University of Bahrain

College of Science

Department of Physics

PHYCS324 (Atomic structure physics)

The Franck-Hertz Experiment

Submitted by: Raghad Ebrahim Ali Meqdad Rashid

ID : 202011111
Section : 01
Course code : PHYCS 324
Submission date: 2023-05-21
 Abstract
Franck-Hertz provided experimental experimental evidence for the Bohr model of the atom, which
proposed that electrons can only exist in discrete energy levels as well as it showed the quantization
of atomic energy level. This lab report demonstrates a possible example for this experiment, starting
from lowest temperature190C to the highest 248C. the excitation energy of EA and its wavelength for
four reeding was calculated, and the graph of Is/Us for each has been plotted to show the principle of
the energy quotations. The maximum error lies in the lowest energy 190c EA calculated to be 6.12eV,
with percentage error of 24.89% and 𝜆 = 202.7𝑛𝑚 with an error of 19.88%. The second reading,
which is 208, we calculated EA=5.589eV, with 14.06% accuracy and 𝜆 = 222𝑛𝑚, the error was 12.25
EA=5.589eV, with 14.06% accuracy and 𝜆 = 222𝑛𝑚 with an error of 12.25%. in which it gives the
most reasonable values. However, taking temperature in between and letting the system heat
enough and not too much, would be the proper situation to take the measurements.

Introduction:
The Franck-Hertz experiment is a landmark in modern physics that demonstrated the quantization of
atomic energy levels. The experiment was conducted by James Franck and Gustav Hertz in 1914, and
it provided experimental evidence for the Bohr model of the atom, which proposed that electrons
can only exist in discrete energy levels. In the experiment, electrons were passed through a tube
filled with mercury vapor, and their energy was measured as they interacted with the atoms in the
vapor. The results showed that the electrons only gained energy in discrete amounts, corresponding
to the energy difference between the atomic energy levels [1]. In this report, we showed an example
of lab experiments results in which 4 data for various temperatures were taken (190-208-226-248) in
Celsius. Throughout this calculation, our goal is to demonstrate the behavior of the energy in graphs
for each reading, and determine the excitation energy EA.

Theory:
In 1913, Niels Bohr introduced his model of the hydrogen atom, which suggested that electrons
reside in distinct, quantized energy states [3]. This concept was supported by an experiment
conducted in 1914 by James Frank and Gustav Hertz, who demonstrated these quantized energy
levels using a vacuum tube filled with a small quantity of mercury [3]. Typically, this experiment
focuses on determining the energy needed to excite the initial energy levels of mercury [3].

Figure 1. The principle of the Franck-

Hertz experiment
The tube was heated in an oven to vaporize the mercury [1]. The mercury tube must to be heated to a
temperature between 140 °C and 20 °C so that mercury pressure is sufficiently high [2]. The electrons
produced by a thermionic cathode are accelerated between cathode C and anode A in the tube filled with
mercury vapor and are scattered by elastic collision with mercury (Hg) atoms [2]. Depending on the pressure
in the tube and the number of measured spacings, these determinations for Hg atoms range from 4.8 to 5.1
eV [2].

However, with an anode voltage UA of 4.9, the kinetic energy of electrons is sufficient to get the valence
electron of the mercury to the first excitation level 63P1 by an inelastic collision. Because of the resulting
loss of energy, the electron can now no longer traverse the opposing field between anode A and counter
electrode S: the current I is at a minimum. If the anode voltage is now increased further, the kinetic energy
of the electron is again adequate to overcome the opposing field: the current strength I increases. When
UA
= 2 × 4.9 V, the kinetic energy is so high that the same electron can excite two atoms in succession: the
second minimum is obtained [2].

A graph of IS / UA therefore, displays the equidistant peaks and minima. These minima, however, are not
well-defined due to the initial temperature distribution of electron velocities. The voltage UA between the
anode and cathode is expressed as:
UA = U + ( ϕA - ϕC ) When the excitation energy EA = 4.9 eV, the
wavelength of this photon is λ = 253 nm and
therefore it lies in the UV range [2].
where U is the applied voltage, and ϕA and ϕC are the work
functions of the anode and cathode respectively.

The excitation energy EA is determined from the voltage

differences at the minima, so the work function voltages are
irrelevant in this case. According to the classical theory, energy
levels to which the mercury atoms are excited could be random.
However, according to the quantum theory, however, a definite
energy level must suddenly be assigned to the atom in an
elementary process. This viewpoint of the theory is used to
explain the course of the IS / UA curve, which serves as evidence
of the quantum theory. With the emission of a proton, the
excited mercury atom again releases the energy it has absorbed.
The wavelength of the excitation energy can be calculated using
equation (2):

λ = hc/EA (2)
E

where c = 3 × 108 m/s, and h = 4.136 × 10-15 eV∙s.

• Methodology
• The equipment, set and procedure are all as followed in the lab manual [4].

Figure 2. Experimental set up for the Franck-Hertz experiment

Equipment

Material Order No. Quantity

Franck-Hertz tube, w. oven, 220 V A.C 09086.93 1
Power supply unit for F. -H. Tube 09086.01 1
Power supply, universal, 220 V A.C. 11725.93 1
Universal Measuring Amplifier 11761.93 1
Voltmeter, 0.3-30 OVD.C., 10-300 V A.C. 07035.00 1
Screened cable, BNC, L750 mm 07542.11 2
On/Off switch 06034.01 1
Chemical Thermometer, -10...+250 °C 38007.01 1
Plate, Ceramic fiber 250 × 250 × 3 mm 38751.01 1
Voltmeter 5/15 V DC 07037.00 1
TY recorder, 1 Channel 11411.97 1
Connecting cords
Graph paper for the TY recorder
Set up

1. The experimental was set up as shown in Figure 1. To produce an anode voltage UA which increases

with time, the power supply unit for the Frank-Hertz tube with its oven is used, which is powered from

a constant voltage source (50 V, power supply unit universal). So as long as S1 is closed, the anode

voltage is UA(t = 0) = 0.5V.

2. Opening S1 causes the voltage to increase with the time constant, 𝑟 = 20𝑠 that:

UA(t) = 50 [1-e (- t ∕ 20) ] V

(3)

(The load from the anode current is disregarded here).

The setting voltage of the power supply, at 0 to 12 V, was too high for the counter voltage Us and was

therefore reduced by the voltage divider R3 / R4 in the power supply unit for the Frank-Hertz tube along

with its oven. When U = 12, then the Us = 3 V. The counter-voltage was set between 0 and 3 V. The

initial measurement that was set was 0.5 V.

3. The current Is generated by the electrons striking the counter electrode S is in the range 10-9 A. It was

amplified and displayed on the y-axis of the recorder.

Procedure

1. The oven of the Franck-Hertz tube was heated to approximately 210°C (the thermometer was near

thecounter electrode). Sufficient mercury was vaporized from the heat after 15-30 minutes for the

apparatus to be ready to use.

2. The switch S1 and the “start” of the TY-recorder were held at the same time. From here, the capacitor

began to charge and the paper feed start: UA rises and the recorder recorded the anode current Is over

time. At a particular voltage, UA = UZ which is dependent on the temperature, a glow discharge occurred

between the anode and cathode through ionization. As UA increased exponentially, but the paper

movedlinearly with time, the minima were not equidistant. For this reason, the capacitor changing

curve
(t), which was done on the same piece of paper (the recorder tip is returned exactly to the start). This

reduced the sensitivity correspondingly and makes the recorder connected to input to the capacitor C.

When the switch S1 was started with the equipment - the UA (t) was recorded. (The effect of the counter-

voltage US was further investigated by recording the IS / UA curve at different counter-voltages)[4].

3. The average of the voltage differences from the minima and the wavelengths are compared

with the theoretical expected value to find the error using equation (4):

|experimental - theoretical|
% error = ×
100 (4
theoretical
)
 • Data & Calculation:
Figure 1.1 Is(A) time(t) Curve of T: 190ᵒ c

Is(A) Vs Time(s)
6

4
Is(A)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time(s)

Figure 1.2 Is(A) UA(t) Curve of T: 190ᵒ

5.5
5
Is(A) Vs UA(t)
4.5
4
Is(A)

3.5
3
2.5
2
0 10 20 30 40 50
UA(t)

Table 1.1 The measured potential minima peaks of the recorded IS / UA curve when T = 190 °C

Minima Peak Is±0.1 (A) Time±0.1(s) UA (V)

1 2.973 3.1 7.179241
2 3.59 6.55 13.96384
 3 3.98 10.55 20.49608
4 4.305 15.35 26.7914
5 4.607 21.45 32.8924
6 4.856 30.25 38.98208
7 4.9501 42.1 43.90772

Table 1.2 The potential difference ΔUA between each peak from the IS / UA curve when T =
190°C

∆𝑼𝑨 = 𝑼𝒇 − 𝑼𝑰(𝑽) ∆UA(V)

13.96384-7.179241 6.784599
20.49608-13.96384 6.53224
26.7914-20.49608 6.29532
32.8924-26.7914 6.101
38.98208-32.8924 6.08968
43.90772-38.98208 4.92564
∆U190(average) 6.121413

