What Wavelength of Light Removes an Electron from Tin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sami23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Electron
AI Thread Summary
To determine the wavelength of light required to remove an electron from a gaseous atom of tin, the energy needed for ionization must be calculated using the formula ΔE = hc/λ. The discussion highlights the use of Planck's constant and the speed of light in this calculation. A participant incorrectly attempts to apply the de Broglie equation to find the wavelength, but is advised that the mass of the tin atom is irrelevant for this purpose. Instead, the focus should be on the ionization energy specific to tin. The conversation emphasizes the need for accurate understanding of ionization energy rather than misapplying mass-related equations.
sami23
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
What wavelength of light would be required to remove an electron from a gaseous atom of tin?

Here, I used Plank's constant h as 6.62*10-34 J.s and Constant c as 3*108 m/s

Also, energy needed to remove an electron is calculated by \DeltaE =hc/\lambda

I also used Broglie Eqn: \lambda = h/mv

The mass of Sn is 118.710 g. --> 0.11871 kg What is the mass of an electron of tin?

Can I use Broglie's Eqn and state that the wavelength required is:
6.62*10-34 J.s / ((0.11871 kg)*(3*108 m/s))

=1.86*10-41 m

This doesn't seem right. Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Masses are irrelevant, you will need ionisation energy.

No idea what you mean by "electron of tin". All electrons are identical.
 
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