The kinetic energy of the ejected electrons and the energy incident photons are related as:
E_kin = E_p - W
W is the work function, i.e. the minimum energy required to remove an electron from the surface of the metal.
The kinetic energy of the ejected electron is:
E_kin = (1/2)∙m_e∙v²
= (1/2) ∙ 9.109×10⁻³⁰ kg ∙ (6.4×10⁴ m∙s⁻¹)²
= 1.866×10⁻²⁰ J
The energy of the incident photon is:
E_p = h∙f = h∙c/λ
= 6.626×10⁻³⁴ J∙s ∙ 2.998×10⁸ m∙s⁻¹ / 470×10⁻⁹ m
= 4.227×10⁻¹⁹ J
Hence the minimum energy to remove one electron is:
W = E_p - E_kin
= 4.227×10⁻¹⁹ J - 1.866×10⁻²⁰ J
= 4.040×10⁻¹⁹ J
The energy per mole of electrons is:
W_m = W ∙ N_a
= 4.040×10⁻¹⁹ J ∙ 6.022×10²³ mol⁻¹
= 2.433×10⁴ J∙mol⁻¹
= 24.33 kJ∙mol⁻¹
An electron microscope bombards its target with electrons, while a traditional microscope uses visible light. Electrons can be resolved at considerably higher magnifications that visible light (due to their smaller wavelength).
electron carrier
A characteristic wavelength of an electron can be known as the DeBroglie Wavelength. It is a formula in physics which relays energy and momentum.
Since there might be problems with the specimen preparation.
Electrons revolve around the nucleus of an atom.
1 electron. It is Group I of the P-table hence has one "spare" electron
Potassium is more likely to lose its electron to become a positive ion.
I would imagine because the wavelength of electrons is not in the visible region
The transmission electron microscope operates on the same principle as the light microscope but uses electrons instead of light. What you can see with a light microscope is limited by the wavelength of light. Transmission electron microscopes use electrons as "light source" and their much lower wavelength makes it possible to get a resolution a thousand times better than with light microscope.
No. The wavelength of the light determines whether an electron will be ejected from an atom.
It is electron since wavelength = h/(mv), and since proton's mass > electron's mass, electron's wavelength is longer.
An electron microscope bombards its target with electrons, while a traditional microscope uses visible light. Electrons can be resolved at considerably higher magnifications that visible light (due to their smaller wavelength).
The transmission electron microscope operates on the same principle as the light microscope but uses electrons instead of light. What you can see with a light microscope is limited by the wavelength of light. Transmission electron microscopes use electrons as "light source" and their much lower wavelength makes it possible to get a resolution a thousand times better than with light microscope.
The overall of an atom is a nucleus (protons and neutrons), and 1 or 2 electrons. The rest are for large atoms: an electron shell, electrons, an electron shell, electrons, an electron shell, electrons, an electron shell, electrons, an electron shell, electrons, an electron shell, electrons, an electron shell, electrons.
an electron is a wavelength of energy that orbits a nucleus at the speed of light in an orbital where only one other electron can exist with an opposite spin, the electons in the orbitals in the outermost energy levels are valence electrons. ex: C= 1s^2 2s^2 2p^2 (the second energy level ((the outermost in this example)) contains a total of 4 electrons or its valence electrons)
Well, to start with, Pottassium & Sodium both have more electron shells(energy levels), so therefore, the force holding the outer shell electrons to keep them in orbit (effective nuclear charge) would be less, since the nucleus(which is the source of this force), is farther away from the electrons, thus the electrons are not as powerfully held as with lithium, which only has 2 electron shells. So since the force is lower in Sodium & Pottassium, the outershell electron can more easily be separated from the atom, thus it can more readily bond with other substances, making it more reactive than Lithium, therefore, more reactive in water.
The electron has a mass of 9.1x10E-31 kg and a negative charge of 1.6x10E-19 C