Talk:Ionization energy Information & Talk:Ionization energy Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class, Low-importance)

Physics portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Examples??

This article needs a few examples...not just H....

[edit] Moved from ion article (to be integrated into this article)

 terms are also used to describe ionization of molecules and solids, but the values are not constant because ionization can be affected by the local chemistry, geometry, and temperature.

Ionization energies decrease down a group of the Periodic Table, and increase left-to-right across a period. These trends are exact opposite of the atomic radius periodic trends. Electrons in smaller atoms are attracted more strongly to the nucleus, therefore the ionization energy is greater. In larger atoms, the electrons are not held as strongly so the required ionization energy is lesser.

It also needs all the units defined it is rather hard to figure out what all the little units are partiularly the more isoteric ones used only in particle physics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponzyparadox (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PoV

{{NPOV}} What's up with having a "A definition which is accepted for English A-Level exams" section? I don't even know what an English A-Level exam is. This is irrelavent. 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a spelling error in the introduction of this article. It should be "bonded", rather than "bounded", I believe. For some reason I can't edit it.

[edit] "s orbital"?

I was reading the article and found "Particularly dramatic increases occur after any given block of atomic orbitals is exhausted, except when progressing to the next s orbital." Is it actually supposed to say that, or is that just a typo? In the event that it is supposed to say that, perhaps some sort of explanation as to what an s orbital is could be given to us shmucks out here? Much appreciated. 205.233.121.29 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not able to put the phrase to layman's terms, the page on atomic orbitals will help. Starhood` 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The variable n in Section `Electrostatic explanation'

If I understand the text correctly, the variable n in the section titled `Electrostatic explanation' has been used for two completely different quantities: First as the charge of the ion (+ne), and later on as the angular momentum number (n hbar). I am no expert on this matter, and I might be wrong, but I don't think that these two quantities necessarily equate to each other. For instance, you could have an electron in a hydrogen atom (ie, an electron around a proton, +ne = +1e) in an excited state, ie, in some shell with n > 1 in the Bohr model. Could someone more knowledgeable on this topic verify (or refute) this claim, and correct the text if necessary? 69.235.145.252 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not explained very well, but it is the same n. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vertical or adiabatic?

Can somebody maybe briefly explain the difference between vertical and adiabatic ionization potential? Personally, I would be interested to know which of the two is generally measured experimentally... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.169.252.37 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

A new section on this topic has finally been added today by user 220.227.207.32. This is a good start but there are a few problems. First the text is too closely copied from the source document, which may be a copyright violation. It needs to be rewritten. I have started by fixing some minor English errors which were surprisingly numerous for a NIST document.

Also the text refers to a Figure which is only found in the source document and not in the Wikipedia article. Either the figure should be redrawn (to avoid copyright problems), or else the text modified to eliminate reference to a figure which is not in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] For better use

If a chart of these first ionization energy can be provided in this page it would be more useful

Thank you

Shenya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.44.168 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moles

Physically, the ionization potential is defined for a single unit, as pointed out by Itub. Check out the graphic: that's in eV, or O(10^-19) J. Like all energies, you are free to quote per mole if that rows your boat. Indeed, that's convenient for chemistry. Not for atomic physics, though. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] phase

I think it should mention that ionization energy is always given for the element's gaseous phase/state. The definition is partial. Anyone agree?

[edit] quetions about ionization energy

1.Does ioninization energy increase down the periodic table? 2.does ionization energy decrease from left to right across the periodic table? 3. is it correct to define ionization energy as the energy needed to remove the most loosely bound electron from its ground state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.62.5 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quetion

mathematical expression of conservative force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.222.125 (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose move to Ionization energy

Since as stated in the first paragraph, the name "ionization energy" is now strongly preferred, is there any good reason for retaining the old-fashioned term "Ionization potential" as the article title? I propose that the article be moved to (wikispeak for renamed) "Ionization energy". Of course the existence of the older term should still be mentioned in the text, but not as the article title. Dirac66 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the move. Do it. 71.172.117.99 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Contents