very much everyone, a lot of helpful and informative comments!
Typically our samples do not have low mass absorption so this
advantage of parallel beam is probably not so important for us. We do
aim for high resolution, even with the time cost, and new solid state
detectors will help. S
eld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Bragg-Brentano vs. parallel beam
Dear All,
Due to a laboratory diffractometer purchase I'm making a pros and cons
list for two configurations:
1) Theta-2theta Bragg-Brentano geometry & Johansson primary beam
monochromator.
2) Omega-2theta parallel beam geometry with prima
Markus Valkeapää wrote:
Any comments on these two different geometries here on Rietveld list?
It depends on the sample? Reflection geometry helps when there is a lot
of absorbtion.
Jon
first
answer,
All the best,
marco
-Original Message-
From: Markus Valkeapää [mailto:markus.valkea...@tkk.fi]
Sent: 23 January 2009 10:08
To: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Bragg-Brentano vs. parallel beam
Dear All,
Due to a laboratory diffractometer purchase I'm making a pros and
Dear All,
Due to a laboratory diffractometer purchase I'm making a pros and cons
list for two configurations:
1) Theta-2theta Bragg-Brentano geometry & Johansson primary beam
monochromator.
2) Omega-2theta parallel beam geometry with primary beam 2-bounce flat
crystal monochromator.
Point of
