Light stikes metal surface; determine work function

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the work function of a metal surface when monochromatic light with a wavelength of 415 nm strikes it, resulting in photoelectrons escaping with a kinetic energy of 95 kJ/mol. The correct approach involves using the equation hc/λ = wf + KE, where wf is the work function and KE is the kinetic energy. The user initially obtained a negative work function value of -95 kJ/mol, which is incorrect. The correct calculation requires accounting for a single electron rather than a mole, leading to a positive work function value.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the photoelectric effect
  • Familiarity with Planck's constant (h)
  • Knowledge of Avogadro's number
  • Basic proficiency in unit conversions (e.g., nm to m)
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn about the photoelectric effect and its equations
  • Study the significance of Planck's constant in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of kinetic energy in relation to photoelectrons
  • Practice calculations involving the work function using different wavelengths
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of the photoelectric effect and work function calculations in quantum mechanics.

bw1990
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Monochromatic light with a wavelength 415 nm strikes a metal surface. Photoelectrons escape with a kinetic energy of 95 kJ/mol. What is the work function (in kJ/mol, no decimals required) of the metal surface?

Homework Equations



I have found various equations online relating to work function, and I have tried most of the ones that seemed like they would work, but I am still at a loss as to which equation is correct, and if I am completing the problem correctly. Some of the equations I found are:

Φ = hc/λ, where h is Planck's constant.
Φ = hfo, where fo is the minimum frequency of a photon
hc/λ = wf + KE, where wf is work function and KE is kinetic energy

The Attempt at a Solution



All of my attempts at finding a solution have resulted in -95. I have no idea if this is correct, but my best guess at solving the problem was using the last equation because I had wavelength and kinetic energy. I converted the wavelength to 4.15e-7 m..divided hc by wavelength.. subtracted kinetic energy... still get -95.

Thanks in advance to any help =)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep -95 KJ/mol is the right answer.

The logic behind it is:

The incident light has energy E = hf or E = h/wavelength

This energy is then transferred to an electron, in this case we are dealing with a mole of electrons so multiply the incident energy by avogadros number, because we will need a mole of incident photons to liberate a mole of electrons.

We now got the total incident energy of a mole of photons.

This energy is transferred to to a mole of electrons, some of the energy is used up in freeing the electrons from the surface, this energy is the work function.

Any left over energy becomes kinetic energy, so we can say:

Energy of 1 mole of incident photons = work function + Kinetic energy of 1 mole of liberated electrons
 
I have NEVER seen a negative work function! I guess the fact why you are going wrong is that you are accounting for a mole of electrons. If I'm not wrong you'll get the correct answer accounting for a single electron. That is if you deicide the given K.E by the Avagadro number
 
bw1990 said:
Φ = hc/λ, where h is Planck's constant.
Φ = hfo, where fo is the minimum frequency of a photon
hc/λ = wf + KE, where wf is work function and KE is kinetic energy
The first two equations apply to the case where KE=0. They allow you to solve for the cutoff frequency and wavelength. The third equation applies to the general case, and it's the one you need for this problem since you know if the incident light isn't at the cutoff wavelength.
All of my attempts at finding a solution have resulted in -95. I have no idea if this is correct, but my best guess at solving the problem was using the last equation because I had wavelength and kinetic energy. I converted the wavelength to 4.15e-7 m..divided hc by wavelength.. subtracted kinetic energy... still get -95.
-95 what? You need to show more details of your calculation for us to see where your mistake is. As thebiggerbang notes, you should not get a negative answer.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
17K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K