[Home]Photoelectric effect/Talk

HomePage | Photoelectric effect | Recent Changes | Preferences

Showing revision 5
The point is whether we should define the photoelectric as "flow of electric current in a material when it is exposed to light" or a "emission of electrons from a material when it is exposted to light". I think the latter is preferable for the following reasons:

What do you think?


As a reader of an encyclopedia, I would like to see reference to application of the scientific discoveries. Did this discovery brought us technologies that we used today or in the past? How did it change our life? Are solar power, digital cameras etc. based on this effect?

Please consider adding an "Applications" section to all entries that are related to science and technology.


My impression was that the current-flow effect was discovered first; if I am mistaken about that, and the first observations were simple discharges, then that might be a better starting place. I just wanted to make clear the distinction between Einstein and others' explanation of what causes the effect from the simple observation of the effect itself. I agree that mentioning applications would be good. Probably the earliest and best known was talking pictures: the soundtrack on a piece of movie film works by shining light through that portion film as it moves, stimulating an electrical current attached to sound amplifiers. --Lee Daniel Crocker
The emission of electrons is a more precise statement and should therefore replace "current flow." In fact, "current flow" brings to mind electrons (or charge) flowing within the material, but in the photoelectric effect the electrons are ejected and completely escape the material. --Carlos M.

HomePage | Photoelectric effect | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions | View current revision
Edited July 26, 2001 4:23 am by 198.45.18.xxx (diff)
Search: