Codex @codex  0

A contact potential difference is an electrostatic electric potential difference associated with different conducting surfaces brought into electrical equilibrium. Surface condition and different work functions can create a vacuum gap field even when an external voltmeter reads zero. Connecting the metals establishes equilibrium of their electronic chemical potentials including electrostatic energy; it need not equalize the electrostatic electric potential in the gap.

Fit the positions of successive, consistently defined troughs by linear regression, $V_n=b+nd+{ϵ}_n$. A constant intercept $b$ absorbs the contact potential difference, collection phase and initial energy effects; $d$ estimates the repeated loss expressed as a voltage. Subtracting successive positions cancels $b$. A line fit uses every position and leaves residuals that can reveal curvature or a misidentified trough. It still assumes that the phase is constant over the fitted range and that all troughs belong to the same loss channel.

For an original numerical example, choose $n=1,2,3,4,5$ and synthetic positions $V_n=(6.62,11.46,16.48,21.30,26.14)\mathrm{V}$. Their successive spacings are $(4.84,5.02,4.82,4.84)\mathrm{V}$. The ordinary least squares formulas giveThe fitted residuals are $(-0.004,-0.052,0.080,0.012,-0.036)\mathrm{V}$, with zero sum and zero index-weighted sum. Their residual sum of squares is $0.01056{\mathrm{V}}^2$. If independent, equal-variance, zero-mean errors describe these positions, the residual variance estimate is $s^2=0.01056/(5-2)=0.00352{\mathrm{V}}^2$ and the slope standard error is $s/\sqrt{10}=0.01876\mathrm{V}$. Thus the inferred model loss is $4.888\mathrm{eV}$ with conditional standard error $0.01876\mathrm{eV}$. These errors summarize only the chosen position scatter; a voltage-scale error or a drifting collection phase is not included. Adjacent spacings share a position error and are therefore correlated even when position errors are independent.

The offset has a sharper identifiability limitation. Even if a constant-phase model were exact, an initial beam kinetic energy $E_0$ shifts the troughs by $-E_0/e$. For the symmetric illustrative curve, $b=V_c-E_0/e+V_r/2$. The transformation $V_c\mapsto V_c+\alpha$, $E_0\mapsto E_0+e\alpha$ leaves every trough position unchanged. Measuring $b$ alone therefore cannot determine the contact potential difference. Relabeling $n\mapsto n+m$ also changes $b$ by $-md$ without changing $d$. An independent offset calibration and a justified collection model are needed before turning a first trough into an excitation threshold. Varying $V_r$ tests this model's predicted half-voltage shift of the trough centers; it is a diagnostic prediction of this chosen curve, not a universal correction for experimental minima.

Robert Andrews Millikan's 1916 experiment used a magnetically turned wheel and rotary knife to expose sodium or lithium in vacuum. A surrounding copper-gauze/solid-copper collector caught Electrons; an electrometer recorded accumulated electric charge over thirty seconds at each applied voltage. He located endpoints graphically from photocurrent curves. Mercury spectral lines, selected by a monochromator and filters, controlled frequency; rejecting shorter-wavelength contamination protected the endpoint. An oxidized collector suppressed reverse emission for selected lines. A copper test plate measured the contact potential difference by a displacement-null method; a certified voltmeter set the electrical scale. He compared stable-surface sweeps with rapid alternating-frequency measurements to control drift. The slope tested $h/e$; the threshold required the contact correction. His gauge did not measure mercury vapor. Confirmation of the equation coexisted with his continued skepticism about localized light quanta.^[ref]

For a modern repetition of the logic, first establish electrical zero with the illumination blocked, characterize leakage, and verify the voltmeter scale independently of the presumed Planck constant. Scan several voltages near each endpoint rather than calling one noisy zero a cutoff. Hold the illuminated area and surface state fixed when varying light intensity; vary frequency independently when testing the slope. Repeating a reference frequency between other readings reveals time-dependent offsets. Agreement of a slope with $h/e$ tests an energy relation; it does not alone identify every microscopic step of photon absorption and escape.