Finding the work function using stop potential

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a photoelectric effect problem where the stopping potential is given, and the goal is to determine the work function of the cathode material based on the provided parameters. The subject area is primarily focused on the photoelectric effect and the associated calculations involving energy and potential.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the photoelectric effect formula to solve for the work function but encounters discrepancies with known values. Some participants question the units used for Planck's constant and suggest adjustments to the calculations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the implications of unit conversions and the correct application of constants in the calculations. There is no explicit consensus on the resolution of the problem, but several lines of reasoning are being explored regarding the use of Planck's constant and the charge of the electron.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the units of Planck's constant and the electron charge, which may affect the calculations. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the validity of their result in relation to known work functions.

Calmeir
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Apologies, but I have another photoelectron question. In this one I get a result that seems reasonable, however it does not show up on my list of work functions that I have available to choose from. The problem is:

A photoelectric-effect experiment finds a stopping potential of 1.93V when light of 200nm is used to illuminate the cathode. What is the cathode made of?

I initially thought this would be an easy problem as Vstop = (hf - Eo) / e

I have all the values except Eo which is what I am trying to solve for.

Vstop = 1.93 V
h = 4.14x10^-15 eV
f = 3x10^8/200x10^-9 = 1.5x10^15
e = 1.6x10^-19

So, I plug all of the values into the equation and solve for Eo

1.93 = ((4.14x10^-15)(1.5x10^15)-Eo)/1.6x10^-19

The resulting value of Eo was 6.21
This seems valid, except the list I have to choose from is:

Potassium: 2.3
Sodium: 2.75
Aluminum: 4.28
Tungsten: 4.55
Copper: 4.65
Iron: 4.7
Gold: 5.1

Likely I am having the same problem as my previous question and not seeing a simple unit difference. Anyhow, I do appreciate your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Calmeir said:
h = 4.14x10^-15 eV

That is not Planck's constant in SI units. In fact h is not expressed in eV in any system of units.
 
Tom Mattson said:
That is not Planck's constant in SI units. In fact h is not expressed in eV in any system of units.

Tom is right and wrong. The problem IS units, but the Planck's constant being used by Calmeir is in eV-s, which is correct. The problem is that he is already working in eV, and so needs to drop the "1.6x10^-19" at the end of his equation.

I reworked it and got e=4.28 eV.

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
Tom is right and wrong.

No, Tom is right and right! :biggrin:

The problem IS units, but the Planck's constant being used by Calmeir is in eV-s, which is correct.

While the numerical value of h that he used corresponds to h in eV-s, he did report the units in eV, which is wrong.

The problem is that he is already working in eV, and so needs to drop the "1.6x10^-19" at the end of his equation.

That's one fix, but I was hinting at a different one. Since he put all of his other quantities in SI units I was trying to get him to put h in SI units as well. He would have obtained E0 in Joules and then convert to eV. Changing h to eV-s and leaving the electron charge as e is certainly more direct though...
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
40K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
4K