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!

Homework Help: Planck's constant

  1. May 22, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data


    2. Relevant equations
    Ek=hf-W


    3. The attempt at a solution
    Using the equation Ek= hf-W ( W is work function) , in the given graph the x axis is the threshold frequency so f= 10, and Ek is given by 3ev, i tried to isolate variables but i have no clue what W is equal to

    for part c) a stronger force of attraction means greater threshold and kinetic energy so i would imagine a diagonal line going through (0,0) , it would be different in the case that it would start at (0,0) since the cathode ray has a stronger force of attraction.

    Im unsure how to go on about doing it , although I believe that the physical signifcance of the y intercept is that it is the negative of the work function .
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. May 22, 2010 #2
    I'm gonna approach this with solely a mathematics prespective.

    The graph you have is a linear function, the equation you provided is also in the format of a linear function.

    With that alone you've got enough information to solve whatever you're looking for.
     
  4. May 22, 2010 #3
    I understand that,as you mentioned its a linear function so assuming the cathode has a stronger force of attraction with its electrons, doesn't it mean that the slope is greater since there is greater attractive force b/w the x axis ( threshold frequency) and the y -axis( kinetic energy) but how would i determine the value of planck's constant using
    Ek=hf-w
     
  5. May 22, 2010 #4
    You have enough information to find everything in that equation from that graph... You should be able to solve for h.
     
  6. May 22, 2010 #5
    so h=(Ek+W)/f , the thing is i know that from the given graph f= 3, Ek=3ev and what is W?
     
  7. May 22, 2010 #6
    Can't you simply use the slope to "extrapolate" back and find the intercept?
     
  8. May 22, 2010 #7
    yes but only thing im confused is with how to find W still, in the mathematical way not so , but using physics i am
     
  9. May 22, 2010 #8
    I'm not sure what you're confused about... You can solve it using an "mathematical" approach but you want to solve it using a "physics" approach? What's wrong with using the "mathematical" approach?
     
  10. May 22, 2010 #9
    ok im confused solving mathematically, so basically take the points of 2 points and find the slope after that what would i do, and by doing this would it give me the work function?
     
  11. May 22, 2010 #10
    The slope of that graph is plancks constant.
     
  12. May 22, 2010 #11
    okay got that but using the equation i mention Ek=hf-W where "w" represent the work function rearranging for planck's constant we can solve it using that formula but the only unknown is the work function :S
     
  13. May 22, 2010 #12
    You solve planck's constant by solving the slope. You solve the work function by using planck's constant.
     
  14. May 22, 2010 #13
    we already know planck's constant though which is 6.63*10^-34Js so why solve planck's constant when we are finding it?
     
  15. May 23, 2010 #14
    One good reason is to verify the accuracy of your experiment based on the collected data.
     
  16. May 23, 2010 #15
    yes that is true, to verify the validity the only thing that is confusing is finding what the work function is...
     
  17. May 23, 2010 #16
    still don't understand would appreciate any help whatsoever
     
  18. May 23, 2010 #17
    Okay, if anyone can have a look as mentioned i just find the slope which should give me planck's constant does it matter that i have a margin error of around 10%? im getting a value of h=6.7*10^-34, is that ok?
     
  19. May 23, 2010 #18
    sorry a slight margin error of approximately 1% is that fine, and is that how i solve by finding the slope which should give me planck's constant?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook