Determination of Plancks constant

from photoelectric measurements

Zoot Warren
December 2, 2013
Abstract
Using a mercury lamp and photocell combination, an experiment was carried out to measure
Plancks constant h. The photocurrent I was measured over a range of voltages V , for selected
photon frequencies (yellow, green, blue and violet). Interpolation in the linear region of
the resulting I-V plot allowed the stopping voltage V0 to be determined. Zero current, oset
current, I 2/3 and I 1/2 methods were employed to determine V0 . A plot of V0 - for the specified
frequencies was linear, with gradient h/e and intercept . For the I 1/2 method, it was found
that h = (2.352 0.314) 10 34 Js. The radiation intensity was then suppressed using neutral
density filters, and V0 was seen to increase in correlation with filter transmission. It can also
be concluded that the photocell quantum eciency is greater for higher frequencies, although
still small in magnitude (< 0.1%).

Introduction
At the turn of the 20th century, physicists were beginning to question the wave nature of light
which had been developed in accordance with Maxwells equations. A particular experiment of
interest in this respect was the photoelectric eect (PE), whereby electrons were seen to escape the
surface of a material when subjected to radiation. If the wave model is navely adopted, energy
transfer between monochromatic radiation (source) and a given electron (sink) could theoretically
accumulate over time, however two important experimental observations showed this not to be
true. Namely, the emitted electron energy distribution depends on the incident radiation frequency,
and for a given material, photoemission is achieved only above some critical frequency. Thus, an
alternative description of light was needed.
A somewhat radical solution came in 1905, when Einstein asserted the corpuscular nature of
light. Such a model helped to explain the photoelectric eect amongst other phenomena, including
Stokes law of fluorescence and Plancks blackbody radiation formula. Envoking Einsteins notion,
light consists of photons with discrete energies E = h, where h is Plancks constant and the
associated frequency. As a consequence, radiation energy transfer must be quntised. The exact
nature of light, or indeed photons, continues to be an important topic in modern physics [6].
For the PE, it is known that the interaction of an incident photon and a residing electron
results in a complete transfer of energy. If the electron acquires sucient energy, it will overcome
the binding potential E eV and escape the surface with excess kinetic energy K. A photocurrent
I is observed for an emitter/collector circuit setup, since the emitted photoelectrons are attracted
to the collector, which has a binding potential C
E . Such a photocurrent may be opposed
by applying a voltage V across the emitter/collector combination. In order to cross the retarding
potential, the photoelectrons must satisfy K > eV where e is the fundamental electronic charge.
When the emitter is set to a lower potential relative to the collector, such that a reverse voltage
bias exists, then the simplistic relation
I/V
(1)
1

holds, since increasing the voltage serves to increase the net number of electrons reaching the
collector.
The forward bias voltage for which the current reduces to zero is known as the stopping voltage
V0 . At this instance, the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelectrons is given by Einsteins
equation
Kmax = eV0 = h
(2)
where is the work function. Kmax corresponds to electrons ejected at the surface of the material
without energy loss, however there will exist photoelectrons with K < Kmax [2].
Modelling the valence electrons as a Fermi gas, and accounting for electron spin, the density of
states is given by

L3 2m 3/2 1/2
D (E) = 2
E
(3)
2
~2
where L3 is the total volume, me is the electron mass and E is the state energy [1]. Applying the
E
standard integral N = VF D (E) dE yields
L3
N= 2
3

2m
~2

3/2 h

3/2

EF + V 3/2

(4)

where N is the total number of particles and EF is the Fermi energy. By definition, EF is the energy
to which the fermionic system is filled at absolute zero temperature,
and is a material constant. An

equation relating current to number of particles is I = eC (E) dN where C (E) is the collection
eciency at energy E. Hence, we obtain
I 2/3 / V

(5)

Taking into consideration additional factors, such as the geometry of the emitter/collector, then
Mortons method [7] considers
I 1/2 / V
(6)

The proportionalities expressed in equations (1), (5) and (6) allow for several dierent methods of
analysis, when seeking to determine V0 as is discussed in the results section.

Experimental Procedure
A mercury lamp source was used with a set of Oriel interference filters to independently select
yellow, green, blue and violet photons, of wavelengths Y = 578 nm, G = 546 nm, B = 436 nm
and V = 405 nm, respectively. The photons were directed, via two focussing lenses, towards a
small region on a Leybold photocell (558 77), which has a response optimised for PE measurements.
A reverse voltage bias was applied using a Time Electronics DC voltage calibrator (2003 S), and
the photocurrent was measured using a Keithley Picoammeter (485). The important features of
the experimental setup are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Features of the experimental setup. The Leybold photocell consists of a potassium emitter
disk and a platinum collector ring, placed in a vacuum to ensure electron resistance is minimised.
According to equation (1), a plot of I-V is linear, with the V -axis intercept giving V0 . Reference
to the preliminary results, shown in Figure 2, suggests a linear relation, but only across a narrow
voltage band. Most noticably, V0 is not well defined because the current drops o asymptotically,
such that Kmax cannot be observed experimentally. Thus, an interpolation in the linear region is
required in order to estimate V0 . Indeed, Millikan used this method in 1916 [3], but he chose to
determine the intercept with the oset current as opposed to the V -axis. The same interpolation can
be performed on plots of I 2/3 -V and I 1/2 -V in accordance with equations (5) and (6) respectively,
in an attempt to get a more physically representative value of V0 . To summarise, four methods of
analysis have been presented; I-V zero current, I-V oset current, I 2/3 -V and I 1/2 -V .
In order to achieve the primary experimental objective and deduce Plancks constant, a V0
plot is produced, which according to equation (2), has gradient h/e and intercept . Finally, a set
of Oriel neutral density filters was used to check for variation in V0 as a function of light intensity.

Figure 2: Preliminary results obtained for yellow light ( Y = 578 nm). In the accelerating region
a saturation current is seen because of the set incident light intensity, whereas an oset current
arises in the retarding region due to the accumulation of potassium on the collector [4]. Since
the experiment was carried out at room temperature, EF is not well defined for the emitter and
consequently, a thermal tail ambiguates the V intercept.

Results and Discussion

Because the photocurrent is small in magnitude ( nA) it was important to check for background
radiation, and earthing of the electrical equipment, to ensure no systematic uncertainties were
present. Furthermore, the mercury lamp was switched on and allowed to stabilise for 20 minutes.
A definitive set of results was then taken across the range 2 V to 3 V for all four colours, with the
current error quoted as the random fluctuation observed at each point. The plots resulting from
the four methods of analysis are presented in an appendix.
The value of the stopping voltage V0 0.1-1 V was very sensitive to changes in the gradient,
thus it was crucial to perform the fitting at data points which were in good agreement with the
linear theory prediction. For a linear form y = mx + c, the x-axis intercept with associated error
is given by
q
(c/m)

(1/m)2

2
c

+ (c/m2 )2

2
m

(7)

Taking the standard values and errors quoted by Origin, equation (7) was used to calculate
V0 and the error. This is justified, since a check of the maximum/minimum gradients revealed a
gradient error comparable to the Origin standard error. As expected, the magnitude of V0 increases
with increased frequency. An interesting feature, is that the extent of the thermal tail also increases
with increased frequency, as can be seen in Figure 7. Reference to Figures 8 and 9 however, gives
an indication of the thermal tail suppression in the I 2/3 and I 1/2 scenarios, which greatly facilitates
the task of determining the stopping voltage and gives a lower error overall.

Figure 3: Stopping voltage is seen to increase linearly with frequency, as predicted by the theory.

Each method of analysis succesfully produced a V0 - graph with four datum in good linear
agreement, as can be seen in Figure 3. Frequency errors were directly calculated from the fact that
= 5 nm since the bandwidth at peak transmission is quoted as 10 nm [5]. Various values for
Plancks constant were thus extracted from the gradients, with the results summarised in Table
1. In this instance, the gradient error quoted by Origin was found to be much less than the
error obtained by considering max/min gradients that fit the data, hence the latter method was
employed, giving errors 10%. Note that the h obtained all underestimate the literature value of
6.62610 34 Js, but are the same order of magnitude. This oset is a consequence of many factors,
and is a characteristic often observed in typical PE experiments carried out at room temperature
[2].
method

h (10

34

Js)

error (10

zero current

1.584

0.224

oset current

1.456

0.208

I 2/3

1.840

0.153

I 1/2

2.352

0.314

34

Js)

Table 1: Experimentally derived values of Plancks constant from the V0 - gradients. A max/min
gradient method was used to determine the associated errors.
Neutral density filter measurments were then obtained for blue light with B = 436 nm, and the
results are shown in Figures 4 and 10. The 0.1, 0.5 and 1 filters were quoted to have transmissions
of 79.5%, 31.6% and 10% respectively [8], however measurements made in-situ using a photometer,
gave transmissions of 70.8%, 41.7% and 5.0% respectively. Hence, transmission error is quoted as
the dierence between the reference and measured values.

