Solving for R in Atomic Spectroscopy | Get Homework Help and Tips

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving for the R value in atomic spectroscopy, specifically for Hydrogen using spectral values obtained from Helium. The user initially calculated R but encountered a significant error, yielding values that were orders of magnitude off from the expected R = 1.10 x 10^-7 m^-1. After reviewing the calculations, it was determined that the units were incorrectly handled, leading to miscalculations. The correct approach involves ensuring that R is expressed in the proper units and magnitude, confirming that R should indeed be around 1.10 x 10^7 m^-1 rather than 1.10 x 10^-7 m^-1. The thread emphasizes the importance of unit consistency in calculations for accurate results.
mainzelmadchen
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For our lab, we looked through the spectrometer to find the spectral values for Helium, which after being plugged into an excel spreadsheet, yielded an equation which I could use to find the wavelengths for Hydrogen. We were told to solve for R, which I did. However, at the end, all of my values have a 99.9% error! Even when I use my professor's wavelength values, I do not get the actual value of R = 1.10x10^-7 m-1. Am I calculating this wrong? My professor's wavelength values for #1,2,&3 respectively are 675, 450, & 415 nm.

Homework Equations


1/λ = R ((1/2^2)-(1/ninitial^2))


The Attempt at a Solution


1) 1/748.60606 nm = R ((1/2^2)-(1/3^2)); 0.0013358161 = R ((1/4)-(1/9)); 0.0013358161 = R (0.13888889); R = 0.0096178758 nm x (1 m/1 x 10^9 nm) = 9.6178758 x 10^-12 = 9.6 x 10^-12

2) 1/460.72727 nm = R ((1/2^2)-(1/4^2)); 0.0021704815 = R ((1/4)-(1/16)); 0.0021704815 = R (0.1875); R = 0.011575901 nm x (1 m/1 x 10^9 nm) = 1.1575901 x 10^-11 = 1.2 x 10^-11

3) 1/384.96970 nm= R ((1/2^2)-(1/6^2)); 0.0025976070 = R ((1/4)-(1/36)); 0.0025976070 = R (0.22222222); R = 0.011689232 nm x (1 m/1 x 10^9 nm) = 1.1689232 x 10^-11 = 1.2 x 10^-11
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1/748.60606 nm
[...]
R = 0.0096178758 nm x (1 m/1 x 10^9 nm)
nm should be in the denominator in both cases. This would have been easy to spot if you did not drop the units in between.
It is the same for the other calculations.
 
Ok, I see what you mean. At the end, I should have done (for number one) R = 0.0096178758 nm^-1 x (1 x 10^9 nm/1 m) which results in 9.6178759 x 10^6 m^-1. My answer is even more off. I tried this with my instructor's value to see if I get the correct answer. I did 1/675 nm = R ((1/2^2) - (1/3^2)) and got the result of 1.0666667 m^-1 x 10^7 and it should be 1.10x10^-7 m-1. Is there something else I am not doing correctly?
 
I think I figured it out. I think my instructor made a mistake on this. I believe the answer should be 1.10 x 10^7 m^-1 and not 1.10 x 10^-7 m^-1. After calculating the normal equation constants, this is what I came up with.
1/wavelength = (2.18 x 10^-18 J / ((6.63 x 10^-34 J x s)(3.00 x 10^8 m/s)) x ((1/2^2)-(1/ninitial^2))

1/wavelength = (1.0960282 x 10^7 m^-1) x ((1/2^2)-(1/ninitial^2))
 
Last edited:
As a simple cross-check, R should have the same order of magnitude as 1/λ.
1.10 x 10^7 m^(-1) looks good, 1.10 x 10^(-1) m^(-1) is wrong.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top