Ionization Potential and Work Function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between ionization potential (IP) and work function (WF), specifically whether IP values include WF in their measurements. Participants explore definitions, measurement conditions, and theoretical implications related to gaseous states and temperature effects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that ionization potential values do not include the work function, defining IP as the energy required to remove the outermost electron from an isolated atom in a gaseous state.
  • Others question whether all IP values are measured in the gaseous state and inquire about the temperature conditions used for such measurements.
  • One participant mentions that according to quantum theory, the energy is quantized and independent of temperature, providing a calculation for kinetic energy at room temperature to illustrate minimal error in IP values.
  • Another participant notes that while IPs are related to gaseous atoms, they are not typically measured in that state, referencing methods like Hess' Law and modern spectroscopy techniques, while highlighting challenges in achieving high measurement accuracy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on whether IP values include WF, with multiple competing views on measurement conditions and definitions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions and measurement practices.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of definitions, the dependence of measurements on experimental conditions, and the challenges in achieving accuracy in IP measurements.

what_are_electrons
Do Ionization Potential values include or exclude the work function of the electron removal process? For example: The IP value for hydrogen is 13.6 eV.

Is the true IP 13.6 eV or 13.6 - WF (ca. 4 eV) = 9.6 eV roughly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No they don't include the work function.

Ionization potential is defined as the energy required to remove the outermost electron from an isolated atom in gaseous state.

An isolated atom in gaseous state does not have any work function.

Work function arises from other factors including the crystal structure etc. etc.
 
vinter said:
No they don't include the work function.

Ionization potential is defined as the energy required to remove the outermost electron from an isolated atom in gaseous state.

An isolated atom in gaseous state does not have any work function.

Work function arises from other factors including the crystal structure etc. etc.

Does this mean that all of the IPs listed for all of the elements were measured when the elements were in a gaseous state? If so, what temperature would be used?
Thanks!
 
according to quantum theory, since the energy is quantize, the result is independent to the temperature...

let me do a very simple calculation for H atom
[tex]KE \approx kT = 8.617 \times 10^{-5} T (in Kelvin)eV[/tex]

in a room temperature, T=300 degree, KE approximately equal to 10^-2 eV, only a fraction of IP (13.6 eV in your case)... so even if you use classical theory... the error in minimal...
 
Though IPs are related to atoms in the gaseous state, they ar NOT usually measured in the gaseous state. The old method is to use Hess' Law of Constant Summation, one of the great applications of which is the Born Haber Cycle. Modern methods include sophisticated equipments and spectroscopy etc. etc.
Ionization Potential is DEFINED as a quantity independent of such things as the temperature. It's like, you consider just an atom with a nucleus and the electrons and forget about what's going on outside it. This definition does create problems because in the laboratory, your apparatus cannot be independent of such other factors. To attain a high accuracy in the measurement of IP is still a challenge.
 
OK. Got it. Many thanks for the assist.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K