[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: LED mini-flashlight price break

["Daniel S. Price" <dprice@JEFFCO.K12.CO.US>]

I knew that Mr. Denker would correct me...and I don't mind at all that
he has.

> BTW I think it would be better to say "quantization of light
> and of atomic energy levels" rather than saying "photoelectric
> effect".  There's no photoelectric current produced anywhere
> in the procedure as described.
I don't disagree.  I also don't actually use the term "photoelectric
effect", since my first-year students are unfamiliar with the effect and
its significance (historical and physical).  Instead, I present the
demonstration to illustrate how high-frequency radiation presents a
danger to living tissue that lower-frequency radiation will not.

> Conceptually:
>   photocurrent cutoff wavelength    -->-- quantization
>   phosphorescence cutoff wavelength -->-- quantization
> but that doesn't mean photocurrent is synonymous with
> phosphorescence.  Here "-->--" means "demonstrates or
> provides evidence for".
>
> I hope this doesn't sound like a nit-pick;  I was having a
> hard time understanding the demonstration until I surmised
> that it didn't really involve the photoelectric effect.
I admit to being a bit loose with my terminology when it suits me;
perhaps I should have described the demonstration as indicative of the
"effect of the photoelectric effect"--proof of the quantization of
light.  As it is, I am often accused of over-explaining ideas, and am
attempting to sublimate this tendency, sometimes at the expense of
telling a few "white lies".
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l