The excitation energy EA when T = 190 °C was calculated by averaging the potential differences
at the minima. From table 2, the excitation energy is found to be EA = 6.12 eV. The % error:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

6.12𝑒𝑉−4.9𝑒𝑉
=| | × 100=14.06%
4.9𝑒𝑉

The wavelength at T = 190 °C when EA = 6.12 eV was calculated using the equation

ℎ𝑐
𝜆=
𝐸𝐴

4.136×10−15 ×2.9979×108 1240.8𝑒𝑉.𝑛𝑚

= =
6.12𝑒𝑉 6.12𝑒𝑉

=202.7nm
 the error of this wavelength 𝝀𝟐𝟎𝟖 = 202.7 nm:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

202.7𝑛𝑚−253𝑛𝑚
=| | × 100=19.88%
253𝑛𝑚

Figure 2.1 Is(A) time(t) Curve of T: 208ᵒ c

Is (mA) vs time(s)
5

4.5

4
Is (mA)

3.5

2.5

2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)

Figure 2.2 Is(A) UA(t) Curve of T: 208ᵒ

Is(A) vs UA(t)
5

4.5

4
Is(A)

3.5

2.5

2
0 10 20 30 40 50
UA(t)

Table 2.1 The measured potential minima peaks of the recorded IS / UA curve when T = 208 °C
 Minima Is ± 0.1 (A) Time ± 0.1 (s) UA (V)
Peak
1 2.726 5.45 11.92633
2 3.21 8.85 17.87858
3 3.6192 13.15 24.09275
4 3.929 17.95 29.62063
5 4.0088 24.4 35.23849
6 4.26876 32.9 40.34937
7 4.4199 45 44.73004

Table 2.2 The potential difference ΔUA between each peak from the IS / UA curve when T =
208 °C

∆𝑼𝑨 = 𝑼𝒇 − 𝑼𝑰(𝑽) ∆UA(V)

17.878583-11.9263285 5.95225441
24.09274603-17.87858295 6.214163082
29.62063223-24.09274603 5.527886193
35.23849165-29.62063223 5.617859428
40.34937186-35.23849165 5.110880207
44.73003877-40.34937186 5.110880207
∆U208(average) 5.588987254

The excitation energy EA when T = 208 °C was calculated by averaging the potential differences
at the minima. From table 2.2 the excitation energy is found to be EA = 5.589 eV. The % error:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

5.589𝑒𝑉−4.9𝑒𝑉
=| | × 100=14.06%
4.9𝑒𝑉

The wavelength at T = 208 °C when EA = 5.67 eV was calculated using the equation

ℎ𝑐
𝜆=
𝐸𝐴

4.136×10−15 ×2.9979×108 1240.8𝑒𝑉.𝑛𝑚

= =
5.589𝑒𝑉 5.589𝑒𝑉
 =222nm

the error of this wavelength 𝝀𝟐𝟎𝟖 = 222 nm:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

222𝑛𝑚−253𝑛𝑚
=| | × 100=12.25%
253𝑛𝑚

Figure 3.1 Is(mA) of Time(t)curve when T: 226ᵒ c

Is(A) Vs Time(s)
4.5

3.5
Is(A)

2.5

2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s)

Figure 3.2 Is(A) UA(t) Curve of T: 226ᵒ.

Is (A) Vs Ua(t)
4.5

3.5
Is(A)

2.5

2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time(s)

Table 3.1 The measured potential minima peaks of the recorded IS / UA curve when T = 226 °C
 Minima Peak Is ± 0.1 (A) Time ± 0.1 (s) UA (V)
1 2.5981 4.35 9.773619754
2 2.8895 7.65 15.89230545
3 3.1745 11.6 22.00508167
4 3.4349 16.65 28.25197377
5 3.6694 23.4 34.48165294
6 3.8452 31.5 39.64962237
7 3.9428 43.6 44.34792347
Table 3.2 The potential difference between each peak from the IS / UA curve when T = 226 °C

∆𝑼𝑨 = 𝑼𝒇 − 𝑼𝑰(𝑽) ∆UA(V)

15.89230545-9.773619754 6.118685697
22.00508167-15.89230545 6.112776221
28.25197377-22.00508167 6.246892097
34.48165294-28.25197377 6.229679168
39.64962237-34.48165294 5.167969429
44.34792347-39.64962237 4.698301102
∆U226(average) 5.762383952

The excitation energy EA when T = 226 °C was calculated by averaging the potential differences
at the minima. From table 3.2, the excitation energy is found to be EA = 5.76 eV. The % error:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

