-
1
-
-
0000199799
-
-
See, for example, J. R. Franz: Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 889, and references therein.
-
See, for example, J. R. Franz: Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 889, and references therein.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
33847339047
-
-
In some literature (for example, ref. 4), γ mercury specifies a phase induced by stress at low temperature. Here we use the term γ mercury to indicate the high-pressure phase appearing above the β phase, following the notation by Schulte and Holzapfel (ref. 9).
-
In some literature (for example, ref. 4), γ mercury specifies a phase induced by stress at low temperature. Here we use the term γ mercury to indicate the high-pressure phase appearing above the β phase, following the notation by Schulte and Holzapfel (ref. 9).
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
0001397463
-
-
As we used no pressure medium in our experiments, some effects of nonhydrostaticity may exist in the present data. The most significant effect of nonhydrostaticity appears as the systematic deviation of the observed d spacings from calculated ones [see, for example, K. Takemura: J. Appl. Phys. 89 (2001) 662, We note that the d spacings of the δ phase (higher-pressure hcp phase) agree well with the calculated ones within ±0.1, a value typical for good quasihydrostatic data. Since the γ phase exists at lower pressures than the δ phase, the magnitude of nonhydrostatic stress and its effects would be smaller. However, we do not rule out the possibility that a different crystalline phase may be stabilized under truly hydrostatic pressure
-
As we used no pressure medium in our experiments, some effects of nonhydrostaticity may exist in the present data. The most significant effect of nonhydrostaticity appears as the systematic deviation of the observed d spacings from calculated ones [see, for example, K. Takemura: J. Appl. Phys. 89 (2001) 662]. We note that the d spacings of the δ phase (higher-pressure hcp phase) agree well with the calculated ones within ±0.1%, a value typical for good quasihydrostatic data. Since the γ phase exists at lower pressures than the δ phase, the magnitude of nonhydrostatic stress and its effects would be smaller. However, we do not rule out the possibility that a different crystalline phase may be stabilized under truly hydrostatic pressure.
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
33847393351
-
-
The high values of the reliability factors are due to the spottiness of the powder pattern of the γ phase. Although we tried to get better diffraction patterns with smooth diffraction rings, the pattern of the γ phase always showed inhomogeneous intensity distribution along the diffraction rings. The situation is similar to the cases of, for example, Cs-III (ref. 24) and Cs-V (ref. 23, In such cases, the reliability factors typically vary from 5 to 15, The present values of the reliability factors are quite reasonable, since the structural model contains only one variable (the x coordinate for the 4i position) to be refined. We further mention that different preferred orientation vectors were assumed for the data in two experimental runs, which gave consistent structural parameters as shown in Fig. 4
-
The high values of the reliability factors are due to the spottiness of the powder pattern of the γ phase. Although we tried to get better diffraction patterns with smooth diffraction rings, the pattern of the γ phase always showed inhomogeneous intensity distribution along the diffraction rings. The situation is similar to the cases of, for example, Cs-III (ref. 24) and Cs-V (ref. 23). In such cases, the reliability factors typically vary from 5 to 15%. The present values of the reliability factors are quite reasonable, since the structural model contains only one variable (the x coordinate for the 4i position) to be refined. We further mention that different preferred orientation vectors were assumed for the data in two experimental runs, which gave consistent structural parameters as shown in Fig. 4.
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
33847370458
-
-
The d spacings shown in Table 1 roughly correspond to those by Schulte and Holzapfel ref. 9, but the present data have much higher peak resolutions. We have observed 35 diffraction peaks in the range of d spacings larger than 1.1 Å, while they listed only 18 peaks in the same range. This could be due to the lower sensitivity and peak resolution in the energy-dispersive method, which they employed. The peak intensities of their data considerably differ from present ones, indicating that their patterns could also be spotty. We could not find any structural relationship of their orthorhombic cell with the present monoclinic cell
-
The d spacings shown in Table 1 roughly correspond to those by Schulte and Holzapfel (ref. 9), but the present data have much higher peak resolutions. We have observed 35 diffraction peaks in the range of d spacings larger than 1.1 Å, while they listed only 18 peaks in the same range. This could be due to the lower sensitivity and peak resolution in the energy-dispersive method, which they employed. The peak intensities of their data considerably differ from present ones, indicating that their patterns could also be spotty. We could not find any structural relationship of their orthorhombic cell with the present monoclinic cell.
-
-
-
|
