GI missing wedge

Grazing-incidence measurements give rise to a 'missing wedge' of data near the q_z axis, owing to the curvature of the Ewald sphere.

Explanation

Consider a sample coordinate system where z points vertical (film normal), y points along the beam, and thus x is orthogonal to both of those. The sample's reciprocal space is similar: q_z is the film normal, q_y is along the beam, and q_x is across the sample (both q_x and q_y are in the sample plane). We can also define:

$q_{r}={\sqrt {q_{x}^{2}+q_{y}^{2}}}$

which is the total q-vector in the sample plane.

The detector is a flat plane, but in reciprocal-space, what the detector probes is a curved slice through the 3D reciprocal-space, known as the Ewald sphere. For small-angle scattering, it's a reasonable approximation to ignore this curvature and treat the detector image as a flat slice through reciprocal-space. But this becomes a poor approximation at wide-angles, where the curvature of the Ewald sphere is significant.

The curvature of the Ewald sphere means that any given pixel is not probing $(q_{x},q_{z})$, but actually probing $(q_{x},q_{y},q_{z})$ in the 3D space, where you can't assume $q_{y}=0$ (again, unless you're at sufficiently small angle). This leads to an inescapable ambiguity when trying to display this 3D slice on a 2D screen. The options are:

1. Just ignore the q_y component, and plot q_z on the vertical, and q_x on the horizontal. This will look nice (no missing wedge). However it can be misleading. For instance, scattering rods that are vertical in reciprocal space will look curved in this view. (Higher orders along q_z will not line up correctly.) Also, it looks like the image is showing the q_z axis of reciprocal-space (where $q_{x}=0$), but this is a lie: in reality the experiment never probed the "true q_z", since the Ewald sphere was curving away from this axis.

2. Alternatively, you can plot q_z along the vertical, but plot q_r along the horizontal. This introduces a 'missing wedge', which is physically correct in the sense that you never actually measured the q_z axis in reciprocal space (the area where both $q_{x}=0$ and $qy=0$). The downside is that you've essentially assumed that q_x and q_y are equivalent: i.e. that the film is an in-plane powder. For in-plane aligned samples, you may need to be careful about interpreting the image.

Either of the above options is acceptable for displaying data, as long as you're clear about what you're presenting, and remain mindful of the approximations introduced by the selected visualization.