Electron Diffraction Lab

Emmet Katzer
May 17, 2018

Abstract
Although electrons are particles, they act as waves if they have enough
momentum, which can lead to electron diffraction. When firing electrons
through a graphite crystal, the electrons diffract at smaller angles if the
momentum of the electrons is increased. The momentum of the elec-
trons is used in de Broglie’s hypothesis to determine the wavelength for
the electron waves. Therefore, by analyzing the relationship between the
electrons’ wavelength and scattering angle, via the Bragg condition, crys-
tal spacing values for two different orientations of graphite crystals is
calculated to be approximately 111 nm and 68 nm.

1 Introduction
Diffraction occurs when a wave is bent after interacting with a surface. One
specific type of diffraction, known as Bragg diffraction, occurs when a wave
diffracts through a crystal lattice [Wik18]. Bragg diffraction causes the wave to
reflect very intensely only at specific wavelengths and incident angles. Bragg
diffraction was first observed when x-rays, passed through a crystal lattice, only
reflected at specific angles relative to the incident waves (see figure 1).
The x-rays undergoing Bragg diffraction obeyed the Bragg condition, which
relates the crystal spacing, d, wavelength, λ, and the scattering angle, θ. The
Bragg condition states
2d sin(θ) = nλ (1)
where n can be any positive integer, and θ, the scattering angle, is equal to
one-half of the angle between the incident beam and reflected beam (see figure
2).
Bragg diffraction is a phenomena that only waves can exhibit, and since
x-rays can be described as light waves, their ability to diffract is explainable.
However, while light has some properties of waves, it also has some properties
of particles, which is described as wave-particle duality. Wave-particle duality is
not limited to light, however. Electrons, which are primarily described as parti-
cles, also exhibit wave-particle duality as shown in their ability to diffract. Since
diffraction is a phenomena that is only describable by waves, electron diffraction
can only be explained if the electrons are represented as waves. Transitioning

1
the description of electrons (and also any other particle with non-zero mass)
from particles to waves can be described by de Broglie’s hypothesis.
De Broglie’s hypothesis states that if a particle is represented as a wave, its
wavelength, λ, is given by
h
λ= (2)
p
where h = 6.626 × 10−34 Js, is Planck’s constant, and p is the momentum. Since
the wavelength of the electron waves are dependent on the momentum, they
p2
depend on the kinetic energy of the electrons, which is given by KE = 2m . As
electrons are charged particles, the kinetic energy of the electrons can be easily
controlled by accelerating the electrons via electric potential energy. Controlling
the electric potential, or voltage, controls the kinetic energy of the electrons,
which in turn manipulates the wavelength of the electron ”waves.”

2 Experiment
2.1 Experiment Setup
The electron diffraction apparatus used in this experiment (see figure 3) ac-
celerates electrons through a controlled electric potential in a vacuum, which
gives them a controllable kinetic energy. These electrons are then focused into
a beam and strike a thin layer of graphite, causing them to undergo Bragg
diffraction. Since Bragg diffraction causes the electron beam to only diffract at
specific angles, the electrons form circular patterns after striking a fluorescent
screen.

2.2 Experiment Procedure

The circular patterns formed in this experiment are primarily observed as two
rings of different radii. By recording the radius of these circular patterns along
with the distance from the graphite to the screen, two scattering angles, repre-
sented by θ, can be calculated (see figure 3). The scattering angle, and thus the
radii of the circular patterns, can be altered by manipulating the wavelength of
the beam, according to the Bragg condition (equation 1).
The wavelength of the beam cannot be easily measured, but can be calcu-
lated from the momentum of the electrons (equation 2), which is closely related
to the kinetic energy of the electrons. Since the kinetic energy of the electrons
is determined by their electric potential energy, altering the voltage difference
they pass through changes the wavelength and thus the circular pattern radii.
By recording different radii with different voltage differences, the data can even-
tually be analyzed in terms of wavelength and scattering angle, as used in the
Bragg condition (equation 1).

