What is the Maximum Wavelength of Light to Remove Electrons from Rubidium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter viper2308
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Wavelength
AI Thread Summary
To determine the maximum wavelength of light capable of removing electrons from rubidium, the energy required is 208.4 kJ per mole, which translates to an energy of 3.461e-19 J for a single electron. Using the equation E = hc/lambda, where h is Planck's constant (6.626e-34 J·s) and c is the speed of light (2.9979e8 m/s), the wavelength can be calculated. The correct approach involves using the energy per photon to find the corresponding wavelength. This method clarifies the relationship between photon energy and wavelength for electron removal in rubidium.
viper2308
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


It takes 208.4 kJ of energy to remove 1 mole of electrons from an atom on the surface of rubidium metal.
What is the maximum wavelength of light capable of doing this?

Homework Equations


Ephotons=hc/lambda



The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know the energy of the photon. I know h=6.626e-34, c=2.9979e8
I'm trying to find lambda but w/o the Ephoton I don't how to solve the equation.I found the energy to remove a single electron which is 3.461e-19.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you assume that the 208.4kJ was from identical wavelength photons of just the minimum energy to remove the electron, you could work out the energy per photon then use E = hc/lambda to work out the wavelength.
 
Thank You, I was using the wrong energy.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top