Bohr Model Problem (Part 2 - Updated)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on clarifying the calculations related to the Bohr model of hydrogen, specifically regarding energy emissions and transitions between energy levels. The user seeks confirmation on their calculations for the wavelength corresponding to an energy emission of 1.977x10^-19 J and the final energy level after transitioning from n = 7. Responses emphasize that recalculating energy from wavelength is unnecessary since the energy change (ΔE) is already provided. Efficient problem-solving methods are encouraged, including deriving equations for energy levels and verifying results through different approaches. The user is reminded that understanding the concepts is crucial for solving complex problems.
RJLiberator
Gold Member
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
63
Greetings again,

So I realize my last thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=757685 became chaotic with my thoughts and un-clear writing.

I've re-did the work to make it easier for people to understand my thought process. The two questions are as follows:

7)Calculate the wavelength that corresponds to an emission of energy of 1.977x10^-19 J.

8)If the initial energy level for the energy change in problem seven is n = 7, what is the final energy level?

And here's my updated work:
7)
8e9bc8e7-638e-4cf5-9a0f-dcaae8f6f0ef_zpsecbc3d25.jpg


8)
Problem8_zps2ffc54db.jpg


Any confirmation if I followed the right steps and achieved the correct answer?

Thank you as always,
Ron
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK for 7.
For 8, you do not need, and should not, recalculate ΔE from the wavelength.
You already know what ΔE is, it was given to you at the start.

You should have an equation for the energy levels for Hydrogen in terms of n.
What is it?

ΔE=Ef-Ei = E(nf)-E(ni)

So what is nf and ni?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Well, n initial is giving to us at n level = 7.
n final is what we are calculating and I received the answer of 1.

Hm.
Nf = 1 is incorrect?
 
Dunno - I did not do the problem, and I would have chosen a different approach.
You asked if you'd done the right steps - there are no right steps, but there are more efficient approaches. Full marks usually comes from demonstrating understanding.

Want to check your answer, try doing it another way.
Work out the equation for ΔE in terms of E1 and both n's - then solve for nf, and then plug the numbers in.

Remember: you are training to solve problems that nobody knows the correct answers to.
You need to work out, now, some ways to tell if you are right or not.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Simon - Cheers for the response. Allow me some time to get back to this (hopefully tomorrow morning). I appreciate your responses greatly.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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