Dear Sir, Can you make a video on how to calculate integrated short circuit current density from the external quantum efficiency of the solar cell with a specific active area (e.g. 0.1 cm^2). I am trying to integrate the external quantum efficiency but end with higher value of short-circuit current density.
Sir, would you please tell me how to calculate the value of the total broadening whose value is equal to (0.23779) and appears at 6:40 in this video? Best regards.
@@SAYPhysics Thank you so much for your reply, sir. But i couldn't get how to calculate the value of the total broadening for my own samples to apply the equation
Great video !, thatnk you Sir, can you please make a video on how to calculate the dislocatin density, and what is the relationship brtween it and the strain ? Thank you again
Thanks for the appreciation dear. I have many videos on the XRD, e.g. dislocation density, W-H plot etc. in the following playlist ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0PUTB0IhlWw.html
Sir, should we apply this to all other peaks in LaB6 data one by one ?, and later get a function of FWHM with respect to two theta, so we can calculate any FWHM data in any twotheta?
Absolutely! You can apply the same approach to other peaks in your LaB6 data individually. Once you've subtracted instrumental broadening for each peak, you can indeed plot a function of FWHM with respect to two theta. This function can then be used to calculate FWHM data for any specific two theta value in your XRD dataset. If you have further questions or need assistance, feel free to ask! Thanks
You must have valid reasons why to to go for Voigt function because usually we are having Gaussian function for the sample broadening and Lorentzian function for instrument. The procedure is the same as it doesn't depend on the function. Thanks
Dear sir, the standard sample I used is Si, and the XRD results have both Ka1 and Ka2 peaks. Should I deconvolute the two peaks before I subtract the instrumental boarding?
Besides, sir, for the standard sample, the FWHM values for each Kα1 peak is not the same after I deconvolute the Kα1 and Kα2, which means I have couples of ρ_(instrument). If I want to calculate the accurate FWTH value of my specimen (α iron), which ρ_(instrument) should I adopt? Or does this imply that my calculation is wrong? Are the FWHM values for the standard sample of each peak same?
For example, my silicon standard sample have a strong peak near 28 degrees, and the FWHM value of the Kα1 peak is 0.2, but another peak near 45 degrees have the FWHM value of 0.17. As for my specimen (BCC iron), I have 5 peaks, and each have different FWHM values. What should I do to rule out the instrumental boradening?
When analyzing XRD data for a sample of Si, it is common to observe both Ka1 and Ka2 peaks in the XRD pattern due to the use of a copper X-ray source. However, deconvolution of the two peaks may not be necessary before subtracting the instrumental background. The instrumental background is typically subtracted from the raw XRD pattern to obtain a corrected XRD pattern, which can then be analyzed to determine the crystal structure and other properties of the sample. The background subtraction is performed to remove contributions from the instrument itself, such as noise, scattering from the instrument components, and absorption of the X-rays by air or other materials in the beam path. The contribution of the Ka2 peak to the XRD pattern is generally much smaller than that of the Ka1 peak, so it may not be necessary to deconvolute the two peaks before subtracting the instrumental background. However, if the sample is very thin or the Ka2 peak is particularly prominent, deconvolution may improve the accuracy of the background subtraction. Thanks
To rule out instrumental broadening in XRD patterns of your samples, you should subtract the instrumental broadening from the observed peak widths by using the Scherrer equation. The Scherrer equation relates the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a diffraction peak to the size of the crystallites in the sample, and can be used to estimate the contribution of instrumental broadening to the peak widths. For example, for your silicon standard sample, you could use the Scherrer equation to estimate the crystallite size from the FWHM of the peaks and compare it to the known crystallite size of the standard sample. If the estimated crystallite size matches the known crystallite size, then the peak broadening is likely due to instrumental broadening. However, if the estimated crystallite size is significantly different from the known crystallite size, then other factors may be contributing to the peak broadening, such as sample preparation or structural defects. Similarly, for your BCC iron specimen, you could use the Scherrer equation to estimate the crystallite size from the FWHM of each peak and compare the results to each other. If the estimated crystallite sizes vary significantly between the peaks, this could indicate the presence of different crystallographic orientations or varying degrees of crystallinity in the sample. However, if the estimated crystallite sizes are similar, this would suggest that the observed peak broadening is primarily due to instrumental broadening. It is important to note that the Scherrer equation provides an estimate of the crystallite size, and there are limitations to its accuracy. Other factors such as strain, stacking faults, and thermal vibrations can also contribute to peak broadening, and these factors may need to be considered when interpreting XRD data. Thanks
@@SAYPhysics Origin is not the problem. I would like to find an answer on how it is possible to substract the instrumental broadening using VOIGT. But thanks a lot.
