Ionization Potential and Work Function

AI Thread Summary
Ionization potential (IP) values do not include the work function (WF) of the electron removal process, as IP is defined as the energy required to remove the outermost electron from an isolated atom in a gaseous state. An isolated atom does not possess a work function, which is influenced by factors such as crystal structure. Although IPs are related to atoms in the gaseous state, they are typically not measured in that state; instead, methods like Hess' Law and modern spectroscopy are used. The energy quantization means that IP measurements are independent of temperature, and achieving high accuracy in these measurements remains challenging. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate scientific discussions on ionization potential.
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
KE \approx kT = 8.617 \times 10^{-5} T (in Kelvin)eV

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.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top