Photoelectric effect experiment help

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around the photoelectric effect experiment, specifically analyzing the relationship between current (I), power (P), and voltage (V) while keeping frequency (f) constant. It is established that below a certain frequency, no photoelectrons are emitted, resulting in zero current. The current is directly proportional to the power of the light, as it relates to the rate of photon incidence on the metal surface. Additionally, the voltage increases as photoelectrons move to the cathode, but the current remains constant when frequency and power are unchanged, leading to a horizontal line in the I vs. V graph.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the photoelectric effect and its principles
  • Familiarity with concepts of current, voltage, and power in electrical circuits
  • Knowledge of photon energy and its relation to frequency
  • Basic grasp of graphing relationships in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical relationship between power, intensity, and area in the context of the photoelectric effect
  • Learn about the work function and its role in the photoelectric effect
  • Explore the concept of electrostatic potential and its implications in circuits
  • Investigate the behavior of conduction electrons and their transition to photoelectrons
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism and quantum mechanics, as well as educators looking for clarification on the photoelectric effect and its graphical representations.

al_201314
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I've just returned from my exams.. I thought it was pretty alright but I think it could've been better. I was stuck with this question.

A photoelectric experiment was set up. Monochromatic light is incident on a metal plate, and the photo-electrons are collected at a electrode made of the same metal in a vacuumed glass. The difference in potential between the electrode and the metal plate is V. The power of the light is V, the current flowing through the tube is I and frequency of light is f.

Sketch the graph of current I against P when f constant.
Sketch graph of current I against V when power P and frequency f constant.

How should the graphs look like and why? I have no idea I drew a straight line graph with a +ve gradient for both. Couldn't see the picture.

Anyone who could enlighten? Many thanks. If I had prepared more for this I would have donw better.

Thanks guys!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See these -

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html


Below a certain frequency, there will be no photoelectrons - so the current would be zero.

The current will be determined by the rate of electrons being ejected from the surface, so for a given frequency, above a certain threshold, the current will be proportional to P - the rate of electrons ejected = rate of photon incident upon the electron.

As for I vs V, what will happen as V increases? P is constant so the number of photons striking the photocathode is constant.
 
Astronuc said:
The current will be determined by the rate of electrons being ejected from the surface, so for a given frequency, above a certain threshold, the current will be proportional to P - the rate of electrons ejected = rate of photon incident upon the electron.

As for I vs V, what will happen as V increases? P is constant so the number of photons striking the photocathode is constant.

Thanks Astro.

I know as intensity increases, the current increases for the same reason. But how does the intensity of light relate to power of the light? Power is proportional to intensity?

As for I vs V, how does one increase V? After the photo-electrons has moved to the photocathode to create a net difference in charges? So is it correct to say that it would be a horizontal straight line?
 
al_201314 said:
I know as intensity increases, the current increases for the same reason. But how does the intensity of light relate to power of the light? Power is proportional to intensity?
Intensity is equal to the power per unit area and has SI units of watts per square meter. The magnitude of the intensity at a distance r from an ideal point source of power P is given by;

|I| = \frac{P}{4\pi r^2}

Note that intensity is a vector and is a measure of the average energy flux through a surface.
[/QUOTE]
 
Hootenanny said:
Intensity is equal to the power per unit area and has SI units of watts per square meter. The magnitude of the intensity at a distance r from an ideal point source of power P is given by;

|I| = \frac{P}{4\pi r^2}

Note that intensity is a vector and is a measure of the average energy flux through a surface.
[/QUOTE]

How does it make intensity to be a vector since power and area are both scalars? Also it brings me to another question I just thought of. Why is current not considered a vector since it has direction and magnitude?
 
al_201314 said:
How does it make intensity to be a vector since power and area are both scalars?
Technically, the power is obtained by finding the product between energy density and the velocity at which the energy is moving (through a surface), thus resulting in a vector function.
al_201314 said:
Also it brings me to another question I just thought of. Why is current not considered a vector since it has direction and magnitude?
Current, does not in fact have a direction, only a magnitude. It is defined as the rate of flow of charge; it matter not a jot the direction in which the electrons are traveling (as they will always be traveling in the same direction).
 
But how does the intensity of light relate to power of the light? Power is proportional to intensity?
Simply, Power = photons/time * energy/photon = energy/time

As for I vs V, how does one increase V? After the photo-electrons has moved to the photocathode to create a net difference in charges? So is it correct to say that it would be a horizontal straight line?
V (an electrostatic potential) can be induced by a voltage source (e.g. battery or rectified AC source). The voltage source would collect the current and move them back to the photocathode.

With respect to increasing V, what about the reduction in the energy necessary to remove photoelectrons?
 
I'm still a bit confused about the potential difference issue. Before the light was shown on the metal, the 2 metal plates should have a potential difference of 0V since there is no net charges between them, am I right? The potential difference increases only when photo-electrons flow from the metal plate to the cathode causing there to be a difference in charges between the 2 plates?

Assuming I'm right, wouldn't the graph be a horizontal straight line for a constant current in I vs V? My reasoning is that as the current is constant, charges flow continually and the difference in charges between the photocathode and the metal plate increases? And current is constant because frequency and Power is constant? How then does the work function come into play here?

Thanks for the continued help :)
 
al_201314 said:
I'm still a bit confused about the potential difference issue. Before the light was shown on the metal, the 2 metal plates should have a potential difference of 0V since there is no net charges between them, am I right? The potential difference increases only when photo-electrons flow from the metal plate to the cathode causing there to be a difference in charges between the 2 plates?

Assuming I'm right, wouldn't the graph be a horizontal straight line for a constant current in I vs V? My reasoning is that as the current is constant, charges flow continually and the difference in charges between the photocathode and the metal plate increases? And current is constant because frequency and Power is constant? How then does the work function come into play here?
Think of a capacitor - apply a potential difference and what happens to the charges (electrons)? There are conduction electrons, which may become photoelectrons if they interact with a photon if the energy is sufficient.
 
  • #10
Thanks guys plus a bit of reading up I think I got it :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K