Recognitions:

## Atomic Excitation transition energy

 Quote by Sekonda Upon using more accurate values I attain $$n-\delta_{i}=8.33$$
Then you are still not using values which are accurate enough. Using the values given in the exercise I get $$n-\delta_{i}=8.1286$$ which is a rather good match.
 Indeed that would be, I could of sworn I was using the exact numbers - also depends on what you take for the planck's constant. I was using 6.63 - though I'm guessing 6.626 would be better, I'll use a decent speed of light as well... Thanks man! SK
 Using the planck constant as 6.626*.... and the speed of light as 2.99*.... I get that $$n-\delta_{i}=8.0094$$ so maybe it's a d-orbital of the n=8 level?
 Recognitions: Science Advisor I have given you the result above. As you are still off, the values you use are still not exact enough. Maybe your conversion from J to eV for the h is not exact? You can already use the standard value of h=4.1356675...eVs directly. Also, there are numerous wavelength to energy converters around the internet, so you can crosscheck, whether your conversion is good or not. You need at least two significant digits for the outcome to get an accurate result, so it is a good idea to use more than two significant digits for the constants you start with. You will spend much more time by tracking the mistakes in using numbers which are not exact enough than you safe by typing one or two numbers less.
 Yeah I see now, I used more precise values for the constants and got your result. Though I'm not sure we'd get these constants to this degree of accuracy under examination conditions nor have we been told to expect to remember them to this degree! I'm guessing they were probably just looking for the correct application of physics. I guess that'll do! Thanks again, SK