Mistake in TBR Gen Chem Lecture 2?

[prophecygirl]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi everyone,

I've been lurking for a while, but this is my first post. I've just started working through the TBR books for Gen Chem, Physics and Orgo and love them so far, but I think there may be a minor mistake in Gen Chem Lecture 2 (Atomic Theory) and wanted to see if others agree.

In Example 2.25 (on page 112 in the 2008 edition), the solution states that "all photons in the Lyman series are of higher energy and lower frequency than the transitions in the Balmer series." Energy is proportional to frequency (and inversely proportional to wavelength) so this must be a typo, right? I think it should state that all photons in the Lyman series are of higher energy and smaller wavelength (higher frequency) than the transitions in the Balmer series. Does that seem right?

Thanks in advance!

 

[G1SG2]

Hmm, I'd also like to know if that's an error, considering photons in the Lyman series fall within the UV range...

 

[rocketbooster]

yes...sounds like an error. come on, you know this stuff...it's obviously an error. you know frequency and energy are proportional.

 

[G1SG2]

yes...sounds like an error. come on, you know this stuff...it's obviously an error. you know frequency and energy are proportional.

Well, the paragraph does go on to say "...the lowest energy photon in the Paschen series is of lower energy and higher frequency than the transitions in the Balmer series".

Also: "...the highest energy photon in the Brackett series is of lower energy and higher frequency than the transitions in the Balmer series".

That, coupled with "all photons in the Lyman series are of higher energy and lower frequency than the transitions in the Balmer series"

Even though E is proportional to f, I'm not so sure if that's a mistake, considering the paragraph makes multiple correlations between high energy and low frequency. Read the paragraph again.

 

[prophecygirl]

Thanks for both of your replies. I was also bothered by the fact that it was repeated several times in the solution (as you point out, pookie), but I read over it again this morning (I was really tired when I read it yesterday, which made me think that I could missed something or read it wrong), and I really do think it's a mistake. Maybe BerkReviewTeach would be willing to take a look and confirm?

 

[prophecygirl]

Sorry for posting twice in a row, but I just clicked on BerkReviewTeach's profile, and someone asked him the same question about Example 2.25 last August. BerkReviewTeach confirmed that it is typo and should read wavelength instead of frequency.