İnce filmin üretimine bağlı olarak Omega ve fi değişkenleri daima kullanılabilir. Ama bu iki değişkeni kullanırken teta değişkeni de ihmal edilmemeli. Bir malzeme üretilirken o malzeme için gerekli olan ana ihtiyaç hiçbir zaman gözardı edilmemeli. (Mükemmel bir malzeme için)

Alberto Martinelli

That's a thoughtful and important question. In traditional Williamson-Hall (W-H) analysis, the goal is to separate size-induced and strain-induced broadening of diffraction peaks by examining the peak broadening as a function of the Bragg angle (2θ). This is done in powder diffraction using symmetric θ-2θ scans, where the instrumental and geometric contributions are relatively well understood and consistent.

Rocking curves (ω scans), on the other hand, are primarily used in thin film characterization to assess mosaicity and tilt, reflecting the distribution of crystal orientations rather than microstrain or particle size. Since the rocking curve measures intensity variation as a function of sample tilt, it inherently includes contributions from misalignment, instrumental resolution, and crystal orientation spread, which are not directly related to lattice strain in the same way as symmetric Bragg peaks in powder diffraction.

Thus, using rocking curve data for Williamson-Hall plots is generally not advisable. The presence of ω and ϕ contributions introduces angular dependencies unrelated to strain or crystallite size, potentially invalidating the W-H assumptions. If you're working with thin films and still wish to conduct W-H analysis, it's better to focus on symmetric θ-2θ scans and ensure instrumental broadening is subtracted or corrected for. If asymmetric reflections are needed, careful modeling and deconvolution of tilt and strain contributions would be required, possibly involving more advanced methods like reciprocal space mapping (RSM) or Williamson-Hall-type analysis adapted for thin films (e.g., using line profile analysis with specific geometries).