PC 1432 EXPERIMENT P4 Ang Dun Jie A0073172L

LAB REPORT

Group D21A 27 March 2014

ATOMIC SPECTRA 1. OBJECTIVES The objective of this experiment is to understand and apply quantum mechanics theory to perform spectroscopy/spectrometry of a Mercury, Hydrogen and an unknown element light source. In particular, the relationship m = d sin , where is the wavelength of the light, d is the grating line spacing d, and is the diffraction angle, and m is the order of diffraction. In this experiment, only first order diffraction is considered. Finally, the spectroscopy of the unknown element light source is to be determined by reference.

2. MECURY LIGHT SOURCE Results: m = 1, d = 1.666nm From the Mercury light graph of light intensity against actual angular position, there are 5 peaks as indicated by highlights. The data for the 5 peaks are recorded and shown below.
1 rad -0.864 -0.84 -0.82 -0.75 -0.732 Intensity % 1 1.6 4.1 3.1 0.8 2 rad -1.301 -1.326 -1.346 -1.414 -1.434 Intensity % 0.6 1.2 3.1 2.9 0.9 rad 0.437 0.486 0.526 0.664 0.702 = /2 rad 0.2185 0.243 0.263 0.332 0.351 = d sin m 3.61131E-07 4.00866E-07 4.33124E-07 5.43007E-07 5.72832E-07 Colour Not Visible (UV) Violet Indigo/Blue Green Yellow

Theoretical Mercury Spectrum:

Colour Wavelength (nm) Violet 404.6 Violet 407.7 Indigo 435.8 Blue 491.6 Green 546.0 YellowOrange 576.9 YellowOrange 579.0

Comparison: As we can see the theoretical Mercury spectra consist of 7 visible peaks. However, in the experiment we only obtained 4 peaks. Still, the wavelength tallies and the results is coherent with the actual theory.

3. HYDROGEN LIGHT SOURCE Results: m = 1, d = 1.666nm From the Hydrogen light graph of light intensity against actual angular position, we see that there are 3 peaks on the right and 2 peaks on the left of the central maximum. By symmetry, the first peak on the left is not captured and as such, the central maxima will be used to calculate instead. Results are shown below.
1 rad -0.713 -0.685 -0.578 Intensity % 0.5 3.6 40.2 2 rad -0.98 -1.271 -1.381 Intensity % 97.7 1.4 3.1 rad 0.586 0.803 = /2 rad 0.267 0.293 0.4015 = d sin m 4.39556E-07 4.81184E-07 6.51072E-07 Colour Indigo Blue Red

Theoretical Hydrogen Spectrum:

Colour Wavelength (nm) Indigo Blue-Green 434.1 486.1 Red 656.3

Comparison: The 3 wave length for Hydrogen spectra of the experiment matches with that of the theory to a close extent. As such, the results is accurate.

4. UNKNOWN LIGHT SOURCE (DT010) Results: m = 1, d = 1.666nm From the graph of Unknown Light source, we can see there are 7 peaks on each side. The results are shown below
1 rad -0.706 -0.691 -0.674 -0.655 -0.632 -0.619 -0.605 Intensity % 7.4 12.9 19.6 8.8 11.3 5.6 2.1 2 rad -1.405 -1.421 -1.437 -1.457 -1.478 -1.494 -1.507 Intensity % 6 11.9 19.4 8.3 11.8 5.9 2.5 rad 0.699 0.73 0.763 0.802 0.846 0.875 0.902 = /2 rad 0.3495 0.365 0.3815 0.401 0.423 0.4375 0.451 = d sin m 5.70485E-07 5.94678E-07 6.20274E-07 6.50305E-07 6.83889E-07 7.05845E-07 7.26152E-07 Colour Yellow Orange Orange Red Red Red Infrared

Comparing this spectrum to various atomic spectrum references, it is most similar to a Neon Atomic Spectra. As such, we deduce this unknown light source DT010 to be a Neon light source. Theoretical Neon Spectrum:
Colour Wavelength (nm) Colour Wavelength (nm) Green 540.1 RedOrange 626.6 Yellow 585.2 Red 633.4 Yellow 588.2 Red 638.3 Orang e 603 Red 640.2 Orang e 607.4 Red 650.6 Orange 616.4 Red 692.9 Red-Orange 621.7 Red 703.2

Comparison: There are 14 visible peaks in theory but only 7 visible peaks are obtained. Nonetheless, the range of the values from the experiment matches that of theory, with the exception of the green band (540 nm), which is not captured in the experiment. Reasons for such are discussed in the next Section.

5. DISCUSSION There are many reasons for discrepancies between measured values and theoretical values of wavelengths for Mercury, Hydrogen and Neon. Firstly, the missing peaks from experimental data could be due to undetectable light intensity from poor visual focusing (Human eye is used to estimate the greatest intensity/ sharpest image). Also, this could be due to poor diffraction mechanics from imperfect grating with uneven grating line spacing. Secondly, the experimental wavelength does not fully line up exactly with the theoretical values. From the formula = d sin, we can see the any errors in d or will affect the accuracy of
wavelength. An error of d can arise from imperfections in the gratings as mentioned. Also error of can arise due to systematic error when the ratio of the dials is not exactly 60 as inputted into the system. Finally, if the focal distance of the lens is not at the focal point, rays reaching the grating will not be parallel rays and cause noise due to diffracted rays in many different other directions and cause much random error.

6. CONCLUSION Through this report, the experimental and theoretical data support one another. Results are meaningful and we were able to identify the unknown light source. Furthermore, errors and discrepancies were discussed and explained. Lastly, possible improvements were also suggested to obtain more sensitive results with higher resolution for the atomic spectra. Overall, the experiment was a success.