1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Photoelectric effect

  1. Oct 21, 2014 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    I am doing the photoelectric effect experiment. And we were trying to verify the relationship between photoelectric current and distance is
    [itex]I \times d^2 = k[/itex], where k is a constant.(At least I believe this to be true.)

    But from the data, I kind of get a [itex]I= k d^{-2} + b [/itex]. And I got a really big b...
    I was using light of [itex]\lambda = 436nm,[/itex] and diaphragm of [itex]\phi=2mm[/itex]. Here is the data.

    i = [310, 198, 131] (10^-10A)
    d^-2 = [1./30**2, 1./35**2, 1./40**2] (cm^-2)
    And I got a relation like[tex]I = 369221.118818 d^{-2} - 101.137960591 [/tex]. I can't understand why is the b like this, big and negative.

    2. Relevant equations


    3. The attempt at a solution



      • I am not alone. My mates have the same problem. And I checked with many of them.(I realize that three points is too small for data...)


      • If distance grows really big, then current should curve. But that should put b higher than origin, while I got a minus sign. Also the line is really really linear.


      • The "apparatus" was OK. Not great, but OK. I measured Planck constant right (to one part in a thousand), and I verified relation between I and \phi (of diaphragm), which has a interception of 0(to one part in a thousand again).


      • My pals and myself can only come up with reasons for the interception to be positive.

    4. Thanks in advance!
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2014 #2

    ehild

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    What distance do you speak about? Distance of what from what???

    ehild
     
  4. Oct 21, 2014 #3
    The distance between the photon emitter (the bulb) and the electron emitter (the metal).

    But strictly speaking, both of them have protective coverings. So I was really measuring the distance between them.
    (There are arrows supposed to imply the exact position of the real emitters.)
     
  5. Oct 21, 2014 #4

    ehild

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    So it can be imagined that your measured distance (dm) values are less then the real ones. d=dm+x.

    Then instead of the theoretical intensity I=I0/d2 you measure I(dm). I(dm) = I0/(dm+x)2.
    You can assume that x<<dm.
    You fit a function to the I(dm) data. [tex]I=\frac{I_0}{dm^2(1+\frac{x}{dm})^2}[/tex] If x/dm<<1 the function can be approximated as [tex]I=\frac{I_0}{dm^2}(1-2 \frac{x}{dm})[/tex],
    that is [tex]I=I_0/dm^2 - A[/tex] where A is some average of 2xI0/dm3.

    ehild
     
  6. Oct 21, 2014 #5
    Thanks so much!

    This idea came up earlier today. But I didn't find it plausible. For if x << dm, then we get to keep the linearity, but A then must be suffiently small. Note that it takes quite some distance to reach 100e-10 A. One the other hand, if x is only somewhat smaller than dm, then it's hard to keep the linearity.(At least that's what I thought!)

    But I just take the leap and draw the curve. The second guess turns out to be a correct line for the eye. So I find my answer.
     
  7. Oct 21, 2014 #6

    ehild

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I just looked at your data. They are very few and the distances very close to get a really good fit. You should have measured at least at 5 distances, and in a broader range, starting from about 15-20 cm.

    ehild
     
  8. Oct 21, 2014 #7
    I'll try to do that today.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Photoelectric effect
  1. Photoelectric Effect (Replies: 2)

Loading...