2
3 Data Analysis
By invoking the Bragg condition (equation 1) with the calculated wavelength,
λ and scattering angle θ, and assuming n = 1, the crystal spacing, d, can be
calculated. To calculate this crystal spacing as accurately as possible, the data
was analyzed using a fit function with the angle as a function of wavelength.
The fit function was a simple rearrangement of the Bragg condition, being of
the form:  
λ
θ = arcsin (3)
2d
This fit function was fit to the data and was used to calculate two different
spacing values for the graphite. The first crystal spacing was calculated to be
about d1 = 1.11 × 10−10 ± 7.65 × 10−13 m. The second crystal spacing was
calculated to be approximately d2 = 6.77 × 10−11 ± 3.41 × 10−13 m. Both of
these values are on the same order of magnitude of the actual value for the
crystal spacing, at 142 nm (1.42 × 10−10 m). However, the 142 nm value is not
within the uncertainties of any of the calculated crystal spacings. Therefore,
the two calculated crystal spacings may represent different orientations of the
crystal than the 142 nm crystal spacing value.
When integrating the calculated crystal spacing values into the fit function,
the fit function reasonably fits the observed data. When the fit function is
plotted with the observed data (shown in figures 4 and 5), there aren’t many
huge outliers. These results are still reasonable according to the residual plots,
which show the difference between the observed data and predicted data (shown
in figures 6 and 7). If there is a pattern in the residual plots, then the fit
function is not of the correct form, however, the residual plots show no apparent
pattern, meaning the fit function used here (equation 3) accurately describes the
relationships in the data. The fit function is also judged by the reduced χ2 value,
which was calculated to be 1.805 for the fit function for d1 and 3.604 for the
fit function for d2 . Generally reduced χ2 values near 1, are most indicative of
reasonable data. These reduced χ2 values are close enough to 1 to suggest the
analysis was reasonable, however, they do indicate that there may be some error
that could have been improved upon.
Most likely, the largest source of error was the difficulty in measuring some
of the circles produced on the screen. For some of the lower voltage cases, the
produced circles were very faint and difficult to measure. However, even with
these sources of error, the analysis still appears to yield a reasonable estimate
for the crystal spacing values within graphite.

4 Conclusion
The crystal spacing values for graphite were calculated by analyzing the scatter-
ing angle and wavelength of diffracted electrons. Since diffraction is a property
of waves, electrons must be represented as waves, via de Broglie’s hypothesis,
in order to describe their diffraction. When diffracted through graphite, the

3
diffraction of the electrons was described by the Bragg condition, which de-
scribes diffraction through a crystal. By applying the Bragg condition to the
observed data, two different crystal spacings for different orientations of the
graphite crystal were calculated.

Figure 1: Diagram showing x-ray diffraction through a crystal. The x-rays only
reflect at specific angles due to the structure of the crystal they are passed
through. [res]

Figure 2: Diagram detailing scattering angle measurements for Bragg diffrac-

tion. The angle between the incident beam and the reflected beam is 2 times
the scattering angle, θ. The beam will only reflect intensely for specific values
of θ, where the Bragg condition, 2d sin(θ) = nλ, is met. [Wik18]

4
Figure 3: Diagram showing electron diffraction apparatus. Electrons move
through the focus and are diffracted through the crystal onto the fluorescent
screen. [3B 15]

Figure 4: Plot of the first scattering angle (radians) vs. wavelength (meters).
The data are plotted with error bars showing uncertainty in the data, along
with the fit function. The fit function seems to reasonably fit the data.

5
Figure 5: Plot of the first scattering angle (radians) vs. wavelength (meters).
The data are plotted with error bars showing uncertainty in the data, along
with the fit function. Like the fit function for the first angle, this fit function
also seems to reasonably fit the data.

Figure 6: Residual plot for the fit function for the first diffraction angle, showing
the difference between the measured angle and the angle calculated from the fit
function. Since there is no pattern in the residual plot, the data can be assumed
to be reasonable.

6
Figure 7: Residual plot for the fit function for the first diffraction angle, showing
the difference between the measured angle and the angle calculated from the fit
function. Similar to the first residual plot, since there is no pattern, the data
can be assumed to be reasonable.

References
[3B 15] 3B Scientific. Electron diffraction tube d 1013885, 2015. [Online; ac-
cessed 16-May-2018].
[res] Diffraction of x-rays - resources.teachnet. [Online; accessed 16-May-
2018].

[Wik18] Wikipedia contributors. Bragg’s law — Wikipedia, the free encyclope-

dia, 2018. [Online; accessed 16-May-2018].