Figure 4: In contrast to the theory, the stopping voltage for a given frequency was found to increase
with transmission. This has implications on the experiment as a whole, since the relative intensities
of the mercury lamp emission lines dier, thus aecting the determination of V0 .
Theoretically, the stopping voltage for a particular frequency should be constant regardless of
intensity, however this is not observed. It was decided to superimpose the I-V linear fittings from
the filter measurements, as shown in Figure 5, to deduce if there was a mutual point of intersection
(as opposed to their individual intersections with the V -axis) which would be at the stopping
voltage.
5

The main source of error in this experiment comes from the methodology used to determine
V0 , and not from the current random error, which is relatively small ( 1%). Various systematic
uncertainties however dominate the results, such as local variations in E on the emitter surface
and eects due to the low photocell quantum eciency (QE).
It was also possible to get an order of magnitude estimate for the electron velocities using
equation (2) with the non-relativistic assumption that Kmax = 12 me v 2 . For V0 1 V, it is
estimated that v 104 ms 1 3 108 ms 1 .

Figure 5: Displayed are the linear fittings for the dierent filter measurements. There appears to
be a single intersection point for the 0.1, 0.5 and 1 filter lines, but the no filter line is anomalous.

Quantum Eciency
Further measurements were made using the photometer, allowing for the photocell QE to be deduced. Applying the quantum eciency formula to the above setup gives
QE =

IE
I/e
=
P/E
Pe

(8)

where P is the incident power, and the results are presented in Figure 6. The photodetector was
able to measure power per unit area with error denoted P/A , and a micrometer screw gauge was
used to measure the photocell aperture diameter with error x . Simple ropagation of errors shows
implies that P P/A , x , hence the QE error was calculated using

QE

E
Pe

2
I

I
Pe

2
E

IE
P 2e

2
P

(9)

In general, the observed QE is very low ( 0.025%) which means a great number of incident
photons are required to produce a single photoelectron 103 . A possible explanation for this
could be that many of the photoelectron parabolic paths miss the collector surface and enter
the fringe field. The QE increases with approximately linearly with voltage. Furthermore, the
eciency is greater for higher frequencies. This result which makes intuitive sense, because energy
losses due to collisions with particles residing in the electron escape cone, are less significant at
higher frequencies.

Figure 6: Photocell quantum eciency measured across the same voltage band used to determine
V0 .

Conclusion
Various values for Plancks constant were experimentally derived using photoelectric measurements
at room temperature in conjunction with Einsteins equation. All were found to underestimate the
literature value, due to the imperfect experimental setup, most notably the non-ideal behaviour of
the photocell. Furthermore, the stopping voltage was found to vary with intensity in contradiction
to the theoretical predictions.
An improvement to the set up for future measurements, would be to use laser light sources
tuned to specific wavelengths, with equal intensities. Venturing into the UV regime would help
increase the QE and it would be advantageous to measure the maximum QE, which occurs in the
saturation region. Baking the collector by briefly applying a very high current would eradicate
the systematic uncertainty due to the oset current. An additional method of analysis could be
employed too, whereby the lateral displacement is found between parallel I-V curves [2].

References
[1] Ibach & Lth, Solid-State Physics, Springer second edition (1995)
[2] Keesing, The measurement of Plancks constant using the visible photoelectric eect, European
Journal of Physics vol. 2 pp139-149 (1981)
[3] Millikan, A direct photoelectric determination of Plancks h, Physical Review Vol. 7 No. 3
pp355390 (1915)
[4] http://www.ld-didactic.de/ga/5/558/55877/55877e.pdf, Leybold instruction sheet photo cell
(558 77) for determining Plancks constant (accessed 30/11/13)
[5] http://www.lot-oriel.com/files/downloads/lightsources/eu/LQ_Standard_bandpass_filters_eu.pdf,
Oriel standard bandpass filters datasheet, p3 (accessed 30/11/13)
[6] Kidd et. al, Evolution of the modern photon, American Journal of Physics Vol. 57 No. 1 pp2735
(1989)
[7] Morton & Abraham, Plancks constant and the photoelectric eect, Physics Education Vol. 21
Issue 6 pp377378 (1986)
[8] http://www.lot-qd.de/files/downloads/andover/eu/ND_Filter_eu.pdf, Oriel neutral density filter datasheet, p2 (accessed 30/11/13)

Appendix

Figure 7: zero and oset current methods

Figure 8: I 2/3 method

Figure 9: I 1/2 method

Figure 10: neutral density filters for blue light (

10

= 436 nm)