Can work function be changed by charge-bias?

AshsZ
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hypothetical device:

Vacuum Tube
Two tungsten electrode plates at each end

The work function of tungsten is ~4.5V.

Lets attach a power supply to the two electrodes with a potential difference of 4.0V.

Question is, by biasing the two plates in such manner, is the thermionic discharge potential at the cathode reduced to 0.5V?

rephrase: If 0.5V of thermal-equivalent heat is applied to this already voltage-biased cathode, will the conduction electrons possesses ample kinetic energy to escape?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AshsZ said:
Hypothetical device:

Vacuum Tube
Two tungsten electrode plates at each end

The work function of tungsten is ~4.5V.

Lets attach a power supply to the two electrodes with a potential difference of 4.0V.

Question is, by biasing the two plates in such manner, is the thermionic discharge potential at the cathode reduced to 0.5V?

rephrase: If 0.5V of thermal-equivalent heat is applied to this already voltage-biased cathode, will the conduction electrons possesses ample kinetic energy to escape?

The work function of a given material is in terms of energy, not potential difference. The thing you also have to remember is that electrons "feel" electric field, not voltage potential. I can have a voltage difference of 4V between two plates, but have their separation be several miles. Clearly that is almost 0 electric field, though, so the electrons won't feel much of a force.
 
I see. How about in the case of using a much higher voltage power supply with this tube - would make it analogous to a CRT and electrons will flow through the tube, which I know would work. From your description the reason for the flow of electrons is because there is a sufficient electrostatic field between these two plates.

With this modified hypothetical vacuum tube, having a power supply that we can adjust the voltage output, we adjust the voltage just to the point where we can measure a current. Then we back the voltage down just to the point where flow ceases. In this condition, we then add heat to the cathode.

As the cathode increases in temperature, its valence electrons will increase in kinetic energy. Would the combination of the increased electron energy (through heating) and the large electric field that is just below threshold allow the electrons to finally flow through the tube?
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top