Work function and ionization energy

AI Thread Summary
The work function, which is the energy needed to remove an electron from a metal surface, is generally about half the ionization energy required to remove an electron from a free atom of the same metal. This difference is attributed to the presence of free electrons in the metal lattice, making it easier to extract an electron compared to the more tightly bound electrons in a free atom. The metallic bonds allow for electron sharing, leading to collective effects such as hybridization and the formation of conduction and valence bands. There is no specific formula directly relating work function and ionization energy, and the "approximately half" value lacks significant meaning. Overall, the properties of solids differ fundamentally from those of isolated atoms due to these collective interactions.
tenchotomic
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Why is it that the energy required to pull an electron out of a metal surface(work function) is approximately half of the energy required to pull an electron out of the free atom(ionization energy) of the same metal (or element)?
Is there any formula relating the two quantities?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it is because in a metal lattice there are already free electrons moving around everywhere. Pulling one of these out is much easier than a free atom which has it's electrons bound. In effect, the metallic bonds make it easier because they "share" electrons.
 
tenchotomic said:
Why is it that the energy required to pull an electron out of a metal surface(work function) is approximately half of the energy required to pull an electron out of the free atom(ionization energy) of the same metal (or element)?
Is there any formula relating the two quantities?

This is exactly the reason why a solid is not the same as an isolated atom. The formation of a solid means that the valence shell of the atoms have overlapped with more than one other atom, causing hybridization, etc. The formation of conduction band, valence band, band gap, etc. are all COLLECTIVE effects due to the all the atoms, not just one.

BTW, there's no significance to the "approximately half" value of the work function.

Zz.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top