5.76𝑒𝑉−4.9𝑒𝑉
=| | × 100=17.55%
4.9𝑒𝑉

The wavelength at T = 226 °C when EA = 5.76 eV was calculated using the equation

ℎ𝑐
𝜆=
𝐸𝐴

4.136×10−15 ×2.9979×108 1240.8𝑒𝑉.𝑛𝑚

= =
5.76𝑒𝑉 5.76𝑒𝑉
 =215.4nm

the error of this wavelength 𝝀𝟐𝟎𝟖 = 215.4 nm:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

215.4𝑛𝑚−253𝑛𝑚
=| | × 100=14.86%
253𝑛𝑚

Figure 1. Curve of T: 165ᵒ c

IS(A) VS UA(T)
11
10
9
8
7
IS(A)

6
5
4
3
2
0 10 20 30 40 50
UA(T)

Is(A) Vs T(s)
12

10

8
Is(A)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
T(s)
Figure 4.1 Is(A) time(t) Curve of T: 248ᵒ c

Is(A) Vs UA(t)
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
IS(A)

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
0 10 20 30 40 50
UA(t)

Figure 4.2 Is(A) UA(t) Curve of T: 248ᵒ

Is(A) Vs T(s)
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
Is(A)

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
T(s)
 Minima Peak Is ± 0.1 (A) Time ± 0.1 (s) UA (V)
1 2.6403 7.6 15.80692954
2 2.757 11.7 22.14470691
3 2.8861 17.3 28.94742237
4 3.1567 23.15 34.28645616
5 3.2342 31.85 39.82917828
6 3.3505 43.85 44.41813469

Table 4.2 The potential difference between each peak from the IS / UA curve when T = 248 °C

∆𝑼𝑨 = 𝑼𝒇 − 𝑼𝑰(𝑽) ∆UA(V)

22.14470691-15.80692954 6.33777737
28.94742237-22.14470691 6.802715459
34.28645616-28.94742237 5.339033792
39.82917828-34.28645616 5.542722118
44.41813469-39.82917828 4.588956412
∆U248(average) 5.72224103

The excitation energy EA when T = 248 °C was calculated by averaging the potential differences
at the minima. From table 2, the excitation energy is found to be EA = 5.72 eV. The % error:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

5.72𝑒𝑉−4.9𝑒𝑉
=| | × 100=16.7%
4.9𝑒𝑉

The wavelength at T = 248 °C when EA = 5.72 eV was calculated using the equation

ℎ𝑐
𝜆=
𝐸𝐴

4.136×10−15 ×2.9979×108 1240.8𝑒𝑉.𝑛𝑚

= =
5.72𝑒𝑉 5.72𝑒𝑉

=216.923nm
 the error of this wavelength 𝝀𝟐𝟎𝟎 = 216.9 nm:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
% error =| | × 100
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

216.92𝑛𝑚−253𝑛𝑚
=| | × 100=14.5%
253𝑛𝑚

• Conclusion:

As shown in the figures above, the curves of Is/Us for each reading (190-208-226-248) have
been recorded respectively. The lowest reading temperature 190C, gave us the less accurate
values, we found EA=6.12eV with percentage error of 24.89% and 𝜆 = 202.7𝑛𝑚 with an error
of 19.88%. The second reading, which is 208, we calculated EA=5.589eV, with 14.06% accuracy
and 𝜆 = 222𝑛𝑚, the error was 12.25%. For the higher temperatures, 226 gave us the value of
EA=5.76eV with an error of 17.55% and found 𝜆 = 215.4𝑛𝑚 with an error of 14.86%. The
highest reading temperature, which is 284C, we got EA=5.72eV, with 16.8% and 𝜆 = 216.9𝑛𝑚
and showed 14.5% percentage error. Thereafter, we can deduce that the temperature in
between (208C) gave us the most reasonable values. That could be explained by how is taking
measurements for small temperature is when the system is not ready yet and heated enough
produce electrons, thereafter, it lies the high percentage errors.

• Acknowledgment:
I would like to thank our instructor, Dr. Khalil, for his efforts, teaching us how to do this
experiment, answering our questions and giving us the opportunity to see the fun part
of physics and science. I also thank Mrs. Warda, the lab assistant, for helping us take the
measurements and sending us the data.

• References:
[1] Franck, J., & Hertz, G. (1914). Über Zusammenstöße zwischen Elektronen und Molekülen des
Quecksilberdampfes und die Ionisierungsspannung desselben. Verhandlungen der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 16, 457-467. [English Translation: Franck, J., & Hertz,

[2] PHYWE,“Franck-Hertz experiment,” [Online]. Available:

https://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/5_1_03.pdf. [Accessed 2022
May 11].
[3] Hanne, G. F. (1988). What really happens in the Franck–Hertz experiment with
mercury?. American Journal of Physics, 56(8), 696-700.

[4] lab manual